What...!?
Sorry, coudn't help myself.
In fact, use wides more often but something around 400mm will let you find
what you don't expect.
I don't have the money to buy, the time to use it and the talent to deserve
a big glass of that FL, so I do agree about the convenience of a 2X.
I've tried the 2X-A matched to the 200/4 focusing with a 1-8 for a while now
and find it quite sharp (stopped down one stop and when critical using a
bean bag as C.H.Ling once suggested me) and even hand-holdable on favorable
situations. I've even tried the 85~250/5 + 2X-A tripod mounted at f11 with
awesome results. And you can even put an extension tube in-between.
And reading 'Organization: Natural Resources Canada' leaves me wondering
about your expectancies.
Oh, and they surely balance better with a winder.
Fernando.
> From: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Organization: Natural Resources Canada
> Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:59:06 -0500
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: New member with question about 100/F2
>
> I don't expect to need the reach beyond
> 180-200mm often enough to justify something bigger and heavier.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|