Harry How - Sports Photographer - Part 2

voltlord Says:

May 15, 2009 - Fetthunderdome, one cannot say they "suck". ALL teleconverters affect image quality one way or another. Many lenses accept extenders very nicely, like the 400 2.8 IS. Others, like lenses with less sharpness and contrast, accept the 1.4x well, but really comprimise image quality with the 2x teleconverter. Like Harry mentions, use the teleconverters sparingly, as they do negatively affect image quality, especially sharpness and contrast.

yyyy2999 Says:

May 20, 2009 - whats a monopod?

jormis95 Says:

Jun 6, 2009 - its 70-200 not 80-200

RikWriter Says:

Jun 7, 2009 - That's a load of bunk. You obviously know nothing about Canon lenses or their TCs.

FDPictures Says:

Jun 9, 2009 - if you have ever worked with a L telephoto lens you would not talk like that about canon. I am super stoked about the imagequality of the L lenses! the 2xtk II is good, in combination with a 300 2.8 IS for example it´s awesome!!!

lfshannu Says:

Jun 27, 2009 - dude you are pro photographer how can u servive with a PC!??! they are not the right computer for photo editing

ReoPhoto Says:

Jun 29, 2009 - Thanks for the great ideas!

mattutubematt Says:

Jul 1, 2009 - lucky lucky guy :) very talented too

ivh009 Says:

Jul 21, 2009 - if you can afford a 400 2.8 dude buy a 1D even if second hand mark II. the 30D won't justify that lens.

Tykell Says:

Jul 24, 2009 - I detect some sarcasm regarding the Mark III's quality from Mr. How. Strange that everyone complains about them but it's still the standard sports photographer's camera right now.

Desolatorx2 Says:

Aug 16, 2009 - wow this guy's really cool, I'd like to meet him one day. Also some Excellent gear hes got there!

j2willi4 Says:

Aug 17, 2009 - a tripod - minus 2 legs.

ConstantlyQuestion Says:

Aug 19, 2009 - Lenses are more important that the cameras you mount on them.

WhiterDeath Says:

Aug 28, 2009 - incorrect, he is talking about one of the previous models of that lens, which was 80-200mm

kenfrancis74 Says:

Sep 3, 2009 - I really appreciate it for making an effort for this video. Nice gear!!!

pantiesfuck12 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Are you really a photography!! When you are showing off your lens you said you have a 17 to 35 lens. Canon does not make a 17 to 35 lens. Did you steal the equipment ? Canon makes a 17 to 40 and 16 to 35 !

theSZ73 Says:

Sep 22, 2009 - is that the 70-200 IS? or not

rchelifreak Says:

Sep 27, 2009 - I'd hardly say it's the standard. I see more 4 year old Mark IIn's than I do Mark III's almost anywhere I go.

AndreaPontPhoto Says:

Sep 28, 2009 - it'n not quite correct, because canon produced a 17-35 2.8. it's the same age of the 28-70 2.8 ... still not in production but very very good lenses. 17-35 2.8 has been replaced now from the "top-of-choice" 16-35 2.8 and from the "economically choice" 17-40 4. cheers

AndreaPontPhoto Says:

Sep 28, 2009 - seems to... you have 4 switches on it... AF/MF, MFD, IS ON/OFF, IS Mode

gslusher Says:

Sep 30, 2009 - @WhiterDeath: That's the 70-200mm f/2.8L iS. The 80-200mm f/2.8 lens was black. (Check Wikipedia) The70-200mm f/2.8L came out in 1995, the IS version in 2001. This clip is most definitely post-2001, given that he has a 1D Mk II. The simplest explanation is that he made a mistake.

PITTSBURGHFANFOREVER Says:

Oct 3, 2009 - Very well stated.

JoostyBoy Says:

Oct 6, 2009 - Can't believe that I watched the whole video of 9 minutes.. Sure is interesting for an amateur like me. lol :D

wolfpaws94 Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - noo, the 70-200 is much smaller.

SteU4IA Says:

Oct 14, 2009 - free camera bodies? : D sign me up!