eaj101
Well-known member
Over time I've noticed that, perhaps due to Steve's advocacy of, and stellar images from, the 600mm f4, people here seem heavily weighted towards the 600mm f4 as the pinnacle of long lenses for wildlife and bird photographers. Despite the obvious drawbacks to such an approach (you need a Sherpa, your own airplane, and a small bank $$$ of your own).
Oddly enough, this isn't what I see elsewhere. I'm in Northern California and we have a number of really big wildlife refuges. At the refuges in the area I generally see a few 800 f5.6 lenses, a few 600mm f4s, a LOT of 500mm f4 lenses, and a few 400mm f2.8 lenses (Those are the primes. Of course most of what you see are less expensive long zooms. Tamron, Sigma, Nikon, Sony). Where birds aren't a major factor, I see almost none of the really big (800/600) guns and a big preponderance of 500mm f4 lenses. (and of course, increasing numbers of PFs).
So I'm curious about the what/where/why of the choice of a supertelephoto lens. Taking all factors into account - portability, airplanes, reach with and without TCs, image quality - what's your rationale and why?
Oddly enough, this isn't what I see elsewhere. I'm in Northern California and we have a number of really big wildlife refuges. At the refuges in the area I generally see a few 800 f5.6 lenses, a few 600mm f4s, a LOT of 500mm f4 lenses, and a few 400mm f2.8 lenses (Those are the primes. Of course most of what you see are less expensive long zooms. Tamron, Sigma, Nikon, Sony). Where birds aren't a major factor, I see almost none of the really big (800/600) guns and a big preponderance of 500mm f4 lenses. (and of course, increasing numbers of PFs).
So I'm curious about the what/where/why of the choice of a supertelephoto lens. Taking all factors into account - portability, airplanes, reach with and without TCs, image quality - what's your rationale and why?