Who Chose the 300 f4 over the 100-400 for Birding and Why?

petebuster wrote:

Ken Gosden wrote:

ahaslett wrote:

petebuster wrote:

Looks a great lens but you really have to be able justify paying that kind of money, unless money is no object otherwise this Imo is aimed at pros that write it off to customers or expenses, for most of us it's overpriced.

I'm glad you like it but my used Canon 300mm f/4 L IS USM cost under £600. Of course I had to buy an MB4 to use it properly, but I can share Canon lenses with the A7R.

My Olympus 300mm fund got raided to buy a used Canon 24mm TSE ii.

Andrew

Your strategy makes more sense for you as you own multiple body systems. And not all are crop sensors. Not sure a pure Olympus owner had as big an incentive especially if their needs are focused just on telephoto. Adding in the Metabones for one lens is a tough call. And if you are not on the EM-1 focus performance might not meet expectations.

Personally I have found that the 50-200 SWD and EC20 work fine for me. A lot easier to carry and faster focusing than my Bigma. Now the Bigma plus EC20, that's a real emergencies only use case.

Bigma can't recall how far away this fox was, but he was barely a moving speck that Behaved like a fox to the naked eye

Bigma+EC20

This is a situation where a nikon p900 would probably be more useful

Yep.  And down that lane we all go... ...a 1" superzoom has been a discussion for years with us too.  But the right one doesn't exist just yet - even though the P900, FZ's, and Sony's are getting ever closer.

We're open.  But will stay with Oly for now - as we still have a lot of learning to do.  Money saved and waiting will open opportunities.  No rush here.