[67 / 11 / ?]
Quoted By: >>2913598 >>2913713 >>2913817 >>2913920 >>2913926 >>2914733 >>2916792 >>2919585 >>2921972 >>2921990
Why in the hell would anyone want a variable aperture lens, especially one that costs $2,000? I assume wildlife photographers don't give a shit about low life capabilities but to argue that this is better than the 70-200 2.8...
Kind of surprised canon sells L glass with this characteristic. Keeps costs low I guess. Or maybe a 2.8 depth of field is so small at 400mm it's useless anyways? *shrug*
Kind of surprised canon sells L glass with this characteristic. Keeps costs low I guess. Or maybe a 2.8 depth of field is so small at 400mm it's useless anyways? *shrug*
