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="a.dancy" data-source="post: 1679023" data-attributes="member: 25708">mtyoung400. Would I be correct in assuming that you will often have good light?Please go back to my post and read it. I own a 100-400 and use it because I like the versatility of it. It is with respect utter nonesense to make sharpness the main criteria for deciding which lens to buy. Different folk are very happy with what they have. Some love the 400 prime....and so they should. Others love the 300 with the option of a converter allowing extra speed at 300 and extra reach when a converter is added. Others like myself love the 100-400 because of the versatility. I also have a Sigma 300f2.8 which is extremely 'sharp'. If the 100-400 was that inferior I would never take it out , but I carry it with me every day.To answer your question honestly, the 100-400 does drop in IQ ever so slightly wide open but it can still produce a lot of detail and sufficient enough for publication. I will shoot at f5.6 and not give a moments thought about it.The reason I posed the question at the beginning was that if you are often blessed with good light you would be shooting at around f8 anyway which is the point at which sharpness or rather 'detail' optimises with this lens. The terms sharpness and detail are sadly often confused. You can sharpen in photoshop but you cannot add detail.The lens you should get is the one that would best suit you, your subjects (size and distance etc) , your light, your environment and your style. Everything else is just de minimis (not worth considering) in my humble opinion.</blockquote>

Verification