500mm vs 600mm?

WilbaW wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

If you are suggesting that there is no advantage of having an f/2.8 lens vs f/4 lens vs f/5.6 lens... when it comes to AF in a given lighting condition (particularly low light) then you don't have a clue what you are talking about. That seemed to be what you were suggesting in your original post.

If we are talking about a camera with only f/5.6 AF sensors, then yes, I'm stating there is no advantage to a lens with a maximum aperture wider than that (all other things being equal).

complete asinine!!!!!! it has nothing to do with the camera but rather the lens' aperture (how much light will the lens admit to pass through to the camera sensor)! if you hold a dark filter in front of a f2.8 lens, it'll still be a f2.8 lens and the camera will select the focusing spots designed for a f2.8 lens (unless you use a TC)! you are ignoring the size of aperture in your flawed argument, instead, you are emphasizing the amount of light and AF sensors.

Yes giving more light to a lens with a max aperture of f/8 will not help if AF when the sensors are only good to f/5.6.

So you agree - the f/5.6 limit is not about the level of illumination provided to the image sensor through the lens. Therefore it must be about something else about the aperture... right? I've already told you what that is but I'm happy to provide a much more explicit explanation if you're interested.

well, if your "much explicit" explanation is going to be like your argument, no thank you, save your breath!

I don't know of anyone personally who believes such a thing.

Yes, it's an almost universal misconception.

Do you "believe" the Earth is round, or do you accept the evidence that it is?

It seems like you are just making this statement to make yourself feel big.

Personal attacks are against the rules of this forum.