Thanks for the detailed info, Sinh. Your pics make me want the 400 f/5.6 (I know that's irrational- you probably could have taken just as nice pics with any lens, and even if I had the 400 f/5.6, I wouldn't have gotten those cool bird shots []) The 100-400 objectively seems like a better deal to me than the prime: with zoom and IS it seems like it should cost more (the 70-200 f/2.8 IS costs like 3 times as much as the 200mm f/2.8 prime, for example). Yet I like the *idea* of the prime better. (Heart wants prime, mind wants zoom). Any thoughts? I hope I'm not getting too off topic.
I haven't had a problem getting close to hummingbirds. In fact, I use my 70-200 with extension tubes to get just a few feet away (you can see them at http://picasaweb.google.com/jonruyle/Hummingbirds#, and I've embedded one below... I likned to these before in an earlier thread). As you say, you just have to wait. The problem for me is everything else, he he.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93/hb-1.jpg[/img]
1DIIN 70-200 f/2.8 IS + extension tubes (160mm @f/4) 1/1250 sec iso 1250
Reply With Quote
