Richard Stephenson wrote:
>I bought your combination (1) with bird photography very much in mind not
>long after the 300/4 IS came out...
I initially went from a Sigma 400/5.6 APO to Minolta's 400/4.5 APO-G,
which most of the time lives on the end of a 1.4x APO teleconverter to
give me 560mm at a moderate f6.7. Image quality is superb, but AF
performance, IMHO, is not.
Whatever, for bird photography, you really do need a long lens.
[snip]
>I haven't had chance to take any shots with a 100-400 and compare. The
>only test I have seen of the 100-400 it came out quite badly which does
>not compare with the experience of people on this list which seems to
>have been good. It is quite likely that the zoom is at its worst at the
>long end, I wouldn't be surprised if there is not much difference between
>the two combos you cite.
Given the zoom ratio is quite large and the price surprisingly low, weak
performance at the long end doesn't really surprise me. And given you will
be using it at the long end a lot for birding, the zoom would probably be
a poor choice.
>A major question in my mind is what will the 400/4 DO be like with
>converters.
I have no idea about this but I guess its possible that, due to its
extremely wierd optical construction, it won't even work with converters
at all!
>I have formed the opinion from reading and looking at MTFs that there is
>a major performance gap between the "cheap" telephotos, 300/4 & 400/5.6,
>and the expensive ones 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4.5 or 4, 600/4, whether in
>old or IS versions when used with a converter, particularly the x2.
A second hand 500/4.5 should be a good bet. I've gone for a very used
300/2.8 and will get a 2x for it for my wildlife work (600mm f5.6). But
then I use the 300 on its own for ice hockey where speed is a *must have*.
>Whether this is related to better colour correction or not I don't know.
>Even better correction is claimed for the 400/4 so it will be interesting
>to see. But I guess this is going to be £3500 UKP or similar (sigh).
I think it will be closer to 2000 UKP. The big DO element is said to be
considerably cheaper to make than a conventional objective.
Chris.
--
http://www.wildphotos.org/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
