Forum menu
Looks more like a frikkin telescope!
[url= https://farm1.staticflickr.com/350/20238154256_5fc64ae2d8_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm1.staticflickr.com/350/20238154256_5fc64ae2d8_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/wQnQb5 ]Nikon f2.8 70-200 plus x2 Teleconverter[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
Compensation much? ๐
To be honest the x2 was pretty rubbish, even though it was supposedly designed for that lens, the result is very soft, only used it once for the Olympic MTB race.
You're dead to me now.
I did the same, but a few years back when the D800E first came out. Never looked back ๐
But in the film days I was Nikon right the way through to the last body when I switched to an EOS3 (the old Nikons were all manual focus battleships - not all fancy dancy auto!).
I have a very old, very battered 70-200 f2.8 too, but tend to use smaller lenses!
Why the switch? Is there no canon equivalent to the d800?
Welcome to the dark side. You'll find we don't need beige lenses with the letter L on them to make ourselves feel good here. ๐
(2xD750, 1xD7200, 1xFM)
Why would you do that?
Meh. That's not the dark side. The new Pentax K1 however.....
Looks like you stepped into the light to me! (9 year Nikon user!).
I am a Nikon user but I don't think the new Canons are worse than the D800/810 - certainly not enough difference to justify the cost of switching!
Makes my D3200 look insignificant ... However I compensate by having a huge ***** ๐
Youre dead to me ๐
I've come to the opinion that the Nikon zooms are better than cannon, but you can't get better than cannon l series primes
Is something deep and meaningful about photographers photographing their equipment ?
Or are they just as sad as mountain bikers ๐
It justifies having more than one camera
I always thought Canon bodies were slightly better but their lenses were slightly worse, not that there's anything in it really...
What's all this nonsense? I thought this was STW; where are the Leicas?
