> If you've ever mounted an EF2X to your 600, I can not fathom why
you would not prefer to shoot at 1200/5.6
> without an extender to compromise quality rather than at 1200/8
with an extender in the optical train. I'll
> grant IS would be nice . . . wish my 800 had it.
> The sheer mass of the 1200 (about 35 lbs) likely helps a lot to
minimize vibrations, although it sure would
> be subject to wind buffeting.
>
> Only the price prevents me from getting, and making very
constructive use of this wonderful, useful lens. I
> just wish I could rent it
> from time to time. Buying it, of course, is not in the realm of
possibility at all!
>
> Yes, I rather bridle at seeing it being described as "pretty
useless." We very much have a difference of
> opinion here.
My photographing of birds in Asia would benefit tremendously from a
sharp 5.6 1200 MM but at the price of 35 lbs and a year's salary is
not my idea of a 1200 mm lug through the woods lens. This is why I
am so excited by the EOS D30 (which I have). This camera is like a
dream come true for bird photography. Having a camera with a built
in x1.6 difference shooting Canon L glass with 35mm like results has
me pinching myself to remember that I am not dreaming. At the moment
I only have the 100-400 IS which is like a hand-holdable 600 f/5.6
(tripod not always possible in bird pics) the 1.4x 896 f/8 produces
great shots and even the 2x 1280 f/11 can be surprising in the right
conditions. Consider that the new 400 f/4 should produce a great AF
896 with the 1.4x and the 500 f/4 is 1120mm with the 1.4x puts super
telephotos into an acceptable range for us serious amateurs. All
without spending the 60,000 +.
Rgds, Dave Behrens (Singapore)
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
