Can you overcome not having a 2.8 or larger f-stop by using a tripod and longer exposure time? Or will images still lack saturation?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If wildlife is what you're interested in, consider carefully the drawbacks of a big fast lens before spending the big bucks.
For example:
) weight! not just the lens, but also the tripod it requires. Will your wildlife photography be limited to areas near parking lots, or do you want to hike or follow the animals with your camera?
) limited DOF. I found that the DOF of a 400mm f/2.8 was much too shallow to be useful for small animals or birds, so the value of the f/2.8 maximum aperture was limited at best.
) small animals are frightened of the huge 'eye' of the 400mm f/2.8, much more so than the smaller lenses like 400mm f/5.6 or 560mm f/6.8
) big fast lenses will flare more readily than a slower lens (of comparable design technology). I've also found that lenses with fewer air/glass interfaces consistently give me richer color saturation than lenses with more air/glass surfaces. The big fast lenses and the zooms (especially those with VR or IS) have many more air/glass surfaces than a prime lens of more modest aperture.
I sold the 400mm f/2.8. My 'fast' lens now is a 280mm f/4. This and the 560mm f/6.8 (typically under $1000 used) are my most-used lenses. I typically use a shoulder stock & monopod with my long lenses. See [a href=\"http://www.wildlightphoto.com]my website[/url] for lots of examples. Also keep in mind that long lenses are not always the right answer. Learning better approach technique costs a lot less and can be applied to any camera you have now or might use in the future.
Test your devotion to the craft and willingness to learn approach skills with something less expensive before buying the premium stuff. An older Novoflex 400mm f/5.6 T-Noflexar will set you back less than $200 and with practice can produce excellent results:
