400mm

Nope, no surprise John - and nor am I surprised that I'm not seeing much evidence on this thread that the prime is better than the 100-400mm..!

As usual!



Hopefully that should be enough smileys...

A godwit from me:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

That's because the people with soft 100-400's aren't going to admit it.

There are some very sharp copies around though, that's what your seeing.

MarkEvan wrote in post #3263829
Thanx, again I havn`t had a chance to check the link but will do so soon. Do you use the 400 still?

Mark

Keith R wrote in post #3267107
Nope, no surprise John - and nor am I surprised that I'm not seeing much evidence on this thread that the prime is better than the 100-400mm..!

Yes the 400 still comes in handy and I have a ton of big glass.

As far as evidence I sold the 100-400mm for the 400mm prime and af speed and iq is unmatched by my copy of the zoom. I do miss the 100-400 for zoos and larger animals but never for birds. 2.6mb Pelican pic from the 400 prime.

http://www.allensvisio​ns.com/pics/VIS_1144f.​jpg

A little more 'evidence'

http://www.allensvisio​ns.com/pics/VIS_1137w2​.jpg

Sorry about the large watermarks but on a image this size I don't want it stolen

MarkEvan wrote in post #3263829
Thanx Bettyn, another vote for the 400, it seems to have quite a following here! And yeah the 500 is expensive, but you get what you pay for, I have no doubt that those who use it will confirm that it is the best "birding lens."

Well I might debate the 600 being better depending of what you shoot and where you are located.