Originally posted by bertwert Funny you should mention that... not 200, I've been having a long look at picking up an Adaptall 300/2.8 (I believe you have one?) as the 60B pops up fairly often on ebay and the likes - thinking it would be nice to have something for lower light in the backyard mornings where I can get close to birds and not needing quite the range - but also to have the option of getting the 1.7x in the future for a longer and still slightly faster option - which would probably be nice to walkabout on a monopod (or handheld in a stable position). I think it would complement the A 400 quite well...
Yep, I have the
360B. I wasn't intending to purchase it when I stumbled across it, but I was so surprised to find it - with a PKA mount, no less - I bought it on impulse.
It's a very good lens, but does feel somewhat granular, in the sense that I also have the two 400mm lenses and 80-200/2.8
and 180/2.5. Sometimes I shoot my 360B simply out of neglectful guilt.
300/2.8 is pretty cool, though. And in the scenario you outlined it does make sense. And it works okay with the 1.7x AFA... although sometimes I feel like by the time I get the AF to lock on reliably, I could simply manually focus it.
Edit: More thoughts - with the 300/2.8 + 1.7x AFA combo, you're going to want to stop down a bit, so you'll be at f/6.7 (total) or slower most of the time... that's far from bad, but not quite as exciting as a 510/4.8 sounds. Adequate depth of field is an issue, too. More often than not, I feel like I'm "wasting" ISO performance because I have to stop down quite a bit to get enough DOF.
Edit #2: From a purely practical POV, if I were wandering around and wanted a couple of my telephoto lenses with me, I would take my A 400 + A-1.4x L TC and Tamron 180/2.5...
or I would take the 300/2.8 + A 2x-S TC. Because I would want a fair amount of separation in my available focal lengths.