Wasn't there a guy on BF (from Scotland??) who said he'd just received a batch (10+?) of the 400/5.6.

cheers,
Andy

Sure was, thats where I got mine. His name is Ian Kerr (KERSO). Price is around £740 inc P&P.

Hi Peter and thank you so much for that very useful information.

I've just one problem that I've thought about overnight (isn't there always ONE!!) How would I get on with in-flight shots? It wouldn't work out would it? I love the challenge of Birds in flight, but what to do if that IS the case?? I'll be so grateful for any/all information.

Thanks so much for getting back to me again so very quickly and I'll certainly hang on to that number, thanks.

Perplexed, Sue.

Hi Andy & Roy,

So sorry I didn't mean to snub you, just didn't realise there was another page started yet.

Funnily enough I'd been in touch with Ian, but I thought he only had the 300's and 100/400's. I didn't realise he could get more. :confused:

How about the in-flight problem (that I see anyway), any advice on that one please. Thanks to you both for getting back again too, so much appreciated.

Sue

The 400mm f5.6 prime has the reputation of being the best Canon lens available for flight shots because of the weight (or lack of it) and the quickness of the AF.

Brilliant Roy! So, am I right in thinking that both the flying shots and lack of IS can be overcome by the AF? If so, then I'm positive that's the one I'll have. Thank you so very much for getting back to me tonight, I so appreciate your help yet again.

Sue.

Hi Sue, I am not saying that the lack of IS is overcome by the AF - I have never used IS so would not know. All I am saying is that many good bird photographer use the 400 5.6 prime for flight shots. I have read that a lot of photographers dream lens would be the 400 prime with IS but I guess the price of such a lens would become prohibited for most users.

No, it's ok Roy, neither did I mean that totally, just that it might help with it being a 'faster' AF. However, with my 300 having had the IS I was very concerned about going backwards and not having it, especially with a heavier lens. Having read Christine's post it looks as though the AF at least compensates a bit for it though, which means SO much to me - though a 400 with IS would be wonderful - but astronomical. :eek:

The main thing I was so very pleased about with what you said yesterday though was the flying shots as I find them such a challenge and would hate to have real problems.

I know it's a case of wait and see as what works for one doesn't always do so for another, but... If I do get it though Roy and it really doesn't work out for me then I could always switch further down the line, best way to view it to my mind! Very many thanks for getting back again and for all your help Roy, much appreciated.

Sue

Hi Sue
I agree with everyone here who says the 400 prime is the best lens to use. I have used several over the last year or so and think this lens is worth every penny. Not having IS is not important as this lens is so sharp you wouldnt notice not having IS. This lens was built for flight shots. Its very fast focsuing, a real dream. here is a photo i took with it just today handheld.

I have a canon 300mm IS L-USM and i sometime use with it a 1.4 extender on it and the results are superb wether with out the 1.4 or with it,no differance at all ! superb and even for macro shots which i have used for some frog shots,the 70-200 mm you mentioned would be great for sport shots or animal shots at the Zoo !i was thinking of getting one once but at the moment i am happy with what i have mentioned,and i did think of getting the canon 200nn which i could use my extender on,i must admit i am a prime fan !i have a canon 100 to 300 mm f5.6 zoom and hardly us it,you have to say to yourself how much use would i get out of the 70-200 zoom lens then make your mind up !