Hi Gary:
I've not used the 400 2.8L so I can't comment about that lens, but I
would imagine it is outstanding, albeit bigger and heavier and probably best
used with some sort of supporting monopod or tripod.
The 200 1.8L I use handheld about 95% of the time. I have used the lens
with the 2x teleconverters and with the 1.4x teleconverter. In all cases,
the images are simply phenomenal! That being said. In my use there has
only been a very minor softening with the 2x and barely any noticeable
degradation with the 1.4x.
For these reasons, I have never bought a 300 2.8L although I have used
that lens and it is great! Had I not come across the 200 1.8L at the price
I did, I very well may have bought the 300 2.8L instead.
The teleconverters are so small and of such high quality that I have
used them many times and they are very much worth having along. I used the
2x converter with my 600 4L to shoot the deorbiting of the Space Shuttle
last month at Edwards Air Force Base. The resulting images at 1200mm were
astounding when the Shuttle was miles above and directly overhead!
Hope this helps.
Best regards and Happy Holidays to all EOS list members!!
Robert S. Greenstein, Esq.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Belman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Re: PJ lenses - Attn Robert Greenstein
<Snip>
> My question for you about the 200 1.8 is with the use of the 1.4x or 2x
> teleconverters. Have you used the lens with either? If so, what do you
> think of the combination vs. either the 300 2.8L or the 400 2.8L?
<Snip>
> It seems to be a great way to achieve these focal lengths and own one of
the best 200mm lenses ever made.
>
> Gary
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
