- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well it's either that or a 400mm f/2.8 mkII at the moment!
Is the MKII the new version, you know, the version which works or havent they made that one yet.
Well it's either that or a 400mm f/2.8 mkII at the moment!
Therein lies the problem. I would have to sell the 135L (which I love) to fund the 70-200mk2. Do you think the 70-200 matches the 135L in terms of sharpness and bokeh.
I know f2 is handy for low light but as i'll be shooting D1,D2 and championship next season i'm hoping 2.8 would be enough for night games anyway
And if the 70-200 mk2 is as good as they say then i doubt i'll ever need another lens in this focal range again![]()

Ahhhhh. The innocence of youth!!!![]()

Yep next season i'll be working for an agency, and figured the 70-200 would help out at larger stadiums. I found the 135L perfect for Farsley but then that was a very small pitch.
Its relative![]()

It is relative. Sometimes I wake up and think 32 is old, specially with my aching body
I'm getting fixed up with Media Image. They're gonna sort me out with preseason games in the summer and i cant wait![]()
Old fart..A whipper snapper at 25 over here!
![]()

Well that means at 46 I'm a relative pensioner.....