Thanks for those suggestions, though I was looking more for information on the look of cat lenses -- I want a different look to some of the images from the Sigma 300 f4 or the A* 200 2.8 with a 1.4x TC (effectively a 280 f4). I don't so much need a cheap solution as -appreciate- a cheap solution.
Does anyone around Toronto with a cat lens want to swap lenses for a few days? -Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: mirror/cat lenses Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 1:46 pm Size: 1K To: [email protected] On Feb 6, 2006, at 10:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Reportedly even better than the F 100-300 and just as inexpensive > is the FA 80-320/4.5-5.6. I shot Mr. Bear with that lens at 320mm. > He's here: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3113513 Great shot! I did test comparisons between the FA80-320/45.-5.6, the A70-210/4 Macro and the F100-300/4.5-5.6. Both the FA80-320 and the A70-200 were better performers wide open. By two stops down the differences were small, beyond that they were effectively identical down to the start of diffraction. Of the two AF lenses, I prefer the F100-300 for its internal zooming mechanism. I feel that it is more likely to stay in alignment due to the weight of the 80-320's telescoping section. The F100-300 stays a fixed length other than for the focusing operation of the forward lens group, which I also find more convenient. F80-320 prices have typically been closer to $130-140 vs $85, but both are so inexpensive for their focal length range as to be inconsequential. It's horses for courses. I rarely use lenses over 100mm (have the FA135 for most of that!), and when I use the F100-300, it's usually stopped down and on a tripod. The F80-320 would be better for hand- held work wide-open. Godfrey
