Ken Durling wrote:
> OK, let me be ask it this way: say one was considering the following,
> and that we are saying there is no visible difference between IS and
> non-IS 300's for ther moment:
>
> 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
> 300 f/4L IS + 1.4 TC = 420/5.6
> 400 f/5.6L
> 200/2.8L + 2xTC = 400/5.6
>
> will all of these combinations give about the same
> image sharpness/quality? Say at 11x16.
It will be interesting to see if any one person on the list has actual
first-hand experience with all these combinations.
IMO the short answer is no. *Others will disagree,* but my guesses for a
"sharpness ranking" would be as follows, first to worst:
EF 400/5.6L (don't know anything about the Sigma 400/5.6 HSM)
300/4L + EF 1.4x extender
200/2.8L + EF 2x extender
100-400/4.5~5.6L IS
70-200/2.8L + EF 2x extender
I could be persuaded to reverse the last two. :-)
Keep in mind that "worst" is relative--it might not be so bad as to be
objectionable. In general, less extension is better--one would prefer the 1.4x
extender over the 2x extender whenever possible. Extenders on zooms are to be
avoided if possible. Of course, there are times when a less-than-optimal photo
is better than no photo at all!
> Also, how noticeable do you think that extra 20mm in the 300/1.4TC
> combo would be?
Probably not that much. The "300" probably isn't really 300mm anyway (more like
290mm). That magnitude of difference is far more significant at focal lengths
shorter than 100mm that at those that are longer.
> Or is telephoto month over? ;-)
Over for the King of Lenses?? Never!!!!
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
