Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gib, I have the Leitz 2X Extender and the 180 Elmar. I used this combination in Alaska with Kodachrome 200. I was able to obtain some good results. However, I wouldn't recommend this combination. Even with the Elmar wide open you have an effective aperture of f/8 and that results in a pretty dim viewfinder...even with a Leicaflex SL. The 2.8 Elmarit would work much better. Both the Elmar and the Extender are great optics. It's just that the combination isn't very convenient. A good Extender will cost you $495 (more for the SL/SL-2 version). A decent 400 mm f/6.8 Telyt will probably cost about $800 with the stock. This would be a better solution if you could justify it. BTW, I recently got a book from the library where the Telyts were used extensively by the photographer. The results were terrific and the photographer raved about these lenses. Bud Gib Robinson wrote: > I'm embarrassed to admit that my first posting to this list is about the > OTHER sort of Leica -- the . . er. . . um . . . R Leica; but I have a > problem. I have a 2 1/2 year-old daughter. She's not the problem but she > loves birds and images of birds. That's a problem because I don't own a > lens longer than 180mm (f/4). When I've had the good luck to photograph > birds who were willing to perch within 15 feet, she loved it. We've done > Mallards and seagulls, robins, bluejays, blackbirds, and occasionally other > birds who were careless and came within range. (Her favorite bird is a Great > Horned Owl but we haven't found a nest yet). > > I want to extend the range of my lenses. I'm considering two options: buy a > 400mm or 2X tele-extender. Which would you recommend? The 400 TELYT 6.8 is > likely to be a little more expensive than the 2X and I assume it would be > somewhat more stable with a shoulder stock and grip. Photographically I > assume the 400 might be somewhat better than the 2X, but I don't know. > Apparently the 2X (non-Apochromatic) was designed as a good match for the > f/4 180. What do you think? Which would you recommend. > > Thanks very much. > > Gib Robinson