On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:02:41 -0400, you wrote: > >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.
So Terry, you think that, for birds, my planning to go with a 300/2.8 plus a 2xTC is a good plan? Provided it'a a matched TC of course. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
