"F. Craig Callahan" wrote:
>
> Skip wrote:
>
> > The biggest advantage of a 70-200 IS f2.8 would be it's
> > ability to be used with a 2x teleconverter,
>
> I assume you mean "used with the 2x extender *hand-held*," since there's
> currently nothing keeping anyone from attaching a 2x converter to this lens.
> Regardless, I'm not clear on why one would want to use a 2x converter on this or
> any zoom--the loss of image quality is noticeable enough with the EF 2x extender
> on a 300/2.8L; surely it must be even more significant on a zoom lens. And there
> are the size and weight issues you raise (re: adding IS to the 70-200/2.8L).
>
> It seems to me that if someone needs to get to 400 mm and the Big White is too
> costly, the next best option would be the 200/2.8L or 300/4L and one of the
> extenders.
>
> fcc
>
That was kind of my point. I would do anything I could to avoid adding
a telextender to a zoom because of the loss of image quality. And a 200
2.8L or 300 4L are nearly the same cost as the 100-400 4.5-5.6, and
adding an extender to either, a 2x to the 200 or 1.4x to the 300 would
slow both down to 5.6 or slower. Pop a 1.4x on the 300 and you have a
max aperture of 6.3, which means my A2 won't AF. And with the 200, you
still don't have IS.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
