>First of all, it's useable contrary to what people who can afford 400
>f/2.8 L lenses say. Second, the loss of sharpness is not propabaly the
>problem. Everything else is. I used this combo last summer when
shooting
>Tall Ships' Race here in Helsinki. From the results it is very hard to
say
>which ones were whot with 2X and which were not. It was also hard as I
>took so many photos that even the compositions were so mixed up that
that
>doesn't really give a clue. All photos were handheld - but it was one
of
>the most beautifull days here so for once there was enough light!. All
>images are very sharp.
Which film did you use (brand/speed)? If you used negative, what size
were the prints?
>That time the problem was more the lack of AF. And
>in darker conditions focusing might become really hard. With my
subjects
>the focusing wasn't as critical as compared to shooting birds. BUT if
you
>compare the costs of getting to 800mm in other ways... it's definitely
>worth a try. Of course it would be best if you could borrow one and see
>how you like it. But the fact is that for some of us, there is no
>alternative way to get to 800mm.
How true! However I've seen a second hand, first version, 400/2.8 for
the same price of a new 100-400. It was quite used and is less versatile
than the 100-400 +2X combination and much heavier, but for shooting
birds, it might be better.
Hugo Lopes
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
