ben egbert Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Imagemaster wrote:
Speaking for yourself, of course. Whether or not it is not really hard depends on a number of factors. And anyone that has no trouble handholding a 500 f4 has even less trouble handholding and maneuvering a 100-400.
My point was its not the shake as most people assume. Of course I always shot one of two ways. I used a tripod and Sidekick when I could or hand held when that was not possible. But in most cases for non static subjects, I need such a fast shutter speed to stop motion, that hand jitter was irrelevant.
My arms got tired of course, but you only have the camera lens up for a few seconds. The tripod or monopod were a good way to support the camera for long periods in a stand.
I had a hard time learning the reverse motion for gimbal set ups so I often took the camera off when birds were flying because I could acquire the bird faster that way.
The 100-400 is easier to carry of course, so if weight is an issue the lighter lens may be a better choice.
I have the 100-400 v2, and no longer have my 500f4. But if I had both, the 500F4 would be my choice for an eagle picking up a fish or a red wing black bird in a marsh. And the 600+1.4x would probably be better.
For me, I am not good enough and don't have the bird population to justify the cost of a 500F4 or any other big white. I know that the 100-400 v2 will produce some very nice wildlife images under the right conditions.
I am extremely glad for the years of great bird photography I got from the 500F4, but in the end, better photographers could get better shots with smaller cheaper lenses. It was all about stalking skills, finding birds and hand eye coordination.
|