You really need to decide what you want to use either on for. I have the 600mm FA. I don't use it a lot. But I just returned from Denali National Park, Alaska and it earned it's keep on this trip. I was able to use it with the *ist D (sometimes with a 1.4XL teleconvertor) & got a wide variety of animal shots, from full body to intimate portraits. I've done this trip several times before without the 600 and swore I wouldn't return to Denali without one. Having said all that, I have the 300mm FA f4.5 - its probably my most used lens.
If you get the 600mm, you should get the sturdiest tripod you can get (I'm using a Gitzo 1548), You'll need a head capable of holding it (I'd recommend a gimbal head - Kirk, Wimberley or Jobo) and some means of transporting it - not small monetary considerations. Oh yes, if you can you really need to have a Sherpa to carry it around. A mile or two of bush hiking with the 600 will really test your endurance. Good luck with your choice. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Wajer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FA 600 f4.0 and FA 300 f2.8 do I really need them? > Arghh, I found someone offering his FA 600 f4.0 and FA 300 f2.8 lenses. He is asking 3500 euro and 2500 euro for them. The FA 300 has been on my wishlist a long time, but I think 2500 euro is way to much. Any advice? > BTW I already have the A 300 f4.0, do I really need the extra stop? Somehow I think I already know the answer, arghh. > > Frank >
