View Single Post
Old 06-25-2008   #6 (permalink)
cyclohexane
F1 Camel
 
cyclohexane's Avatar
 
Location: Westwood
Posts: 4,660
cyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 685
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: 300mm f/4 prime with VR (or VR equivalent)???

Quote:
The foot of the 300 f/2.8 VR isn't great either.
Yep, it sucks; the 200-400 f/4 VR shares the piece of junk. Not quite the springboard that is the f/4 foot, but it isn't much better.

The 400 f/2.8 AF-S foot sucked, and got worse with the AF-S II. The VR version's kept the status quo... At least you get two different feet (one big, one small) with the 400 f/2.8, though my used copy only came with the small foot, and a Really Right Stuff LCF-13, which I promptly installed

Quote:
My 300 f/2.8 VR "sags" when it's on the Wimberley Sidekick. It's slight but the movement is enough to frustrate at times.
Tried the LCF-14 replacement foot from Really Right Stuff? Doesn't move when attached to my dad's Wimberley head.
__________________
-Michael
cyclohexane is online now   Reply With Quote