I'd forgotten all about the 300/4L IS! Just read a bunch of similar
raves at Fred Miranda. I think I'll strongly consider this option. Thanks!
Ken
At 03:53 PM 2/23/2006, you wrote:
Well, it's settled then. Get the 400mm f/4 DO IS! :)
I've never owned a 400mm prime, so this is probably out of contect. But I
have owned bith the 2.8 (no IS) and 4.0 (both models) 300mm, and all of them
were subjectively sharper with a 1.4x than my 100-400mm. But the convenience
factor is a big plus, the zoom is nearly 3 inches shorter when collapsed.
But the prime is nearly 5 inches shorter than the extended 100-400mm, so
there's another point to think about, longer is less stable. Hmm, maybe I
was right to begin with, the IS DO version is the best of both worlds. Maybe
you should rent both from www.rentglass.com for a week and try them out side
by side.
Tom P.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Ken Durling
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:59 PM
> To: eos@a1.nl
> Subject: RE: EOS 400mm
>
> Thanks all, for the valuable feedback. I wonder if I'm using
> the right term - "softness." I mean something like resolving
> power. I shoot a lot of birds, among other things, and I'm
> often bringing home shots of large flocks of say Snow Geese,
> where you may have a few thousand birds in the view, each
> with yellow bills, black wing tips, etc, and I want
> absolutely as much clarity as possible on such
> features. Similarly with feather detail on closer shots. I'm now
> using an FD 400mm f/4.5, sometimes on a 1.4x or 2x extender,
> and this is a pretty sharp lens. I want sharper though. And
> of course I want AF.
>
> But the point about IS is well-taken - I'm sure it would make
> the difference much of the time.
>
>
> Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
