"F. Craig Callahan" wrote: > > Geoff Doane wrote: > > > Without the converter, I would have a hard time discerning a > > difference between them. > > > > I may just be lucky with this particular 200/2.8, since any converter tends to > > magnify any imperfections in a lens. > > I don't think you've been especially lucky--the 200/2.8 is an outstanding lens and > in my experience gives excellent results with the EF 2x extender; the 1.4x extender > is virtually undetectable on this lens. I haven't used the zoom, but in the context > of the original question I doubt one could do better than the 200/2.8. Given that > Douglas appears interested primarily in the 200mm end of the zoom, I would think the > 200/2.8 is the better value, especially given its optical performance.
Also, IMHO, the prime has a good bokeh, IOW, it renders the out of focus highlights in a nice way. I can't compare that to the 70-200 zoom, I have the older 80-200/2.8L zoom, which renders out of focus highlights a little uneven, it shows a brighter ring at the outside. Thomas Bantel * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
