--- Henning Wulff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 8:29 AM +0900 3/2/04, Jim Davis Nature Photography wrote: >Bob Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to: > >> >>That said, the 100-400 + 2xII is pushing the edges of >>acceptable. Put in on a tripod, stop down a couple of >>stops, and you'll get images that are usable. But >>wide open you'll find things pretty soft. > >And therein lies the problem. > >Even at ISO 800 on a sunny day, I'm shooting wide open at f11, at a >mere 1/125th of a second. And that's just not fast enough for me, even >with IS. > >I have got a few usable images using the 100-400 + 2xII. But nothing I >couldn't have got using a 1.4x and cropping a bit.
Here is a crop from a picture shot on 100ISO film in an EOS3 with the 100-400 with 1.4x at 1/8 sec handheld wide open of a Vermilion Flycatcher 4 years ago or so. This is the best shot of 3 that I managed before it took off. It's not perfectly sharp, but not far off what I can get with a two tripod setup with a 509 and 320 Gitzo.
This combination I still find useable, but the 2x disappoints.
I think maybe you two missed the point of my response. I was responding to the comment that the 2X does not produce satisfactory results with ANY lens. I still strongly disagree with that statement. The 2X produces completely acceptable results with many lenses, including the 70-200 and the 200 2.8 (the only two lenses, other than the 100-400, I've tried it with). Anecdotal evidence also suggests it produces fine results with the 300 2.8, and very acceptable results with the original 300 f4 (but perhaps not with the 300 f4 IS).
Actually, I didn't miss the point, I ignored it :-) :-). The thing is that a discussion on whether the result is 'good enough' or not is probably pointless. Under some conditions almost anything is 'good enough'; that is why people take, and like, pictures from a Holga. Under other conditions a 12x20 view camera is the ticket. You have to decide in your own mind what you'll accept under what conditons. I've had and used formats from Minox to 8x10 and have achieved 'acceptable' results from all.
I just generally pass on combinations of lenses with the 2x, including the 70-200 IS unless that is the only reasonable option left to me. I do not have, nor intend to get a 300/2.8 or longer/faster as the telephoto end of the range is mostly for fun and personal stuff and doesn't generally pay the bills.
-- * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
