Hi Ken,
The EF 400 5.6 is not a bad lens at all just very narrowly focused and limited in usefulness due to its f/5.6 lens speed. This lens cannot be used with a converter unless you have an EOS 3 or EOS 1v and are willing to use a noticeably darker finder. The idea of going with a 300mm f/2.8 lens is IMO going to be a better choice because you get a fast 300mm lens, a still fast 420mm f/4 lens and a reasonably fast 600mm f/5.6 lens AND still retain full AF operation if at a somewhat reduced speed. If you really want to shoot birds you will generally need a much longer lens then 400mm if you want to fill the frame to any reasonable degree. From what I can tell 600mm is good and 800mm better. The problem is that AF won't work unless you have an EOS 3 or EOS 1v. So longer and faster is better for use with converters. I routinely use an EF 300 2.8L and EF 1.4x and have not concerns with image quality or AF speed for sports. I very often will go to the EF 300 2.8L with the EF 2x converter and used with care the AF is O.K. but noticeably slower than when used with the EF 1.4x or bare. As to image quality there is again a noticeable loss in quality but as a 600mm f/5.6 AF lens the optical performance is still very good if not excellent. I have no problem going to the EF 300 2.8 and EF 2x combination but what I shoot (motor sports primarily), will tolerate only near perfect image quality better than a small bird with very fine obvious surface features and detail. There are many bird shooters here and I think this is not far off from the common wisdom on this. I'd take a pass on the EF 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS zoom for use with the converters. This is too big a compromise in terms of image quality when used with a converter, even a Canon converter and you loose AF operation. A MUCH better choice is to buy a used EF 300 2.8L and converters. I found the last one I bought for $2,000, it was in near mint condition with the usual wear on the tripod knob. I've found them lower in lesser condition but they were perfect in operation and optically. If you are going to consider a third party 300 2.8 lens realize that the AF performance is not what you may be used to with Canon USM lenses and that contrast is also a critical issue when using converters, even with the EF 2x and especially with third party converters. Be careful of your choices for long lenses as they are rather expensive and you may be saddled with a less than good lens and converter combination unless you choose very carefully. Contrast and flare are the key to good images and good AF performance IMO. My advice is to save your money up to buy the longest, largest aperture lens you can for this project and don't compromise on this. If you do you will be disappointed in the results and we'll see yet another lens on the market for sale because the images it could produce didn't meet the expectations of the owner though through no fault of its own. Regards, Chip Louie > > Those of you who have used this lens - what is your experience? How > limiting is its speed and under what kind of circumstances have you > felt that limitation? > > I really want to get some sort of wildlife/bird lens, and I'm really > debating if I want to get something like a Tokina 300/2.8 that I could > use with a TC for a 600/5.6, but I'm worried about image degradation > with a 2xTC. Am I being overly concerned? . Something tells me I > should get the longest prime I can afford, and this is probably it. > > Then of course there's the 100-400 IS, another possibility. But I > think maybe the 300 + 2xTC is a better option, although more > expensive? I'm sorry, I know this has been gone over and over, but > I'm close to being able to purchase something, and still feel a bit at > sea. > > > Ken Durling * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
