Rory B&W by Justin Akehurst, on Flickr
Rory by Justin Akehurst, on Flickr
Rory & his cone by Justin Akehurst, on Flickr
Actually managed to use my camera today - not the A9 though lol
. I kinda wish I'd gone further to the right and got a close'ish shot of the Scotsman, but had it in my head I wanted the whole train and viaduct. I shot at 35mm, my next lens was 85 , think 50mm would've been better from where I was stood, and that was a lens I didn't bring, doh. Still good to see and I enjoyed it. I've got more ideas for my next visit, and hopefully the cloud won't descend on us next time.
Yes
For wildlife reach is everything, 400mm isn’t really ‘that’ long. Of course it will depend on what/where you’re shooting and how well the A9 crops.
Yeah, as I said it depends but I would say most wildlife togs generally want as much reach as possible. Plus I’m pretty sure Andy wants it for wildlife parks such as YWP where of course you’re restricted to how close you can get. I’ve often wanted more than 600mm but have never wanted less than 200mm at such places. YMMV
I agree but one needs to weight up costs vs. usage.
Weight is definitely a consideration which is why I swapped my D850 and 150-600mm for the EM1-II and 100-400mm (200-800mm eq), the 150-600mm just became a bind to walk around with all day. For the record I also have used the 70-200mm at zoos etc but it's not the ideal focal length imoI agree but one needs to weight up costs vs. usage.
@rookies how often do you go to the zoo etc?
Here are some samples from the 70-200mm f2.8 GM at 200mm.
When you say slow I assume you mean aperture wise as AF is very good from my experience?
One day when I win the lotteryBig prime is the way forward
Definitely. I've just got one about a month or so ago. Used to have a sigma 150-600 but the image quality of the 100-400 is much better and also it's so much easier to carry around. Also I can fit it in my normal camera rucksack attached to my camera which I couldn't do with the 150-600.
@rookies what you want is the 100-400mm paired with the A7RIV
He’s concerned about weight
The 100-400 is a very nice lens. To me it’s major diadvantage is it’s biggest advantage. It does extend when zooming but that benefits the compact size. I use f stop bags, since moving to Sony their smallest bag (guru UL) and small shallow ICU has been my main bag. Compare that to when I used the Nikon 200-400 f4 which had to use the tilopa and XL ICU. I’ve also halved the weight from 7.5kg down to 3.5kg by changing to the 100-400 and smaller travel tripod (My hand holding isn’t quite up to scratch yet!). The only thing I miss about the Nikon is the faster stop if aperture but the compact size and weight outweigh that. Compact size and lightweight are the two main benefits. The extending zoom weather issue can be overcome by using a think tank emergency rain cover (the medium is perfect).
Yes, aperture wise.Weight is definitely a consideration which is why I swapped my D850 and 150-600mm for the EM1-II and 100-400mm (200-800mm eq), the 150-600mm just became a bind to walk around with all day. For the record I also have used the 70-200mm at zoos etc but it's not the ideal focal length imo
When you say slow I assume you mean aperture wise as AF is very good from my experience?
Are you smoking something?
Are you smoking something?
