excellent point about majority of shots being from the long end. Surely 80+% of my 70-300L IS shots are at 300mm...
little doubt that if I get the 100-400 II or the Sigma 150-600 S that the majority of my shots will be from the max FL.
Woohoo to you Lukas! Bet it felt like a long time.
On the 100-400 I know and have shot with 2 people who have 100-400 mk 1 and both will tell you that they almost always shoot at 400. I think its bought more for the reach than the versatility, reach at that price point on the 1st gen was not that much more than the 400 5.6 and then the versatility was a bonus/just in case thing. At the same time I think most would agree that the 400 5.6 is def. the sharper of the two. It is hoped by many that the 100-400 Mk ii will be as sharp at the far end.
Personally I'm not interested being very very pleased with the Tam 150-600, and like my original posit almost always I'm shooting it at 600mm and it was def. bought for the FL price point AND just as important the weight (or lack thereof in the Tammy).
Just an 0.02