--- Tom Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "F. Craig Callahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Bob Sull wrote:
> > > "Grant W. Westerson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions for an inexpensive (non-Canon)
> > > > AF long lens (400mm) that would be suitable >
> > > > for nature and sports photography? I'd like
> > > > to stay in the $400-600US bracket
> > > > Thanks for input.
> > >
> > > I believe that the glass in front of the body is
> > > more important than the body so I try to stay >
> > > with Canon glass. So far I have with a 300 f/4L
> > > being my longest lens right now.
> >
> > I agree with Bob, and would like to suggest
> > looking for a second-hand 300/4L and then adding
> > the 1.4x extender at a later time, when finances
> > permit. Not only will you get excellent optics and
> > AF, you'll have more versatility: an outstanding
> > 300/4, and an excellent 420/5.6. KEH currently has
> > a 300/4L for $819 (compared to $649 for the Sigma
> > 400/5.6 HSM from B&H).
> > fcc
>
> This is exactly what I would do, as well. And you
> CAN find the 300/4 for $600, B&H had one a couple of
> months back in 10 condition for just that.
>
> Tom P.
As another alternative, you could look at a 200 f2.8L
and add both 1.4x and 2x converters. That way you
also get 280 f4 and 400 f5.6 although I believe the
300 plus 1.4x would be slightly sharper than the 200 +
2x. But it's a very versatile combo.
Regards
Gary
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
