>
> What kind of sports? Generally speaking: the faster the lens the
> better - but that is obvious. It also depends on your budget. the
> 70-200 2.8L is really great, but it costs $$$. Buying a (comparable)
> prime will give you a fast lens for less money (and less weight). The
> 200/2.8L with a teleconverter (1.4x or 2x) would be an example of a
> versatile and yet quite fast combination for sports.
> The necessary focal length depends on the kind of sports you want to
> photograph.
in regards to the 200 2.8L with a teleconverter, would I lose the ability to
autofocus? Also, what is the image quality like with todays teleconverters?
I have heard that the image quality is considerably less when you add a
teleconverter to a lens. I like the idea of combining the 200 2.8L and a
teleconverter because I would get the focal length of the 400 at a fraction
of the cost, and I can still use the prime lens as a 200 if I so desire.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
