mitesh wrote:
I think it’s meant to be taken in context. It’s relatively light compared to other 400/2.8 lenses. I shot this lens and an a9 next to a shooter with a 1D series and Canon 400/2.8 IS (mk I). His rig was literally more than twice the weight of the Sony combo. That’s a significant difference, I’d say.
The review does not mention in comparison. He just states how light it is. It is the same weight pretty much as the 600 f4. Hell, if it actually were lighter weight, at near 2k grams, I'd buy it today. But it is nowhere near light, which is stated multiple times in the review.
It keeps mentioning handholdable. While possible, it wouldn't be comfortable nor universally considered handholdable. The qualifier, compared to dslr lenses, should be added for clarity.
shadow9d9 wrote:
It keeps mentioning handholdable. While possible, it wouldn't be comfortable nor universally considered handholdable. The qualifier, compared to dslr lenses, should be added for clarity.
I don't know if you even have Canon 800IS or NIkon 800FL before. I DID. It is DAMN IMPOSSIBLE TO shot handheld on those DSLR lens. I'm talking about about shooting at 800mm handheld. You're holding a 7 lbs combo vs 15+ lbs. Try to walk or hike with your DSLR 800mm range for 12 miles on the sand, then tell me if your DSLR combo more comfortable.
scott f wrote:
In your opinion, if shooting longer than 800(aka using the 600 with 1.4 and 2x) was not a priority, do you think the 400 + 2x is a solid performer combo? I'd use it with the A7R4 and A9.
I'm debating the 400 for the extra stop and versatility, but if it doesn't perform superbly with the 2x, then I may reconsider....and if I delay long enough, the 500f4 might be out.
400GM + 2x TC is proven extremely SHARP. Head to my FB for many many samples i took during the last 12 months. Both 400GM and 600GM designed to camera with resolution up to 100 megapixel. Both TC works extremely well and retain superior IQ.
Alex Phan wrote:
400GM + 2x TC is proven extremely SHARP. Head to my FB for many many samples i took during the last 12 months. Both 400GM and 600GM designed to camera with resolution up to 100 megapixel. Both TC works extremely well and retain superior IQ.
shadow9d9 wrote:
The review does not mention in comparison. He just states how light it is. It is the same weight pretty much as the 600 f4. Hell, if it actually were lighter weight, at near 2k grams, I'd buy it today. But it is nowhere near light, which is stated multiple times in the review.
It keeps mentioning handholdable. While possible, it wouldn't be comfortable nor universally considered handholdable. The qualifier, compared to dslr lenses, should be added for clarity.
To bring it in perspective here - until recently, my longest lens was an adapted Canon 600mm f/4 Mark II that I used either on the A9 or occasionally on the A7r III. There was no way I could handhold that lens for tracking BIF. While I do have a sturdy tripod and a gimbal head and I used that on a regular basis with that lens but I noticed that those small birds that fly at fast speed with erratic pattern, e.g. following they prey, are simply tough to follow while the lens/camera was mounted on the tripod. I am pushing 70 and I resigned to the fact that was the end of my serious birding days.
But Sony invited us to try that lens and the 200-600mm lens and I did that at the Sony Center in LA, After that I felt confident I could do it. And I purchased the GM 600mm lens; it was a deliberate move and not on impulse, in other words. Yes, there is a difference of approximately 2 pounds between the Canon and GM and there is no need to use any adapter but the main reason for a more handhold-ability is the significant shift of the center of gravity towards the camera. I am using a shoulder stock that would allow the weight to be put on my right shoulder and I am using that lens handheld a lot since August this year. And I got keepers that I could not get previously. That is with the GM 600mm, which is even heavier than the GM 400mm.
But I realize that your mileage may vary and to each his/her own.
shadow9d9 wrote:
The review does not mention in comparison. He just states how light it is. It is the same weight pretty much as the 600 f4. Hell, if it actually were lighter weight, at near 2k grams, I'd buy it today. But it is nowhere near light, which is stated multiple times in the review.
It keeps mentioning handholdable. While possible, it wouldn't be comfortable nor universally considered handholdable. The qualifier, compared to dslr lenses, should be added for clarity.
Notice that the review is a year old, this thread is a year old. There was no Canon 400III, 600III or Sony 600GM when Alex wrote the review. (well the Canon lenses may have just been announced). At that point in time the weight of this lens was unheard of and a huge savings over the existing Nikon 400E and Canon 400II.
The weight is published and obviously everyone has a different tolerance for how heavy of a lens they want to hike with or handhold or even carry from their car to their tripod. But lightweight is certainly a term I would have used to describe this lens back in Oct 2018 and it still is a lightweight lens for its focal length and aperture.
Many people would probably call the Canon 300 f/4 lightweight but get a hold of the Nikon 300PF and you might have to reconsider that. Everything is relative.
shadow9d9 wrote:
The review does not mention in comparison. He just states how light it is. It is the same weight pretty much as the 600 f4. Hell, if it actually were lighter weight, at near 2k grams, I'd buy it today. But it is nowhere near light, which is stated multiple times in the review.
It keeps mentioning handholdable. While possible, it wouldn't be comfortable nor universally considered handholdable. The qualifier, compared to dslr lenses, should be added for clarity.
I think that most reasonable readers can understand context. The term "light" when used to describe weight in the context of a discussion about a 400mm f/2.8 lens is obviously used in comparison with the weights of lenses in a similar class.
As for the relatively small weight differential between the 400 GM (2895g) and 600 GM (3040g), that's also typical of other manufacturers' stabilized 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses:
Canon EF 400/2.8L IS III (2840g)
Canon EF 600/4L IS III (3050g)
