StillFingerz Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Thanks for everyone's input and images, while re-reading your comments and TDP's reviews of both lenses two items really caught my eye.
The weight difference between the prime and zoom isn't really that much, only about 4oz., so it's not that big of an issue...as was thought!
The minimum focusing distance with the prime is near double that of the zoom. Closer focusing is a biggie for me as I'm sure I'd want to add extension tubes for flowers n such. That magnification factor, even just a bit more, really would be quite usable; is very important!
When my arm strength is ready I'll rent both, take a week to evaluate each. All your images really did help, there seems to be only minor differences in sharpness between these lenses. And as for AF speed, I'm not exactly quick on the draw myself.
Quite often the 17-40 and 70-200 f4L IS are my most used combo, I can see the utility/versatility in swapping zooms. Having 17-400mm with a Crop or FF body would be stellar, and the 100-400 zoom would fit without issue in a bag; it's actually shorter than the 300 f4
There's more than just shooting at 400mm to consider. I get such versatility from the 300 f4 with tubes and extenders for flower work, I was thinking the 400 prime might do the same, but it wont, not with it's huge MFD.
Seems I've more weight training ahead of me, hand-holding this lens would be optimal and if I can do so then the IS would be a big help; it is with every other lens in my kit.
You folks are the best, thanks for your public and private comments, and your indulging yet another 400 vs 100-400 questioning. Your efforts have born much fruit, food for thought, and I appreciate every comment, quip and image
Cheers,
Jerry
|