I recently sold off my 300mm f2.8 and picked up a 500mm f4...have that, a 400mm f5.6 and a 100mm macro, and a 17-40mm f4
Have had a major hole in my close range birding/wildlife for quite awhile now, got the 400 after my 80-400mm sigma died and planned to sell the 400mm lens when I got the 300mm 2.8. Jumping to 500mm I really need to swap it for something in between.
I was thinking a 70-200mm f4, and throw on the 1.4x tc when necessary or the 70-300mm L. Just wondering if anyone had any preferences in the $1,000 range that I'll get by selling the 400 prime?
Problem is I know I'm really going to miss that lens once its gone.
I think the 100-400/L IS suggested by verbiage is a good choice, especially if you're going to sell your 400/5.6L to finance it. The 100-400L IS has MFD = 1.8m (~6 ft), while MFD for 400/5.6L is 3.5m (~11 ft).
OTOH, you could get a 70-200/2.8L and use the Extender on your 300/2.8 when you need 400mm. The 70-200/2.8L is a great companion for the 300/2.8L in many situations.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Mixxed as in in it's merely very good or it's excellent, because they are the only mixed reviews I've seen of this wonderful lens.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Mixxed as in in it's merely very good or it's excellent, because they are the only mixed reviews I've seen of this wonderful lens.
Anything else is BS.
Well, Michael didn't like it very much, and his test proved that 400 f/5.6 was much sharper. There.
PetKal wrote:
Well, Michael didn't like it very much, and his test proved that 400 f/5.6 was much sharper. There.
And it appears to be the sole negative review of this lens I know of of the web and is still trotted out to this date by naysayers that haven't used the lens.
