400mm f/5.6 - worth it? (1 Viewer)

[JRE]

OK thanks for the info. I'm still glad I've chosen the prime, it seems to be a fantastic lens.
Joe

 

[Paul - Herts]

I was out to-day and got talking to a pro, well he must be a pro sells his pics.
I was out in the Heron hide at Rutland Water, and he came in puffing and Banting.
He had I think a 300-800 lens, and a hand held sigma 50 -500.

Just out of interest, was this "pro" short and fat with a scruffy beard, wearing a camouflage jacket and hat and carrying a blue folder with samples of his photos?

Just out of interest.

Paul

wanted to ask people's opinion on the Canon 300mm f4 too. I can't make my mind up between this and the 400mm f5.6. The advantages of the 300mm are the closer focusing and the IS compared with the 400's extra reach, but the 400 has neither of the above.

I already have the Sigma 500mm f7.2 that mike from ebbw uses to such great effect, but have been offered the opportunity to set up a feeding station in a local nature reserve. As such, I'll be able to get closer to the birds, but will the 300mm have the reach I need? I've seen that the 1.4x canon extender will work with the 300mm giving AF, but not the 400mm; this would give me a 420mm f5.6 lens but would the IQ be much worse?

Or the Sigma 100-300mm f4 lol

Difficult decision as it is a choice of one of these lenses and nothing else until my 6 numbers come up on the lottery.

 

[Nikon Kid]

Hi Bhoggy

Not him but the Wolfman Villayat Wolf Sunkmanitu LRPS nice geezer