I am investigating the choice of a Canon 400 mm lens purchase for sports and wild life photography. Canon offers the 400 2.8 IS L , the 400 DO 4.0 EF lens, and the 400 5.6 EF lens. I would appreciate anyone's input to help with the decision.
Thanks Walt
I donot have a 400mm lens, but I would consider the following factors before I would buy one:
1. Cost
2. Speed
3. Picture Quality
4. Weight
With a 400mm lens, your best bet is to buy the fastest (widest aperture) you can afford. This will increase the shutter speed enough to prevent blurred pictures in equal lighting conditions against the lesser expensive models. Ofcourse, the "slower" lenses are going to be a little lighter to carry, which is always good if you think you're going to be on foot for a while. These lenses get REALLY HEAVY...
I would go look at them at a good camera store and see how they feel. If you have the money, and the back... I'd go for the 2.8 or 4.0 myself.
franzdom wrote:
That being said the 5.6 is VERY sharp.
And very light.
But the 400/2.8 is two stops faster, and can accomodate teleconverters while retaining autofocus on most bodies. Add a 2X telecon to a 400/2.8 and you have an 800 mm f/5.6 lens. But, it's a very heavy 800 mm lens.
The main thrust of the choice is that on one side, you have small size, light weight, and low price, while on the other side, you have bright aperture & fast shutter speed, greater bokeh, and the ability to extend the focal length farther with teleconverters.
Walt... what about the 300 f2.8 you have listed in your sig along with the 1.4X TC?
I haven't done any tests, but my guess is that the setup would be competitive with the aforementioned 400's, except for maybe the 400 2.8 (since it would essentially become a 420mm f4)
The 400mm length is one at which, with Canon's choices, you have to make, to my mind, a compromise with any of the choices. The 400/2.8 produces superb images, and the 2.8 aperture is great for keeping up the shutter speeds. However, it is very expensive and weighs about 1 1/2 times what a
500/4 does and over twice what a 300/2.8 does. Those other two lenses can be hand held. The 400/2.8 can't. The 400/4 DO is also very expensive. I've seen great images from it, but you will find much more inconsistency in reviews of this lens than most. Many will say that it is more finicky about the quality of the light than are most other lenses. The 400/5.6 is sharp, focuses fast, and is quite portable, but it is hampered by the lack of IS (and the 5.6 maximum aperture). Another advantage of this lens is that it is one of Canon's 3 relatively affordable long lenses (along with the 300/4 and the 100-400). While many will disagree, though, for me, the 400/5.6 is the only lens I've ever bought that I wish I hadn't. While it is potentially capable of very sharp shots, I am yet to get a shot with it that I couldn't honestly say would not have been just as good or better with one of my other long (IS) lenses, and I know that there are many shot opportunities that I've missed out on because of the lack of IS. If you plan to shoot in great light or limit your shooting to a tripod, it can be a great lens. If you do a lot of hand held shooting in more marginal light, the lens will not be the best choice.
Les
You make a good point NuDigital. I am going to spring training at Winter Haven and am not sure that I would have enough reach with the 300 and 1.4 extender from the sidelines. I also plan on making some trips to Cleveland and Jacob's Field this summer for some News Paper shots. My Mark II has a 1.3 factor which should help. I had a 400 2.8 Nikon lens earlier and know how heavy it was. My Nikon digital cameras with a 300 2.8 was about right at the Jake because of the 1.6 factor with that system.
Well, if you're worried about not having enough reach with a 300+1.4 then looking to buy a 400mm lens seems like a dead end (unless you're looking for the ability to have a 400/2.8 for times you don't need even more reach).
My reasoning: if a 300+1.4 (420mm) isn't enough, then a 400 wouldn't be enough. Thus, you would put a converter on the 400 to get more reach, which puts you at 560. At that point, the 500 looks like a much better idea as it gives you the reach without a converter and is cheaper and much lighter than the 400/2.8. But like I said before, the 500 isn't going to break down into a 400/2.8.
Gino a 400 2.8 with the 1.3 factor with my Mark II would give me a 520 reach without a Teleconverter if my math is correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my calculations.
Walt Butler wrote:
Gino a 400 2.8 with the 1.3 factor with my Mark II would give me a 520 reach without a Teleconverter if my math is correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my calculations.
according to photodo the 400IS/2.8II is 382mm effective.
Off topic a little Walt, but I'd personally keep the 300 f/2.8, skip over the 400 f/* for now and get the 500 f/4. The 500 f/4 is just an amazing lens - it is a perfect combination of form and function. You can hand hold it if you need to. It won't kill you to carry it yet it is fast and has a great reach. It is different enough from your 300 to truly be useful. It'll open up a new world for you.
I voted for the 400 F4 DO IS too , but its been continuously wet here since i got it 2 days ago so i have yet to use it outdoors.
Seriously, i rented a 500 F4 a few months ago and found it unwieldy. At 8.5 lbs, i had difficulty hand-holding it for long sessions. I found resting it on a monopod between hand-held shots helped relieve the strain (even w/ the wgt of the CF monopod). Interestingly, i found the 500 F4 IS to be equivalently sharp as my former 300 F4 IS.
In the end, i got the 400 DO because i expect to use it both for motorsports & wildlife in less than ideal light. I've rarely seen a 500 F4 used by pros at a race; more common are 300 F2.8 & 400 F2.8's and a sprinking of 400 DO's. At the last Laguna Seca race, i found that i was often using my 100-400 set at ~300mm on my 20d; about half the time i was using the 70-200 2.8 IS on another 20d body, so the 400DO on the 1D2 should be ok.
Jim Victory wrote:
When you consider the DO is almost as much as the 500 you would be better off going with the 500 unless you need f/2.8.
Jim
Hi Jim,
i considered that, but if one isn't comfortable using a lens it wont be used as often. Ultimately, i figured that i'd get more use out of the 400 DO for my current needs. I presume with enough practice (& upper-body exercise), i could get comfortable hand-holding the 500, but motorsports in my area doesn't 'require' the 500. Of course, if i were to do more birding then the 500 is probably the better tool - Les is obviously a master at hand-holding the 500 for his wonderful eagle shots.
biodan wrote:
In the end, i got the 400 DO because i expect to use it both for motorsports & wildlife in less than ideal light. I've rarely seen a 500 F4 used by pros at a race; more common are 300 F2.8 & 400 F2.8's and a sprinking of 400 DO's. At the last Laguna Seca race, i found that i was often using my 100-400 set at ~300mm on my 20d; about half the time i was using the 70-200 2.8 IS on another 20d body, so the 400DO on the 1D2 should be ok.
Jim Sykes, a superb motorsports photographer, uses the 500 4L IS to shoot ALMS cars. Jim even pans with it and gets excellent results. And Jim is not the only regular on the circuit who uses a 500 4L. Even more use the 600 4L IS. In 11 races (including Le Mans) I've seen only one guy with a 400 DO and he wasn't a regular.
The OP is better off buying the 500 4L IS for two reasons:
1. It is 3.5 lbs lighter than the 400 2.8L IS and the 600 4L IS (which both weigh 11.8 lbs).
2. It costs about $5,500 versus the $6,700 for the 400 2.8L and $7,200 for the 600 4L (the 400 4L DO costs $5,400, is the same speed, 4.2 lbs lighter, but 100mm shorter).
The best way to transport the 500 4L is in an Airport Addicted Backpack from ThinkTank. It fits in an overhead and holds an impressive amount of gear. The photo shows mine loaded for an assignment with a 400 2.8L, two bodies, two flashes, 2 CP-E3s, 52mm drop-in CPL for the 400, spare NP-E3 batteries, memory card wallet, 1DMkII charger, 1.4X II, 2X II, and two wide angle zooms (24-70 2.8L and 16-35 2.8L). My other lenses go in a Pelican 1510 .
, but its been continuously wet here since i got it 2 days ago so i have yet to use it outdoors.