I'm hoping my tripod/head causes no problems, it's a big Gitzo, magnesium but weighs a ton still! ~$400 Will just have to wait and see when the lens comes in.
Brad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:29 PM Subject: Re: Already looking at equipment for my 400mm -- TC advice plz! > Best money you could spend with a beast that size is a good tripod and > ball head. Good balls are hideously expensive (no pun intended), but > worth it. I have used an Arca Swiss B1 a fair bit, but have never been > able to justify the expense. By the time you get hold of the ball, and > 4-5 plates for lenses and cameras, you've spent $600.00 or so. A lot of > moula! However, the are magnificent to use. > > Cheers > > Shaun > > Bruce Dayton wrote: > > Shaun, > > > > I dunno...when I bought mine, I got the 1.4X-L at the same time. It > > isn't that hard to figure out what the lens can do. > > > > One other way to look at it is to see what else you need to spend > > money on to see if the converter is really the next thing on your > > list. Perhaps a good tripod head that works well with the lens, or a > > nice monopod (that is how I use mine quite often) or something may be > > the first order of business. > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > Friday, December 6, 2002, 2:57:31 AM, you wrote: > > > > SC> Figure out what the 400mm can do on it's own first Brad... > > > > SC> Cheers > > > > SC> Shaun > > > > SC> Brad Dobo wrote: > > > >>>I can see the headache coming. I know from you that the 1.4x L fits my > >>>lens, but not sure on the 2x L, of course, gonna be tough finding a place > >>>that has one to try out. So the quality is worse at 2x then..hmmm.....and > >>>800mm was so tempting. ~600mm isn't bad I suppose :) May stick with the > >>>better and compatible 1.4x L. Thanks for the info Bruce. > >>> > >>>Brad > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>To: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:38 AM > >>>Subject: Re[2]: Already looking at equipment for my 400mm -- TC advice plz! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Brad, > >>>> > >>>>The L converters have less negative impact on your image (especially > >>>>vignetting and contrast loss) than the S or 3rd party. Only for > >>>>lenses that can use them. I would strongly recommend going with the L > >>>>over the S. Remember that not only light loss, but quality loss is > >>>>greater with a 2X vs. a 1.4X. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Bruce > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Friday, December 6, 2002, 12:39:05 AM, you wrote: > >>>> > >>>>BD> Well, seems I have much to learn! I always wondered about the L > >>> > >>>converters, > >>> > >>> > >>>>BD> as I always saw only the short ones. Is the L necessary for the > >>> > >>>400/5.6? > >>> > >>> > >>>>BD> As for the 1.4x and the 2x is there a difference in optical quality? > >>> > >>>Rob > >>> > >>> > >>>>BD> pointed out the light issue, but I would be using it during bright > >>> > >>>days I > >>> > >>> > >>>>BD> would imagine. I guess I'm a bit greedy now. Having the ability to > >>> > >>>shoot > >>> > >>> > >>>>BD> at 800mm sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but I understand not so > >>>>BD> practical. > >>>> > >>>>BD> Brad > >>>>BD> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>BD> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>BD> To: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>BD> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 3:22 AM > >>>>BD> Subject: Re: Already looking at equipment for my 400mm -- TC advice > >>> > >>>plz! > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>Brad, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I have the 1.4X-L converter. It works wonderfully with the A 400/5.6. > >>>>>>The L converters have an extended snout that fits inside the rear of > >>>>>>the lens. I know with the 1.4 that the loss of quality is very > >>>>>>minimal. It is a great converter. I don't know for a fact that the > >>>>>>2X-L fits properly. I would guess it would, but am not positive. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>As to the issue of tripod mounted with MZ-S/Grip. No issue at all. > >>>>>>The lens is bigger/heavier than the body. The lens mounts to the > >>>>>>tripod and the camera just hangs off the end. So adding a converter > >>>>>>doesn't have any real impact. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>HTH, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Bruce > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Thursday, December 5, 2002, 11:35:57 PM, you wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>BD> Hey, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>BD> Even though I have not received the lens yet, I'm looking at > >>>>> > >>>getting > >>> > >>> > >>>>BD> the 2x > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>BD> teleconverter. Anyone (Bruce D. etc) know if this is a good idea? > >>>>> > >>>>BD> This is > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>BD> quite new to me, not the converter and light, etc, but the weight > >>>>> > >>>or > >>> > >>> > >>>>BD> stress > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>BD> and balance when mounted on a tripod with the MZ-S w/grip? This > >>>>> > >>>would > >>> > >>> > >>>>BD> be > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>BD> the first lens I would have use (while limited) for a TC. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>BD> Brad > >>>>>>BD> ****************************************************** > >>>>>>BD> Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) > >>>>>>BD> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>BD> ICQ#: 16566668 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>. > >>> > >> > > > > . > > > > > -- > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Shaun Canning > Cultural Heritage Services > High Street, Broadford, > Victoria, 3658. > > www.heritageservices.com.au/ > > Phone: 0414-967644 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >
