A agree with Michelle on that Sigma EX 105. Great lens for macros (didn't do portraits myself but i hear it from a lot of people, it's very good for that too). Congrats to your new toy!! Looking forward to what you'll be doing with it :))

Depending on the content of the pic, the visible loss in quality can happen a lot earlier. Remember that you just simulate information, that's not really there (in contrary to analog photography). Just adding that to zhounders true words. Also, keep in mind that there are other important things on a digicam. If the lens is trash, it's of no importance if 2 or 4 megapixels digitize that ... ;)

Btw.: AF and exposure-readout will work fine with the 70-2002 but won't work with the 100-4001.4 (can be modified to work at least under good conditions) .. but that's of no importance anymore ... :^ Time to go to bed now ... have a great evening! Yours, Tom

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!! :)

Ok, thank you! That's what the manual tells too but it's another thing to hear it from someone, using it in the fields. :) Is the opening aperture (4.5) a problem sometimes? As the weather tends to be not that great over here most of the time, this can be a point for the 70-200 (2.8)? The gap between 70 and 100 shouldn't be a problem at all .. me thinks. But (very slowly) i do believe, i should forget about that converter ... sigh Tom

Here's the link for you Randy .. about that IS-thingie, i think, it'll be of interest to some other people too .. There are shots with even using the 1.4* and the 2*converter together on a 70-200 on his site (over here)... 8^0 click here - read a while ... the important parts come in the second half .. Another comparison .. with another conclusion: over here .. So whom to believe?

Yep Michelle, i remembered that but as enax said, you're using one .. ;) (he's talking of your macro-lens me thinks). Donald is using the 70-200 i have in mind and if i remember it correctly, he loves it.

If you look to this comparison (klick here) the 70-200*2 seems to be well able to compete with the 100-400 even at 400mm, not to talk of the range from 70-200. But as i don't know this guy, i'll listen very careful to what you say! :)

Randy: thank you very much! I really hoped on some statements to that lens .. couldn't find anyone having it! Are you happy with the IS on this one as it is an older model than the one used in the 70-200? The newer one doesn't have to be switched off on a tripod and will in some cases improve picture quality even on a tripod (at least, that's one of the gurus over here state).

Thanks to all of you!!!
Tom

It depends on the type of pics you take and how much quality you are used to see / want to see. Some people can live quite well with 2MP, some others feel like having not enough with 4. It would be best to take a 4MP-picture and take a close look at the desired size (if you have a good one, use your ink-jet-printer), than downsize it via your picture-editing-software to 2MP, do no postwork and print it again at the same size. Than compare the two pics. If you have a pic with lot's of fine details, you'll notice the difference, but if this still is good enough .. your decision. But keep in mind, that you may take one excellent shot one day and you may want to print it bigger .. ;) Just my 2 ct. :)

Ooops .. i forgot: 800mm are not necessary ;). 300 is a must .. 400 would be nice but if i can't get it for a reasonable quality/price, i can live without .. just to clarify that :)

(100-)400*2 isn't an option. The aperture of 5.6 with the loss of another 2-3 aperture-values will give me an F8 or the like. That means no AF and a usability just with the best possible light. Btw: the cam is an(other g) 300D. But of course, if there are any alternatives, i'd love to hear. No need to hurry, i won't have the money before the end of march :) Other manufacturers are fine with me ... even if loosing IS will be hard to take at that focal lenghts .. (using a Sigma macro-lens and my standard-lens is from Tamron) Thanks again .. now waiting on dear Michelle :)

Thanks Francesc, but though you're absolutely right, that's not enough to me. :)

Some people say, 2200 in this case is better than 400 (both zoom-lenses)? Of course i do believe, that a fixed-focal-lenght-lens 400/f4 is a lot better lens then the 70-2002 (at 400mm) .. but sorry, i'd buy a car if i had that much money (starting at 5500 Euro) sigh. To me (as to the most people i think) this is a careful balance between desired quality and available money. Having enough money, i'd say "yep, you're right, let's throw all converters in a nearby river" :-)). But with my limited budget i have to ask, how to get the most out of my money with knowing, that i cannot get the best that's possible.

Therefore, the 70-200 2.8 IS would be great in the range i use a lot with the option to expand it via converter in the rare but sometimes necessary range 200-400. But is it good enough at 400mm compared to the 100-400? On the other hand, the 100-400 is cheaper and offers the whole range i need in one lens .. with questionable handling and less quality in the lower focal lenghts which i do need more often.

As an alternative, i thought about 300 (fixed-focal-lenght)*1,4 which will be way better than 200(zoom)*2, but that leaves me with my less than perfect 75-300 IS or will cost double to buy both. Also, there's that problem with fixed-focal-lenght in handling. If you do know, where the object to shoot will be, fixed-focal-lenghts is better, but as i'm no pro, i like the versatility of a zoom lens (once again knowing, that i do get inferior quality).

Sorry, just wanted to explain what i think, please don't get me wrong Francesc and thanks again!! :)

As Cyn said: congrats to that well deserved honour!!

@Brenda: In that other forum i've read the following simple rule: if you can't look at it with your eyes, than don't point your Cam at it. Sounds simple enough. Following that, sunsets and sunrises shouldn't be a problem at all Brenda but i'll have to take care in summer ..

@Zhounder: i do believe him it's the sun. There are some freaks not caring about their equipment ... their prob, not mine :-)

@3DGuy: yep .. hold a magnifieng lens in the sun and your skin under that. You're absolutely right but what is "too long"? Shooting with the aperture closed should be safe (and is necessary not to get it overexposed) but how long can i look to get the perfect angle for in that time, the aperture(?) is fully open? Half a second? A quarter? What's with hiding the sun behind a tree and searching the optimal place? Almost for sure, you'll have moments with the sun fully shining in ..

Thank you all for your help!!! I hope, i can be of service some day too. Tom

Hi Mel,
blend modes are fine with me. If i can leave strength at 100% thats fine too. One thing less to worry about g. I did understand .. let's say 50% of what's really going on with that ... and i hope to get ... hmm .. another 30%, let the rest be PS-magic, i'm satisfied with understanding 80%. If i can't reach that, i'll ask you, ok? Thanks again!! :) Have a great day! Tom

Hi ... just tried to do that trick myself. Works quite fine so thank you very much from my side :-)) Still trying to figure out what really happens here gg. A question to step 2 und 4: at what strenght do you use them? Greetinx, Tom :)