i know that i have many more images to come out of my A* 400/2.8, only a small fraction of which are going to be publishable. on a pure ROI basis, i can't be sure i'll ever make back the $5K i paid for the lens. OTOH, i know because i paid a lot, i am going to work at using it a lot to try and get the kind of shots that i've seen in the birding books and magazines. the ones i have gotten to date are good enough to say that i know i will get the ones i want in the future. for the birding work that i have started doing, the FA* 600/4 would better fit the bill, but i feel that the *istD's performance isn't up to what i need. 6 megapixels is enough, although certainly i would like more. it's AF performance, frame rate, and buffer size when shooting RAW that limit things. that's the main reason why instead of budgeting for a FA* 600/4, i'm budgeting for a Canon body and lens system.
Herb....
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Longest lens name
I'm not sure anyone, except those making a living using them, could objectively justify lenses in these price ranges. But I have to say it doesn't take much success with one to make it seem worthwhile. I wanted a 600 for years, but couldn't "justify" it & made do with alternatives, none of which I was very happy with. Well a few years ago I was able to purchase a new 600 FA at substantial discount (still very expensive tho). During my last trip to Alaska I was able to witness many "rare" photographic opportunities & this time I had the equipment to do them justice. You know what, because of this experience, if I never take another image with the 600 I'll still be glad that I got it.

