On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Terry Danks wrote: > 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!
Arthur Morris, a famous bird photographer wrote few books on bird photography. Although he uses the 400 f/5.6 on a regular basis, it's the lens he uses for casual shooting and to "walk on the beach". He comments on the fact that the lens is absolutely excellent, but a bit too short for bird photography. He also comments on the fact that even with his loved 600mm, he has to get as close as 10 ft from some birds to have a good shot that fills the frame. I guess what should be looked into is the longest possible lens for the available budget. And the 100-400 is too slow for bird photography... -- Patrice Chiniara [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://step.polymtl.ca/~dwarf -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
