Anybody out there have direct shooting experience with the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 AT 300mm and f2.8 - and with extenders wide open also ?? Please no opinions - speak from experience -- I have read ALL the reviews !

Think of the subject you are trying to photograph as "jewelry" . To begin with you would need "tent" type lighting ......Google jewelry photography for other ideas.

Well, I have used the 500mm F6.3 Korean mirror lens. IF, you use a lenshood on it, and, IF you do good post processing, and IF, you hold it steady - as with a tripod or monopod, and IF you can focus accurately --- you will get an OK image - nothing to brag about but OK. IF you have a later higher pixel count body with a good 300mm lens, you might be just as well off or maybe better cropping. That's my 2-cents.

If size and weight are NOT an issue - Consider the Sigma 120 - 300 F2.8 zoom. With a 2X gets you to a REAL 600mm and AF ! These can now be had used for under $2k.

If you are serious about shooting wide angle, The Tokina 11-16 is held in very high esteem among experience shooters.

Fine Art America sells digital prints of artists works and they guarantee satisfaction. For 24 inches their minimum pixel count is 2057 or somewhere around 88 PPI ! So, may they be adding interpolation software ?????

These places that take low resolutions and make big prints may be using interpolation software that you are not aware of ? .....

P.S. Go to kenrockwell.com for reviews of all these lenses.

Well, 1st of all the F1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 for less $ and I would get it with the Canon 52mm 2-element close up lens so you could do close ups like the macro. You could also do low light where the macro could not.

Well, for wildlife the MOST important consideration is AF - how fast and accurate is the AF and do you even have it ?? Any lens beyond effective F5.6 does NOT have it. The latest modern Zooms are as sharp in the center as the older design primes - so if you are working with a crop sensor, there is NO practical difference in properly focused sharpness between zoom and prime. OS /IS is of no practical advantage with a long heavy lens as you will/should be using it on a monopod / tripod anyway. - And with OS/IS the higher complexity of contruction means there will be more "good" examples and "bad" examples - a higher liklyhood of "problems" both optical and mechanical. - AND, OS/IS will cost you $500 more.

Well folks, here is how I think of it - right or wrong ? In the offset printing industry ( I was there for 15 years ) normal 4-color printed images used "screenings" that were 133 lines per inch. Higher quality was 150 line and super quality was 175 line. So my thinking is 150-175 PPI - beyond that is superflous !

I would like to add one other thought here regarding the 1-4 and 400 prime. The 400 prime is 7 elements non-IS, the 1-4 is 17 elements + IS. It is much more difficult to manufacture the 1-4, so you have a greater liklyhood of getting one that is less than optimum performing.

Pictures aside, Here are the Photozone test scores for the 1-4 and 400 prime on APS C at 8 MP: 1-4 @ 400 f5.6 (1670) center, (1592) edge, 400 prime @f5.6 (1657 ) center, (1655 ) edge . So, the 1-4 "wins" in the center but "looses" at the edge. This difference is so small as to be indiscernable by most mortals ! So, in my opinion it comes down to ergonomics and speed of use.

Sorry, I forgot to say - I recommend Tamron converters for their price/performance.

Well, you can still manually focus with the converter !