Michael Eckstein

<p>If I could only have one lens to use for nature photography it would be the Sigma 150 -600C. I own or have owned all the lenses mentioned. I find I am leaving my "L" lenses home and using the Sigma virtually all of the time. There is no question this lens is the most versatile and gives the best bang for the buck. I am constantly amazed at the image quality.<img src="http://www.meckstein.com/post/card100.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>This is a 100% crop from an image at 600mm</p>

<p>Ninety nine percent of the time the problem is the magician and not the wand.</p>

<p>Actually the 400L ƒ5.6 weighs less (2.75lb vs 3.04lb)and costs less ($1339 vs, $1700) then 100/400L. Additionally better image quality and faster auto focus. I've owned both and kept the 400L ƒ5.6.</p>

<p>I owned and used the 100/400L for about 10 years. One day I borrowed a friend's 400L ƒ5.6. The difference in image quality and auto focus acquisition speed was so significant that I bought a 400L ƒ5.6. I found I shot about 90% of my 100/400L images at 400mm. So the change to the straight 400mm was a minor challenge.<br> If I could have only one lens it would be the 100/400L, but if I could have two lenses it wouldn't be one of them.<br> I also had the 70/200L ƒ4. When I bought the 400L ƒ5.6. I replaced the 70/200 with the 70/300L. I feel I have made a significant gain in overall image quality and auto focus acquisition with these equipment changes.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p><img src="http://www.springhillcameraclub.org/post/reddish2.jpg" alt="" />I've owned all three and the best of the bunch is the 70/300L. BTW that is the only one I still own. It's one of the best lenses I've ever owned and I have owned Hasselblad and Leica systems.<img src="http://www.meckstein.com/post/reddish2.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p>