I keep the shortest tube in my bag at all times. I just used it last weekend to shoot some ducks on a pond with my 300/4. With the short extension, I could get them almost full frame. Paul
Aaron Reynolds wrote: > On Sunday, March 10, 2002, at 12:19 PM, tom wrote: > > > > I was thinking of the short teles specifically...don't you need a tube > > to get a headshot with either of the 165's? > > > > What about the 200? > > I've only tried the old 200, and yeah, you needed a tube to get a head > shot...that was why I didn't buy it for $200. Now, when I think about > it, I feel stupid for not picking it up, but I'm not much of a short > tele person. My 35mm regular kit is a 24, a 50 and a 200. ;) > > > Neither of these issues would really be a deal breaker for most folks. > > I agree. I have the helicoid extension tube, but it starts like a #2 > tube and goes from there. I'd like to add the smallest tube to my bag, > but I don't know how easily I'll find it by itself. > > -Aaron > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
