Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 6, 2005, 9:33 AM   #11
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,564

JohnG wrote:
... but it would seem that a high quality lens without TC should be better than a high quality lens with TC (although I realize I would have a 4.0 with a TC vs. 5.6 with the Canons). And advice I have been given to date is "get the longest lens you can - if you're going to have the TC on 90% of the time the lens probably isn't long enough).

3. The cost. At this point, I'm not going to be an avid birder - I'm still a generalist in my photography. So, the $1900 price tag is kind of pushing the envelope. If it was a 120-400 it would be a no brainer (but then it would be $4000 instead of $1900).
... and I agree with you totally

The thing is the 120-300 f/2.8 is not a birder lens although it can shoot a few birds quite well like the pictures that I've posted. Also like PeterP I bought this lens primary for the f/2.8 because I really enjoy the 'bokeh' at those aperture!

Let's for argument sake assume the 400 f/5.6 to be sharper (and probably what I use it the most for - comparison purpose), which technically it's not according to the MTF as compared the 100-400 IS - When I go on a vacation I still leave the 400 f/5.6 behind and took the 120-300 f/2.8 EX instead. This is a shot @ 600mm with a 2x TC at the moment of impact - you can try to manual focus, but I rather not:

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:49 PM.