I will probably be doing more sports photos than wild life. My main concern with the 400 is the weight but I know it's a great sports lens. That's why I asked opinions on the 400 DO. I also really like the 500 4 for long reach that would be nice at soccer and daylight football games. I would be good at pro football games also. If I am assigned to do many night games at the Jake in Cleveland the 400 2.8 probably would be the way to go.
I'm not planning on going on any out of the country wild life trips. Zoo visits with the grandkids with a camera is in my plans. Maybe some local area woods and fields visits for anything that I can stumble across. Maybe someday a trip out west to Yellowstone could happen.
Dec 30, 2005 at 10:33 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
There is not really any good reason to buy a 400/5,6 or 400/4 DO when you have the 300/2,8 lens.
And the 400/2,8 only if you need to shoot at f/2,8 a lot. Go for a longer lens than the 400mm lenses instead
If you are shooting pro sports the 400 f2.8 is the way to go. All of those white lenses you see on the sidelines of NFL and MLB games are 400 f2.8's. You will need f2.8 for night or indoor sports. You will get maximum autofocus perfomance out of Canon cameras with f2.8 and faster lenses. As far as weight issues go, you will be using a monopod in the dugout/sidelines so it should not matter.
rjsmith wrote:
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.
Don't the airlines ever weigh your gear? I have not been able to fly with much gear for years in Europe because of hand luggage weight restrictions Transatlantic is even worse ! My Tamrac roller is more than half the weight limit without any gear in it! By the time I have some gear in, I am five times the limit
May be we should start a thread on which airlines allow what hand luggage, in what clas of travel
DaveEP wrote:
Don't the airlines ever weigh your gear?
No, they don't. U.S. airlines care more about size than weight. In four trips to Le Mans on Air France I was questioned once about my carry on bags but they did not prevent me from taking them aboard. It is imperative that you get on the plane first, meaning you need to select seats in the back of the plane. The flight attendants only start to hassle passengers about carry-on luggage when the over-heads start to fill up.
It also helps to be familiar with the aircraft type you're flying on. Some aircraft have larger under-seat stowage, and different seats in the same aircraft have different size under-seat stowage. The aisle seat has the smallest storage space. The center seat will accommodate a Pelican 1510 except in certain rows of a Boeing 777 which have an electrical junction box under the seat which prevent stowing it.
BTW, the AAB weighs 43.8 lbs loaded the way mine is.
Got to say the 300 f/2.8L IS + 2 1.4x TC makes a nice interim solution for those that want a 500 but can't afford it or aren't willing to carry it around. I find AF to still be excellent in normal light at least (haven't had much chance to use it in low light) and image quality is still excellent. It certainly beats the very good 400 f/5.6L + 1.4x TC combo for AF speed and image quality (not by a huge marging of course).
The 400 f/4 DO IS + 1.4x TC also makes an excellent combo and if price is not an issue I'd seriously consider it. I tried to get a second hand one and gave up waiting, that's why I went with the 300 f/2.8L IS instead. I find I can handhold the 300 f/2.8L IS for around 45minutes, but a monopod is highly recommended.
rjsmith wrote:
No, they don't. U.S. airlines care more about size than weight. In four trips to Le Mans on Air France I was questioned once about my carry on bags but they did not prevent me from taking them aboard. It is imperative that you get on the plane first, meaning you need to select seats in the back of the plane. The flight attendants only start to hassle passengers about carry-on luggage when the over-heads start to fill up.
It also helps to be familiar with the aircraft type you're flying on. Some aircraft have larger under-seat stowage, and different seats in the same aircraft have different size under-seat stowage. The aisle seat has the smallest storage space. The center seat will accommodate a Pelican 1510 except in certain rows of a Boeing 777 which have an electrical junction box under the seat which prevent stowing it.
BTW, the AAB weighs 43.8 lbs loaded the way mine is.
Given that I have done around 140 transatlantic flights, I am pretty familiar with the planes by now . BA restrict the cheapy seats to 6KG (13lbs)! My gear weighs in at > 20KG, or 40lbs. So we are about the same. If I can get by the checkin desk with it, I am OK, they never stop me at the gate, but they often look at the hand luggage weight at the check in desk (usually coming 'back' from the USA - not going to it).
I always thought the hand luggage 'weight' restriction was a bit silly, given that the guy sat next to you could easily be 60lbs heavier than you are.... but I guess the overhead bins can only take 'so much' weight.
I guess I need to find an alternative airline that is more hand luggage friendly
If you're serious about shooting field sports as the primary function, then the answer is the 400 f/2.8L IS. Everything else is a compromise. As for the weight, a good well-balanced monopod like the Gitzo 1588 makes it disappear.
Nill Toulme wrote:
If you're serious about shooting field sports as the primary function, then the answer is the 400 f/2.8L IS. Everything else is a compromise. As for the weight, a good well-balanced monopod like the Gitzo 1588 makes it disappear.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
I have found this thread to be very interesting as I am in the market for a long lens. The issue of weight for me is more than the ability to hand hold. I am interested in the ability to cary it on shorter hikes, say less than 5 miles total. I want a lens for wildlife, some birding, and sports (kids), with the bias to wildlife. So, who here has carried their monster lens, say a 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4 more than 2 miles? I guess I was seriously looking at the 400mm DO as this would be lighter than the 300mm f/2.8 and do the least dammage to my back! Interested in opinions from those who lugg their lenses...
You don't want to do much hiking with a 400 f/2.8. I don't even like carrying it through an airport.
The 300 f/2.8L IS is probably the most versatile for your needs. It's hand-holdable (to an extent), isn't terribly heavy, works great with both extenders, has superb image quality (perhaps Canon's best), and is useful inside as well as out (school plays for example).
Walt Butler wrote:
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
Don't forget about the older versions of the lenses if money is a factor in your decision. I just picked up a 400 2.8 series II non-IS that was like new and saved quite a bit over a new IS. I would have liked the IS, of course, but I'd rather have the non-IS than nothing and I really didn't want to spend the extra money on it at this point. I also figure I can always sell it and not get hurt if it turns out that this beast is not working out for me. The best place I've found to compare all the Canon lenses (current and out of production) is this.
DaveEP wrote:
I guess I need to find an alternative airline that is more hand luggage friendly
Dave, i've found that Lufthansa is far more tolerant of carry-on luggage wgts to Europe from the US. My experience with BA mirrors yours (making me check carry-on if it exceeds their wgt limit to England).
CPWarner wrote:
I have found this thread to be very interesting as I am in the market for a long lens. The issue of weight for me is more than the ability to hand hold. I am interested in the ability to cary it on shorter hikes, say less than 5 miles total. I want a lens for wildlife, some birding, and sports (kids), with the bias to wildlife. So, who here has carried their monster lens, say a 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4 more than 2 miles? I guess I was seriously looking at the 400mm DO as this would be lighter than the 300mm f/2.8 and do the least dammage to my back! Interested in opinions from those who lugg their lenses...
Do the 5+mile hikes you expect include a meal or camping out? While i've gotten too old to be carrying 50lb packs while snow-camping in the Sierras (something i did many times in my youth with film gear & tripod over 30yrs ago), another issue is the sheer bulk of the super-teles. Even the 400 DO, while only 4lbs, would occupy the space that you'd need for the essentials... like extra food (no need to carry significant water while snow-camping :-D )
Seriously, the 400 DO alone probably occupies the entire volume that my old film body and a couple of lenses. OTOH, when i rented a 500 for a water sports event that required about a 2 mile hike, it was too tall for the MiniTrekker so i wrapped it in foam and placed it into a daypack. The 500 filled it vertically but allowed some room around the sides. I used a Kinesis belt system to hold all my other gear (530 & 280). The wgt wasn't really the issue for a short hike, but for a longer outing in the wilderness, one would need a proper backpack frame and belt/harness system to distribute the wgt.
Do the 5+mile hikes you expect include a meal or camping out? While i've gotten too old to be carrying 50lb packs while snow-camping in the Sierras (something i did many times in my youth with film gear & tripod over 30yrs ago), another issue is the sheer bulk of the super-teles. Even the 400 DO, while only 4lbs, would occupy the space that you'd need for the essentials... like extra food (no need to carry significant water while snow-camping :-D )
Seriously, the 400 DO alone probably occupies the entire volume that my old film body and a couple of lenses. OTOH, when i rented a 500 for a water sports event that required about a 2 mile hike, it was too tall for the MiniTrekker so i wrapped it in foam and placed it into a daypack. The 500 filled it vertically but allowed some room around the sides. I used a Kinesis belt system to hold all my other gear (530 & 280). The wgt wasn't really the issue for a short hike, but for a longer outing in the wilderness, one would need a proper backpack frame and belt/harness system to distribute the wgt.
No, If I was carying a 300 to 500 it would be for day hikes only. I would be carying food (if you call powerbars food ) and water, but just enough to get me back to the car. If I am camping I seriously cut back. I can cary 50 lbs but really do not want to as that level of suffering is just not much fun. That is where a 24-105 and a 70-300 DO come in handy. My inclination to the 400mm DO is that I think I might be more inclined to cary it more often given it's weight. I would hate to invest $4000-$5000 in a lens and leave it home all the time because it is soo heavy.
Cliff
Dec 31, 2005 at 11:28 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It's not a big deal to carry a 500/4 IS in the bagpack for a day hike.
And when you take the 70-300 DO in your 50 lbs bagpack instead of the 500/4 IS lens the weight go down to about 44lbs
Lars Johnsson wrote:
It's not a big deal to carry a 500/4 IS in the bagpack for a day hike.
And when you take the 70-300 DO in your 50 lbs bagpack instead of the 500/4 IS lens the weight go down to about 44lbs
Lars,
You must be a much stronger man than me. Every pound counts for a day hike. A 6 lb difference in my pack means a lot more than it sounds. Well, I am old and weak now, and a 6 lbs difference may not matter that much to me 30 years ago . Btw, have you heard about "the last straw that breaks the camel's back"? Happy NewYear, guys.
Transatlantic is even worse ! My Tamrac roller is more than half the weight limit without any gear in it! By the time I have some gear in, I am five times the limit 
.
. BA restrict the cheapy seats to 6KG (13lbs)! My gear weighs in at > 20KG, or 40lbs. So we are about the same. If I can get by the checkin desk with it, I am OK, they never stop me at the gate, but they often look at the hand luggage weight at the check in desk (usually coming 'back' from the USA - not going to it). 
) and water, but just enough to get me back to the car. If I am camping I seriously cut back. I can cary 50 lbs but really do not want to as that level of suffering is just not much fun. That is where a 24-105 and a 70-300 DO come in handy. My inclination to the 400mm DO is that I think I might be more inclined to cary it more often given it's weight. I would hate to invest $4000-$5000 in a lens and leave it home all the time because it is soo heavy.