One for the Canon SLR owners?
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Nearly nicked (OR: I like software developers...) - LONG
Next: FOAK: Books for (bright) 7-yr-old
From: ginge on 19 Jun 2010 13:23 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:59:10 +0100, petrolcan <petrolcan(a)SPAMgmail.com> wrote: >In article <hoep165a54l0mn0ge0rdji0baan3g3vf2b(a)4ax.com>, ginge says... >> >> A while back I bought a Canon 100-300mm F4.5-5.6 USM from petrolcan >> including a polarising filter on it for a ton. I used for the TT and >> now it's time to sell it on, as I've decided I want to upgrade to a >> lens with image stabilisation instead. > >Which IS are you looking for? Probably a 70-300 IS USM.. but I might see if I can find a cheap Sigma 120-400. Don't really have the budget for L glass unless the exchange rate sorts itself out any time soon.. yeah right.
From: ogden on 19 Jun 2010 14:00 ginge wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:59:10 +0100, petrolcan > <petrolcan(a)SPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > >In article <hoep165a54l0mn0ge0rdji0baan3g3vf2b(a)4ax.com>, ginge says... > >> > >> A while back I bought a Canon 100-300mm F4.5-5.6 USM from petrolcan > >> including a polarising filter on it for a ton. I used for the TT and > >> now it's time to sell it on, as I've decided I want to upgrade to a > >> lens with image stabilisation instead. > > > >Which IS are you looking for? > > Probably a 70-300 IS USM.. but I might see if I can find a cheap Sigma > 120-400. Don't really have the budget for L glass unless the exchange > rate sorts itself out any time soon.. yeah right. The only time I found myself wishing for a 400mm lens last week was up at the Bungalow trying to get a shot of bikes before they crossed the railway track. More pixels and bigger glass would have done the trick, allowing cropping of shitty shots later. But both cost money. -- ogden | gsxr1000 | rgv250
From: Vass on 19 Jun 2010 14:48 "petrolcan" <petrolcan(a)SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2686fc533d3b1faf9897aa(a)news.virginmedia.com... > In article <hvip23$v6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Catman says... > >> Since you seem to be the UKRM supplier of choice (and yes, I know I >> never picked up that tripod), do you have any 18-135 EF-S? > > Heh, lenses are currently a bit thin on the ground and I generally only do > EF > mount anyway. Just had a quick nose on ebay and the 18-135mm seem to be > quite > rear atm and are fetching in excess of �200! I've never paid more that �80 > for > a lens. > *cough* � 1000[1] *cough* [1] 24-70 f2.8 'L' -- Vass
From: petrolcan on 19 Jun 2010 15:18 In article <884hn9FclsU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Vass says... > > "petrolcan" <petrolcan(a)SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.2686fc533d3b1faf9897aa(a)news.virginmedia.com... > > In article <hvip23$v6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Catman says... > > > >> Since you seem to be the UKRM supplier of choice (and yes, I know I > >> never picked up that tripod), do you have any 18-135 EF-S? > > > > Heh, lenses are currently a bit thin on the ground and I generally only do > > EF > > mount anyway. Just had a quick nose on ebay and the 18-135mm seem to be > > quite > > rear atm and are fetching in excess of £200! I've never paid more that £80 > > for > > a lens. > > > *cough* £ 1000[1] *cough* > > [1] 24-70 f2.8 'L' Heh, I'm well aware of what they should cost, I just don't like paying it. As an example, my 50mm 1.4 actually paid me(1) (1)Bought it on a D30 for £90, sold the D30 for £120 and kept the lens.
From: petrolcan on 19 Jun 2010 15:20
In article <brup16tklku0ppmcsekngjd363svutpe9g(a)4ax.com>, ginge says... > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:01:58 +0100, "Donnie" <notme(a)somefakeemail.com> > wrote: > > >ginge wrote: > > >> Anyone interested before it goes on ebay? If so mail me with a > >> reasonable offer. > > > >£90 including delivery? > > Y'know what, I'd go for £90 plus postage (not knowing what postage > costs yet, but I'd guess not a huge amount more) just to avoid the > faffing about with ebay, paypal, etc.. £5 will have it posted. Bro, that's a good deal, you won't lose. |