Thank you very much for typing all this!! Of course people like he argue from another viewpoint than we do. He's able to afford fixed-focal-lenght lenses in all necessary sizes. That way, he can get the optimum results under any conditions. For a price almost reaching 6 digits. He has no need for an extender and he's right, that they don't do any good quality-wise - which is no problem for him.

But take a look to this pic: click .. 500/F41.42 = 1400/F11 .. the eye of a cheetah with TWO extenders.

Poelking (the "guru" i've mentioned before and the one, providing that pic above) tried to quantify the loss a 2*extender will provide by app. 20%. That's a lot .. but is it that much, that people like me will notice? I do fear, the answer is "yes". So no extender?

On the other hand, do i have alternatives? Fixed-focal-lenght is/are not affordable, so it has to be zoom lenses (even if Mr. Shaw is absolutely right about them being inferior due to many problems). Randy does wonders with his 100-400 so this one cannot be wrong. Donald does wonders with his 70-200 (without extender) and this one does have a range, which is enough for me for 85% of all cases and it's better in that range .. Is it the question now if i can accept loosing lenght in wining quality or not? I don't want to do any more compromises ... the first 70-300 went back, the second 75-300 IS doesn't make me happy too, so the next one should be the last one .. sigh

Thanks a lot for that much typing again!! :)