Quote:

---

Leicas were favored by many photojournalists because of their small size, quietness and durability.

---

Not to mention lens quality. Their glass is the best in the photo industry -- even better than Zeiss. And I owned a Hasselblad with a Zeiss but never a Leica (other than my Panasonic glass).

This is why I think that unless you NEED the Canon/Nikon durability, speed, and lens selections -- mainly for photojournalism and sports -- you're better off with the mirrorless. I'd suggest Panasonic if video is your key motivator and Sony if still shots is key.

Still have a Canon 50 1.8 II if anyone is interested. Info on the classified forum.

I would never want to deal with mirrorless battery issues, though.

I can shoot 8hrs/day for three days and not change the batteries in my camera. I love my Fuji, but I've got to pack a lot of batteries for it.

Guitarsoup said:

---

You can also lock in focus by shooting in manual mode.

---

Dammit, I meant lock exposure by shooting in manual. Need more coffee.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Leica's are status symbols for Drs and lawyers that dabble in photography. Helps them to spot the other Drs and lawyers when out in the field.

---

Based on the first reply in defense of Leica, this argument might have merit.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Rolling shutter on 4K is awful but otherwise it's awesome, I just upgraded to the 6500.

Also picked up a DJI Phantom 4 Pro, enjoyed playing with it so far!

---

As much as you travel, I'd suggest the Mavic Pro.

Picked it up before my honeymoon to Australia / New Zealand / Bora Bora and it was much easier to tote around than a Phantom. Folds up and was able to throw it in my small camera bag for some of our excursions. Also kept me out of trouble a place or two where they frowned on drones but were looking for people flying Phantoms / carrying big drone bags.

Please explain the effect on a Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens (70D camera).

Canon EF 2.0X III Telephoto Extender for Canon Super Telephoto Lenses

/apologies that i have asked this before.....

I just haven't been that impressed with footage from the Mavic so far. I'm happy with the decision to go with the P4P even though it'll definitely be tougher to travel with it.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I just haven't been that impressed with footage from the Mavic so far. I'm happy with the decision to go with the P4P even though it'll definitely be tougher to travel with it.

---

I've been happy with mine. I've read and seen footage as well where it's clear people forgot to adjust the focus aloft. It doesn't have an autofocus like a P3/4 does, and I think that's thrown some folks.

dubi said:

---

Please explain the effect on a Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens (70D camera).

Canon EF 2.0X III Telephoto Extender for Canon Super Telephoto Lenses

/apologies that i have asked this before.....

---

It will effectively double your zoom (taking it to a 140-400) BUT at the the expense of doubling the f-stop. So you will have a 140-400 F8. I have the same extender on an older 70-200 and it also disables the autofocus. I don't know if it will do the same on your lens. For me it works well for wildlife/still life/nature. I would not recommend it for sports or anything moving as the higher f-stop will cause you to have longer shutter speeds, especially in low-light situations.

wee_ag said:

---

dubi said:

---

Please explain the effect on a Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens (70D camera).

Canon EF 2.0X III Telephoto Extender for Canon Super Telephoto Lenses

/apologies that i have asked this before.....

---

It will effectively double your zoom (taking it to a 140-400) BUT at the the expense of doubling the f-stop. So you will have a 140-400 F8. I have the same extender on an older 70-200 and it also disables the autofocus. I don't know if it will do the same on your lens. For me it works well for wildlife/still life/nature. I would not recommend it for sports or anything moving as the higher f-stop will cause you to have longer shutter speeds, especially in low-light situations.

---

I am doing sports, so that means it is not an option. Thanks for the explanation.

dubi said:

---

Please explain the effect on a Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens (70D camera).

Canon EF 2.0X III Telephoto Extender for Canon Super Telephoto Lenses

/apologies that i have asked this before.....

---

You don't want it.

Thanks to you both!

Is the Canon 300m f/4 worth looking at for outdoor track events? Currently have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-300 f/4-5.6L. The 70-200 works great for most of the running events, but the having the extra focal length without losing one extra stop of light would be nice for field events. I tried using the 1.4x teleconverter on the 70-200 during the indoor season and really did not like it.

One comment on something earlier in the thread. When shooting auto racing sometimes a slower shutter speed looks better than speeds over 1/1000. The wheels need some blur to show motion, otherwise the car looks like it is stationary.

Yesterday I sent Guitarsoup a FB message:

Quote:

---

So if you won the powerball, would you buy:

28-300

Or

100-400

And why

---

His response:

Quote:

---

FIL has the new 100-400. Much better lens than the 28-300.

---

So i have Canon 100-400 IS II on my wishlist.

That one is definitely on my wishlist too. The used 300 f/4 lenses are in the $600 range, which is a plus along with the lighter weight.

The contemporary version of Sigmas 150-600 f/5-6.3 is also tempting

I would avoid those off brand super zooms.

Can also has a 400 millimeter F 5.6 lens that might work for track for you.

The 300 millimeter F4 is a good lens from Canon and Nikon has a new one that's very good.

For anyone that is not new 200 - 500 millimeter A 5.6 is an excellent lens

The 100-400 is starting to make the most sense. The max aperture does not step up from f/5 to f/5.6 until 311mm. Do have to laugh at some of these variable max aperture zoom lenses were the widest aperture is only at the initial 30mm of zoom.

Photografail today, rented a Canon 50mm 1.2 for the weekend before checking if the autofocus will work on my a7rII (with an adapter)....it does not.

You can always get the version 1 of the 100-400 for ~800-900 used and save up for the version 2 (about double the price.)

The version 1 is pretty good, it just takes some getting used to because it is a push/pull zoom rather than turning the zoom ring.

Guitarsoup said:

---

dubi said:

---

Please explain the effect on a Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens (70D camera).

Canon EF 2.0X III Telephoto Extender for Canon Super Telephoto Lenses

/apologies that i have asked this before.....

---

You don't want it.

---

Awww, I like mine.

Guitarsoup said:

---

You can always get the version 1 of the 100-400 for ~800-900 used and save up for the version 2 (about double the price.)

The version 1 is pretty good, it just takes some getting used to because it is a push/pull zoom rather than turning the zoom ring.

---

The 24-105 is push pull and I find it easier that the zoom ring of my 70-200.

dubi said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

You can always get the version 1 of the 100-400 for ~800-900 used and save up for the version 2 (about double the price.)

The version 1 is pretty good, it just takes some getting used to because it is a push/pull zoom rather than turning the zoom ring.

---

The 24-105 is push pull and I find it easier that the zoom ring of my 70-200.

---

It's different than the 24-105. The 24-105 extends to zoom, but this one you actually pull the lens out to zoom.





I've used it to shoot video and that really takes some getting used to, because you pull out to zoom while pulling the focus ring around to keep the shot in focus. But with AF, you just focus normally.

The version 2 is like the 24-105's zoom.

Quote:

---

The version 2 is like the 24-105's zoom

---

That is good; I like it better than the zoom ring!

The only problem is I did NOT win the powerball! :-)

tax refund = powerball win?

Guitar, did I catch that you are running a d810? If so, what lenses do you recommend for landscape and portrait (that aren't $2k+)?

dubi said:

---

I am doing sports, so that means it is not an option. Thanks for the explanation.

---

I had a dust pump (derogatory nickname for 100-400). It's a great lens and I suppose it will work well in bright light outdoors.

Another option to consider for sports is Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. There are 3 versions.

1. No OS - I would stay away from it.
2. Has OS
3. Has OS Sport

I had the version II...and sold it for $1600. I'm sure it can be found for a similar price.

F2.8 telephoto lenses get pricey...

That 120-300 may be heavier than Dubi wants to lug around

Guitarsoup said:

---

That 120-300 may be heavier than Dubi wants to lug around

---

True that. It ain't light.

I'm going to have to try u43 for sports. Gx7 with 40-150mm 2.8.

Guitarsoup said:

---

That 120-300 may be heavier than Dubi wants to lug around

---

I bought the 70-200 F4 because it was much lighter than F2.8 and I shoot outdoors where the f stop really doesn't matter for me.

dubi said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

That 120-300 may be heavier than Dubi wants to lug around

---

I bought the 70-200 F4 because it was much lighter than F2.8 and I shoot outdoors where the f stop really doesn't matter for me.

---

Yeah it do be matter, yo.

Selling a lightly used Canon 60d, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS kit lens as well as a 50mm 1.8 lens with a bunch of accessories for $600 if anyone is interested. I can give more details via pm if you are.

Edit: Sold

dubi said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

That 120-300 may be heavier than Dubi wants to lug around

---

I bought the 70-200 F4 because it was much lighter than F2.8 and I shoot outdoors where the f stop really doesn't matter for me.

---

Wouldn't the depth of field be an important factor?

schmendeler said:

---

dubi said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

That 120-300 may be heavier than Dubi wants to lug around

---

I bought the 70-200 F4 because it was much lighter than F2.8 and I shoot outdoors where the f stop really doesn't matter for me.

---

Wouldn't the depth of field be an important factor?

---

Yes, but not enough to make me haul around a heavy lens for 8 hours. It is all relative.

I do a lot of photos at the gun range and am happy with the depth of field i get with the lighter lens. Pic was better than this; i did a print screen to get rid of the watermark.

schmendeler said:

---

Selling a lightly used Canon 60d, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS kit lens as well as a 50mm 1.8 lens with a bunch of accessories for $600 if anyone is interested. I can give more details via pm if you are.

---

60D is what I have. I also really like the 50mm 1.8

I've learned a lot with this camera and from this thread