You're not likely to thank me much after I give you my opinion, Caroline.
I have been engaged in taking bird and animal pictures since the late 1960's and this is my VERY considered opinion: Forget the zoom! Especially if you want a lens that will yield results with a TC that are "sharp enough to be publishable." And forget thinking that 400mm is anything except a compromise that is actually a bit on the short side of what you really need . . . especially for birds. Consider the EF400/5.6L, used if necessary. My experience is that, INVARIABLY, I used my xx-400mm zoom at 400mm and no other focal length. The lens was more expensive, bulky and unwieldy and less sharp than my fixed focal length 400mm lens. I also came to believe that 400mmm was usually insufficient in length too. A quality, fixed FL 400mm lens will yield reasonable results with a good TC. I am sorry to offend those who hold the belief that you can slap a 1.4X on an xx-400mm zoom and get good results, but I just don't agree with 'em! Zooms have a place (especially the 100-400 Canon IS but that is not cheap), however, IMO, that place is emphatically not in bird/small animal photograpy. Compressed perspective landscapes are a whole other field. >From Caroline Woodley" > My next lens purchase is likely to be a mid range telephoto zoom. I want > ideally to have a range certainly covering the 100-300mm region and > preferably up to 400 if possible. I want to shoot mostly wildlife, i.e. > birds and small creatures, and compressed-perspective landscapes with this > lens and it has to be sharp enough for the pictures to be publishable. -- Terry Danks Nova Scotia, Canada Wildlife & Nature Photography http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
