> Kim wrote:
>
> > How much slower is the 70-200+TC autofocus? Was it extremely noticeable?
>
> I didn't test it myself, but used the comparisons at www.photozone.com
which
> rates the AF speed of the 70-200 with 2X TC at 61 out of 100 and the
100-400
> at 86. Based on that input, I imagine it would be noticeable.
>
____________________________________________________________________________
> _
>
> Kim,
> Cannot access that site. Was it a scientific test or just based on
people's
> opinions like info often found on other websites?
> It would make some sense since the AF is really slowed by an increase in
> weight/mass and the 100-400mm lens is larger and heavier. However, for
the
> 25 msecs (thousandths) difference, I would stil go with the longer lens
> since
> it has IS since it ensures the image sharp using a shutter speed of 1/125
> while the 70-210mm w/2x TC is less likely to be sharp at 1/125 handheld.
>
> Peter K
I think my post above wasn't clear--what I meant was that according to
photozone (which is a compilation of data from users), the 70-200 f2.8 with
2X TC autofocuses much slower than the 100-400.
Kim
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
