Be gentle lol first time taking pics of a hummingbird, and I spent so much time today editing (non bird) pictures I can't tell if crop and wb are good they both look off to me lol.
400 GM 2.8 @400mm and f/2.8
I am in love with that 2.8, but I see the importance of those 200mm on the long line... But then there is size, too... If you stay sit a lot maybe that 200mm and those >9cm longer would not mind too much... But I would bring around the 400 easier... And 2.8 means 15-30 minutes more shooting...
arbitrage wrote:
Great shots, keep them coming to feed my GAS....I'm still pin-balling back and forth between buying 400 vs 600....arrgghhhh....
Go the 400mm, I did and love it . I know its Canon
On a serious note, I am hanging to see what Canon brings to the table. I am liking a few features with playing with the 90D and the R; However if it is not to my liking I think I will be going to the Sony 400mm and a9 II. Time will tell.
RobAmy wrote:
Go the 400mm, I did and love it . I know its Canon
On a serious note, I am hanging to see what Canon brings to the table. I am liking a few features with playing with the 90D and the R; However if it is not to my liking I think I will be going to the Sony 400mm and a9 II. Time will tell.
Quote:"Sony 400mm and a9 II." <- probably optimal choice!
fadeslayer wrote:
I am in love with that 2.8, but I see the importance of those 200mm on the long line... But then there is size, too... If you stay sit a lot maybe that 200mm and those >9cm longer would not mind too much... But I would bring around the 400 easier... And 2.8 means 15-30 minutes more shooting...
A big reason I'm strongly considering the 400 is that I will go out and about with it much more than the 600 just because of the size of the 600. When I owned the Canon 600II for many years, it was always a consideration if I wanted to lug it around and deal with the added attention out in the field (which I despise).
RobAmy wrote:
Go the 400mm, I did and love it . I know its Canon
On a serious note, I am hanging to see what Canon brings to the table. I am liking a few features with playing with the 90D and the R; However if it is not to my liking I think I will be going to the Sony 400mm and a9 II. Time will tell.
I still remember our PM discussion over the merits of the 400 when you couldn't get the 600 in time for CR. I was a little surprised you ended up keeping it over the 600 considering your history of 600s and 800s. But just as I argued for the 400 back then, I continue to try and convince myself that I can live without 1200mm. But whether Canon or Sony the situation is the same...~20 odd MP camera and amazingly lightweight lenses with top notch IQ.
Imagemaster wrote:
You could have fooled me. I thought you were trying to talk everyone else into not being able to live without 1200mm.
Nope, not for a long time. All I've done in recent posts is list the pros and cons of either option. I won't share my PM conversations on here or they wouldn't be PMs but I now have had conversations with four different members about 400 vs 600 and I believe three out of the four have gone for the 400 with one still undecided (like myself). Also hard to argue against just shooting the 200-600 for its versatility and ease of use. As even it can get to 1200 if you like to shoot in harsh mid-day light
. I know its Canon 
