maholyoak wrote:
There are still some clear reasons why someone would want a 400 2.8 over the smaller lighter 300 2.8. The wide aperture for indoor sports or mammals or birds in the forest are a clear plus of the 400 2.8.The ability to shoot birds in flight at 800 5.6 whereas the 600 f/4 would be too long for some applications. The 400 2.8 is not crazy heavy can still carried on my shoulder for most of the day, its a lot lighter that the older Canon and Nikon lenses. If your going to own both the 300 2.8 and 600 4 I can see this being a winning combo but how many people would actually carry both, say on a safari trip, or international birding trip.
I have the 200-600 on one camera and 300 on another here. Again, the 400 is just not a comfortable weight to handhold for long periods of time. Are people going to use a tripod in the forest?
While driving for a week in Etosha, I had both of these lenses, with a camera each, on my lap, while being the driver.
maholyoak wrote:
There are still some clear reasons why someone would want a 400 2.8 over the smaller lighter 300 2.8. The wide aperture for indoor sports or mammals or birds in the forest are a clear plus of the 400 2.8.The ability to shoot birds in flight at 800 5.6 whereas the 600 f/4 would be too long for some applications. The 400 2.8 is not crazy heavy can still carried on my shoulder for most of the day, its a lot lighter that the older Canon and Nikon lenses. If your going to own both the 300 2.8 and 600 4 I can see this being a winning combo but how many people would actually carry both, say on a safari trip, or international birding trip.
I have the 200-600 on one camera and 300 on another here. Again, the 400 is just not a comfortable weight to handhold for long periods of time. Are people going to use a tripod in the forest?
While driving for a week in Etosha, I had both of these lenses, with a camera each? on my lap, while being the driver.
Jul 18, 2024 at 01:54 PM
Previous versions of shadow9d9's message #16596992 « Sony 400mm f2.8 GM Observation »
