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
>
> all of which give you a 400/5.6, and leaving all other considerations
> such as IS aside, will all of these combinations give about the same
> image sharpness/quality?
I've really only tried one of these combinations, the 200/2.8L + 2XTC, but
I'm pretty impressed with it. Even wide open, it can produce slides with
great detail... within the DOF. The combination is a bit tricky to use,
particularly with moving subjects, but is quite capable. My biggest
complaint is that the tripod collar is too far forward for a nice balance
when using a monopod. This combination should cost in the neighbourhood
of U$1K, even less if you can find a used 200/2.8L. It also has the
advantage (over the other options) of giving you a first-rate 200/2.8:
perfect for long-range portraits.
>
> Also, how noticeable do you think that extra 20mm in the 300/1.4TC
> combo would be? I'm trying to visualize a 5% increase in focal length
> at 400mm - maybe not that much, eh?
My guess: 5% would be insignificant.
Geoff Doane
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
