BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Roy C" data-source="post: 1168806" data-attributes="member: 18798">I am in a similar position to 'amilne'. At the moment I have the 400 f5.6 which is a great lens but I am looking for more reach. If I was confident I could handle the weight I would get a 500mm f4 tomorrow (probably using it as a 700mm f5.6 most of the time) trouble is that I never shoot from a hide or wait around for the birds but tend to do longish walks and take my shots as and when the opportunity's occurs. I can walk for 3-4 hours with the 400 5.6 and 40D around my neck and be ready to take a shot in seconds - I wonder how many shots I would miss If I had to use a tripod all the time?If I got the 300mm f2.8 I would be using it as a 600mm f5.6 just about all the time, I keep wondering if the 300 with a 2x would be as good a IQ as the 400 5.6 bare lens. Any one done such a comparison?Another option is the sigma 500 f4.5 but that it heavier than the 300 2.8 and I think you would lose AF with a 1.4tc on a 40D.All very frustrating when you have the cash waiting, perhaps I should spend some of it on a body building course :-O</blockquote>