The new 100-400mm seems to work.

On 7/8/2018 8:50 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 8, 2018, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Today in the wind North of San Simeon.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg
Oh, yes, indeed!

Thanks.

Here are two mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg

I'd say that lens was a good investment.

So far I am happy with it. I will probably buy the 1.4TC though the reach I
get now is just fine.
Next I will have to track down an airshow. ;-)

For now here is another of the windsurfer shots:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-cs5phDS/0/ce74ad5f/O/i-cs5phDS.jpg


You have a lot of reach. To me the images look a bit soft, with some CA,
and there could be more detail in the highlights. I suspect some
exposure compensation would bring back the highlights.

--
PeterN