Geoff Doane wrote:
> Without the converter, I would have a hard time discerning a
> difference between them.
>
> I may just be lucky with this particular 200/2.8, since any converter tends to
> magnify any imperfections in a lens.
I don't think you've been especially lucky--the 200/2.8 is an outstanding lens and
in my experience gives excellent results with the EF 2x extender; the 1.4x extender
is virtually undetectable on this lens. I haven't used the zoom, but in the context
of the original question I doubt one could do better than the 200/2.8. Given that
Douglas appears interested primarily in the 200mm end of the zoom, I would think the
200/2.8 is the better value, especially given its optical performance.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
