Hi Skip,
Skip wrote:
> That was kind of my point.
I didn't feel that I was disagreeing with you.
That said . . .
> And a 200 2.8L or 300 4L are nearly the same cost as
> the 100-400 4.5-5.6,
The 200/2.8L is less than half the price of the 100-400/4.5~5.6L, and still
significantly less even if you add in the 1.4x extender; the 300/4L is also
considerably less, more so if you can find the non-IS version.
> 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.
I believe in this example they both become f/5.6? In any case, given a choice I would
rather use a 1.4x extender on a 300 mm lens than the 2x extender on the 200--although
the latter combo is certainly useable in a pinch.
> 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.
No, but I *do* have f/2.8 (or f/4 with the 1.4x extender) *and* one of the sharpest
lenses Canon makes *and* a lens that is considerably smaller and lighter than the big
"L" zoom.
Anyway, different folks like different kinds of gear, which is why we can get both the
200/2.8L and the 100-400L. Just because I can't see spending US$1600+ on a zoom lens
doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to someone else. Plenty of people would only
consider buying zoom lenses, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that choice--it
just isn't one I would make.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
