Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:02 PM 5/2/98 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks Eric, > >I did mean 6.8, not 6.3. When I was looking for a tele lens to take to >Alaska, Don Chatterton talked me into getting a 2X extender to use with my >180 rather than getting a 400/560. As it turned out, it worked out fine. > >However, I've always wondered about these lenses. Well, the 180 is good, and much more compact than carrying the full 400, or espeically the 560. But one cool thing about the 400 and 560 is they break in half and store that way if you want. The 400 ends up being pretty small, considering. And you can get an extension tube to put in the middle that lets you focus down real close. Somewhere around 1:3 if I remember correctly. I had one, and it worked pretty good, but wide open the depth of field is nil. And this lens was made to be shot wide open. ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch How do I set my laser printer on stun?