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="Keith Reeder" data-source="post: 1209057" data-attributes="member: 4913">Shrugs..! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> The Exif is in all my pics, and the number that are under 400mm is not insignificant. Not for a second singling out your comments Paul: I completely get the "more reach" argument - I've said that I would use a TC if it would work with my 40D - I just bridle slightly at the implication that the ability to zoom is in essence an irrelevance to a birding lens decision: for some it certainly isn't irrelevant, or of no practical benefit. I'm just providing my view for the purpose of balance in response to Dave's I never hear people say "that birds too close" - well I say it. I often find that birds can be close enough to warrant using the zoom function. And I'll bet you've all chopped the wings off BIFs that have been too close to fit in the frame, for example. If a given person doesn't want a zoom that's just fine and dandy, but it doesn't diminish the value of zooms for others, or make this altnerative view any less potentially useful for the next person that comes along... And don't forget either, that the ability to zoom allows new composition options not always available to prime users.</blockquote>