Fabercula wrote in post #17587125
Hello, just two more questions; this week I ma going to buy my 100-400 IS II and, my question is, owing a 55-250 had I better hang on to it or can I get rid of it and save some money on the price of the 100-400.
The only reason I can think of is its weight, but then I think that having a 100-400 I wouldn't use it any longer often.
What's your opinion?
Second, I bought 2 weeks ago an extender Kelko 1.4 DGX, will it work with the 100-400?
With my macro 100mm L it works fine.
Thank you,
Fabrizio
Hello, just two more questions; this week I ma going to buy my 100-400 IS II and, my question is, owing a 55-250 had I better hang on to it or can I get rid of it and save some money on the price of the 100-400.
The only reason I can think of is its weight, but then I think that having a 100-400 I wouldn't use it any longer often.
What's your opinion?
Second, I bought 2 weeks ago an extender Kelko 1.4 DGX, will it work with the 100-400?
With my macro 100mm L it works fine.
Thank you,
Fabrizio
Unless you need the extra money in order to fund the 100-400L II purchase, I would hang onto the 55-250. That lens probably will not net you much money, and having a small, light weight telephoto available can be handy for those times you want to travel lighter and can get by with less reach. That is the reason I never sold my 70-200 f/4 IS even after buying the original 100-400L, and now upgrading to the 100-400L II. The 70-200 does not get used as much, but there are times I prefer to travel lighter.
As for the Kenko extender, I own the older 1.4x DG version and it works fine with the 100-400L II. I have read of a couple people on this forum having issues getting the newer DGX version to work properly, though.
