i have had marginal success with my Sigma 50-500 because it is too slow to let AF work well when zoomed out much more than about 300. it's sharp or abberation-free enough for publication quality only without a TC. most of the times, i need the high magnification. the FA 80-320 just isn't sharp enough and aberration-free enough for pro bird photography. that's one of the reasons the FA* 300 f2.8 and the FA* 400 f5.6 are on my high need list to replace the Sigma. there is also a fair possibility of getting the FA* 250-600 too. the static shots doable with MF are fun, but a successful in-flight shot is worth a lot more for stock, as you know. things have to be done soon for this year as the bird migration/nesting season is coming up really quickly. with birds landed, it's like portrait photography, have to get the eyes in focus or else.
Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:11 AM Subject: Re: to *ist or not to *ist, that is the question! > That's true. I was thinking about birds in trees or in the bush, which > is the way i generally try to shoot them. I've not had much success > shooting flying birds with my manual A 400/5.6, but I've had a lot of > fun trying.
