Gee whiz.... I think I agree.... no links seems to be best. Just look at my profile and go to my website which has over 700 pages and thousands of photos in the main photo section and photo archives.
Ms. Tommie Lauer
400mm f2.8 with TC-2.0E-III
(28 posts) (12 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Sticking to the Primary subject, I have used both the MK11 and Mk111 Converter with a 300mm 2.8 prime lens. The improvement with the Mk111 is worlds apart. Anybody considering changing up to Mk111 converter, is just do it , if you can get one !
On the 400mm I would image you really do need a substantial tripod to get the best results . Its OK for the people who live on the Bright and Sunny side of the pond, Us Brits do get the occasional sunny day, but the odds on, this is when you don't have the lens with you
Posted 1 year ago # -
Actually, because I am not as young as I used to be, I have a Benro - Classic C3580F 4-Section Carbon Fiber Tripod, on the way from B & H, and will use my Manfrotto 393 Heavy Duty Gimbal Type Telephoto Lens Support on it. This head is nice and it has weight as well, but when all is balanced, the lens, camera, head just float on the legs. The advantage for the old folks is sometimes we like to just let go and have the twenty plus pounds on the tripod stay where it is. The tripod is rated for nearly 40 pounds. I use the RC-3 mount which gives a lot of fore and aft range for balancing the unit. Even though it is heavy to carry around, once set up I love it.
This should be interesting to see if I get results as good as I am hoping for. With the D4 this might be a nice combo, and the 1.4 teleconverter allows a slightly shorter set up. In the other hand, a body, possibly D90 or new D800, with the 70-200 to cover things which get close.Ms. Tommie Lauer
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
