I own a 100-400 IS L. It sucks even without a teleconverter (though it is astoundingly good compared to the cheap (non-IS) 75-300 lens). Since you have the 75-300 IS, keep that. If you are looking for 400mm then the 200mm f/2.8 L seems to work very well with a 2x teleconverter and will be cheaper than a 100-400. The 75-300 IS can fill in the gaps.
Really though, you want a 300mm f/2.8 IS. It is worth every penny. On 6/5/07, carla ruigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all, perpetual lurker here. I have a EOS film and first generation digital, d60. I have a couple of telephotos, the 75-300 lens, and the 75-300 IS lens, as well as 2 shorter zooms. I have a desire for a current opportunity for a longer lens, and am wondering whether it would be better to pair one of my telephoto's with a converter, or go for the 100-400. I assume that the 100-400 would be more expensive at $1300 and change at B&H, but it seems that I read somewhere that going with a teleconverter and one of my current lens might actually yield decent results. I'd use it mostly for wildlife and outdoor photography. In my mind, the deciding factor would be the quality at the 400 focal length between the teleconverter combination vs. the 100-400. Since the 100-400 doesn't go beyond 400, if the teleconverter paired with either of my current lenes yielded similar to the 100-400, I'd go with the teleconverter--since it would give me more flexibility. But, if the quality of the teleconveter combo sucked, then I might opt for the 100-400. Does that make sense? Thanks in advance for your advice. cjr
-- -- Schlake This is my gmail account, I can also be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED], if the TCC is working. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
