Where extension tubes do make a difference at 400mm is minimum close focus distance. I find even 12mm to be useful when shooting such subjects as birds & butterflies, & will use anywhere from 12 to 50mm extension with these subjects, sometimes in conjunction with a 1.4x Canon converter.
I don't find this makes the set up any more clunky to handle than it already is. OTOH, I'd agree that trying to shoot anywhere close to 1:1 with the 100-400 & extension tubes sounds like a real exercise in futility, particulary when there are so many better options. Paul Wasserman ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:50:41 -0700 > From: "Robert Meier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: EOS Extension Tubes 100-400IS USM. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Jeff Waltzer > > > > From: Tom Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE:EOS Extension Tubes 100-400IS USM. > > > > I don't know about the 1V or the 2X converter but I > use a set of > > "Kenko" > > extension tubes with my 100-400IS USM on an A2 body. > > > > My guess is that the extension tubes don't make that much of a > > difference at 400mm. Am I wrong? > > That was my thought, too. Even at 100mm you need quite a lot > of extension > tubes, especially if you want to get down to 1:1. I wonder if > this makes the > setup rather unstable and hard to use. > > Robert * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
