>>3292658>would I be fine without a tripod at 400mm?Not with a cheap 400mm, because you'll get maximum aperture of 6.3 and IQ is garbage below 11, also being a cheap tele means it's actually slower than the reported number and you'll have to add a stop or two to compensate. It will be also very hard to focus because the split prism doesn't work at such low light that the lens can put through in all but the brightest conditions. Get a decent 300mm prime and a 1.4 teleconverter, then you'll have a lens that's far better than a cheap 400mm with already respectable length and the possibility to boost it to 420mm when you really need to. Or go balls to the wall and get a 8/500 catadioptric, which has pretty much the same drawbacks as a cheap 400mm but is at least smaller in size.
