p.1 #2 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
What do ya'll reckon is the most cost effective way to get into the 400mm 2.8 lens world (used)? Thinking at least Canon 400 mkII level of quality?
Nikon? Canon?
It's surely not Sony, which is what I currently shoot. I'd be looking at picking up a mirrorless body and lens outside of Sony.
You may want to also ask on the Canon board here, too, or cross-post.
That said, there are two mk II lenses in the EF (SLR/DSLR) mount line:
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L II USM - Released in 1996
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM - Released in 2011
In addition to saving 4.55 pounds of weight, the newer lens has Image Stabilization (Canon feature equivalent to OSS). It should also focus faster and utilizes newer glass technologies.
The lenses require an adapter to mount to a mirrorless camera (which use the RF mount). (This is similar to the Sony A-mount vs E-mount.) There is only one RF 400 2.8 available, and retails for $13k USD currently. Decidedly not cheap.
p.1 #3 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
I see the IS II in the 4000-5000 range now. It's no longer serviced by Canon but they are pretty sturdy and can be repaired elsewhere. Of course older models are cheaper and heavier. You are going to have it up on a monopod so it doesn't make a lot of difference really. I would recommend a used R6 II or R3 to pair with it balancing expense and performance.
p.1 #5 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
Llewtwo wrote:
I see the IS II in the 4000-5000 range now. It's no longer serviced by Canon but they are pretty sturdy and can be repaired elsewhere. Of course older models are cheaper and heavier. You are going to have it up on a monopod so it doesn't make a lot of difference really. I would recommend a used R6 II or R3 to pair with it balancing expense and performance.
Well you don't have to if you are strong enough:
Handholding the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM.
Canon EOS R3EF400mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens400mmf/2.81/1600s500 ISO+0.3 EV
p.1 #8 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
schlotz wrote:
Hmm... shooting in the rain with no hoods, sure why not?
Yes, not sure about that. That said, unless the hood is broken (as mine is), this photog did have their case with them, so it wasn't far away. I wasn't too happy with the rain as it did result in my front element getting wet. Time to order some parts from CPS, I guess.
p.1 #9 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
On the Canon 400mm ... go with an IS i or ii version. The non-IS versions are no where near as sharp. In fact, the first EF 400mm f2.8 was about as sharp as a coke bottle glued onto your camera body, which was a stunningly awful result considering how incredible the preceding FD mount lens was.
The other thing about some of the big white Canon lenses is that they are very robust and do seem to keep on ticking.
If you can, pair it with an R3. Costs a bit more, but will leave a whole lot happier than using it with an R6 or R5 variant.
p.1 #10 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
The hood doesn't add much weight but wouldn't be taking the risk of contact with the front element. I can count on one hand the number of photographers I have seen carrying a 400 for an entire football game and this includes the lighter RF version. I can't tell what the other body lens you have but most of the folks I see are running a three body set up so the monopod not only supports the body and lens but is more convenient to use when using a three body set up.
p.1 #13 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
I have the Canon 400mmf5.6 that I used (15 years)for Sports.(Lax and football) All outside so the aperature was good enough. The camera is very solid, light and did the job very well. It too the 1.4x and 2x tc's very well.
If the weather was cloudy, I had a very portable monopod for longer exposures.
Good luck!
Dan
p.1 #14 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
I actually got rid of my 400/f2.8 (v1, IS) this year and moved to a 200-400/f4 with the built-in 1.4x TC and I could not be more pleased with the switch. Last football season I had a conversation with a Getty shooter I frequently shoot college football and basketball with and he's been using a Nikon equivalent of that lens for a few years and he raved about it. I took the plunge and switched.
The 200-400 is an awesome lens for field sports. I just got mine (used from a seller here on FM) and have used it for MLB and major college football. Essentially, I have the entire zoom range from 200-560 covered with one lens. I covered a Big 12 game this past weekend that had an 11 a.m. kickoff and I frequently used the 1.4 tc with the flip of a switch and could cover SO much of the field. With MLB this summer, I would frequently switch to the TC as a player hit a deep ball and I knew there might be a catch far in the outfield. For example, I would be focused on the batter, he would hit the ball, I would swing the lens toward where the ball was headed, switch the TC and fire away.
Seriously, now that I have one I'm not sure why more people aren't using them. And don't even get me started on f4 and the bokeh issue between f4 and f2.8. It's a non issue, IMO. It just is. I guarantee I could post images shot at f4 that have incredible bokeh and no one would no the difference if I didn't say it was at f4. I have always had fast glass because EXPOSURE called for it. But with the ISO capabilities of today's bodies I was frequently shooting at f4 anyway (yes, indoors and at night at college, professional and even high school sporting events), so this lens just made sense for me. I get it that many HS and youth fields have really poor lighting and f2.8 would help. But I'm rarely shooting youth and HS any more and just didn't need the f2.8.
Funny too, that I see three of these lenses for sale right now on FM and the highest price one is $5k. I paid less than $4k for mine and it's mint and looks practically brand new. Great value lens that I'm very happy with. Hope this helps someone who is pondering this "how to get a 400mm lens" decision.
p.1 #15 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
And don't even get me started on f4 and the bokeh issue between f4 and f2.8. It's a non issue, IMO. It just is. I guarantee I could post images shot at f4 that have incredible bokeh and no one would no the difference if I didn't say it was at f4. I have always had fast glass because EXPOSURE called for it. But with the ISO capabilities of today's bodies I was frequently shooting at f4 anyway (yes, indoors and at night at college, professional and even high school sporting events), so this lens just made sense for me.
p.1 #16 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
Scott Sewell wrote:
Seriously, now that I have one I'm not sure why more people aren't using them. And don't even get me started on f4 and the bokeh issue between f4 and f2.8. It's a non issue, IMO. It just is. I guarantee I could post images shot at f4 that have incredible bokeh and no one would no the difference if I didn't say it was at f4. I have always had fast glass because EXPOSURE called for it. But with the ISO capabilities of today's bodies I was frequently shooting at f4 anyway (yes, indoors and at night at college, professional and even high school sporting events), so this lens just made sense for me. I get it that many HS and youth fields have really poor lighting and f2.8 would help. But I'm rarely shooting youth and HS any more and just didn't need the f2.8....Show more →
I have both the Canon 200-400 f/4 and as of recently, the 400mm 2.8 IS II.
Both have their place, but as Scott says, the flexibility it offers is immense where light allows.
With the 200-400, you do need to be more careful of your backgrounds though. It's entirely different depending on when and were you shoot and how much separation there is between the subjects and the background. One place I sometimes shoot football has a (padded) wall only about a yard behind the back of the endzone. That's a venue I'd like to shoot with a 2.8.
p.1 #17 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
Caleb Williams wrote:
...With the 200-400, you do need to be more careful of your backgrounds though. It's entirely different depending on when and were you shoot and how much separation there is between the subjects and the background. One place I sometimes shoot football has a (padded) wall only about a yard behind the back of the endzone. That's a venue I'd like to shoot with a 2.8.
We'll have to agree to disagree with the backgrounds issue, Caleb. Sure, backgrounds are important, but many times we just can't control them. Not at all. For example, if I'm shooting a batter or play at home plate at an MLB game from the third-base photo well, I can't do one thing about the backgrounds. Same for youth or high school baseball. Same for pretty much any sport. With the baseball example, especially, there is no other option for where to shoot from. It's either the first base or third base photo well. Sure, we can shoot up from the stands and the outfield, but most of the photos are coming from a designated place. And, IMO, the difference between f2.8 and f4 is negligible.
p.1 #18 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
The price seems to have rebounded a little. For a while you could pick one up at under $3500 and sometimes closer to 3000. I don't see many in use locally but it is a very versatile lens. I have never seen a detailed review of one under poor lights but have a friend that routinely used his for Friday Night Lights.
p.1 #19 · Cost efficient entry into 400mm 2.8 world?
Scott Sewell wrote:
Sure, backgrounds are important, but many times we just can't control them. Not at all. For example, if I'm shooting a batter or play at home plate at an MLB game from the third-base photo well, I can't do one thing about the backgrounds. Same for youth or high school baseball. Same for pretty much any sport. With the baseball example, especially, there is no other option for where to shoot from. It's either the first base or third base photo well. Sure, we can shoot up from the stands and the outfield, but most of the photos are coming from a designated place. And, IMO, the difference between f2.8 and f4 is negligible. ...Show more →
I think you perhaps misunderstood why I said what I said, for which I don't blame you, given the ambiguity in which I worded things.
When I was talking about watch your backgrounds, I meant paying attention to the sacrifice between zooming out and in. Because of the flexibility the lens allows by zooming, you can zoom out to get a wider shot, but you sacrifice some background being out of focus. Perhaps this is shooting at 300mm instead of 400mm and the bg is a little less blurry because of it. (Same with the shot in the other thread with the Canon 100-300 at f/6.3 and 1xxmm. Zooming in (if possible) would have blown out out the background too.
