thedutt Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Canon 100300 f2.8 with 2x for wildlife vs 400 2.8 RF?  
Added to summary also, but some details:
I have finally processed all my photos that I want to keep from my recent trip to Alaska. I ended up taking both 100300 & 400 f2.8 to the trip, but based on the results, If I had left the 400mm back, it would not have had a huge impact on my keepers.
Top photos , the ones I am sharing and printing etc: total: 35
100300 f2.8: bare:15, 1.4x:4, 2x:9
400mm f2.8: bare: 0, 1.4x:4, 2x:0
24105mm : 3
Photos that I like enough to keep them including variations of similar shots:
Bear photos in Hallo Bay
100300 f2.8: bare:160, 1.4x: 55 , 2x: 215
400mm f2.8: bare:0 1.4x:60, 2x:0
24105mm : 40
Sealions, Sealife, Artic Terns,Eagles,swans etc in Valdez/Anc:
100300 f2.8: bare:8, 1.4x: 7, 2x: 3
400mm f2.8: bare:11,1.4x:52 , w/2x: 13
24105mm : 98
All the photos in my two posts from hallo bay are with 100300.
