> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of carla ruigh > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: EOS 100-400 or 1.5x or 2x? > > 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
My budget choice would be the 300 f/4 (either IS or non-IS and a 1.4x converter, that's the best quality for the $$$. If you need more range or speed, I'd next consider a Tokina or Tamron 300 2.8 with a 2x converter. If money is no object, I'd like to meet you :) but seriously the 300 2.8IS is super (heavy) and outstanding optically. tomp * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
