The 400 f/5.6 does seagulls for breakfast. I mean, the lens is more than sufficiently agile for their usual action speed/pattern.
Here is how papa Petkal likes to do seagulls.
blueshadows wrote:
When I owned the 100-400 I enjoyed the flexibility but often found myself at the long end; sold that and eventually bought the 400 5.6. I use it mostly on a tripod… and when I don't I revert to a Kinesis beanbag on the roof/hood of my vehicle. Without IS it is more difficult to hand-hold, at least for me. Another option, of course, is a monopod: the two shots following were done that way. Normally I'll shoot a fire drill up close (wearing turnouts and helmet) but on this day I'd only had the 400 for a day and thought "what the hay." I stayed cooler and got a few keepers to boot. Very sharp results (when I focus correctly) and these indicate a bit of the bokeh available wide open. Two good lenses and choices.
I too use the 400/f5.6 almost exclusively with a tripod. But sometimes with a beanbag and rarely with a monopod (which I'll have to use more often as it affords faster maneuverability). I don't know how you guys do it with those flying birds.
As it happens, I recently sold my 400mm F5.6. It was simply because I wasn't taking photography that needed the reach.
For the half a dozen times that I did use it, it was simply awesome for the price, and if I changed my photography habits again, I'd not hesitate to buy another.
and when I don't I revert to a Kinesis beanbag on the roof/hood of my vehicle. Without IS it is more difficult to hand-hold, at least for me. Another option, of course, is a monopod: the two shots following were done that way. Normally I'll shoot a fire drill up close (wearing turnouts and helmet) but on this day I'd only had the 400 for a day and