slau wrote:
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.
Stephen,
would you leave your 500/4 IS at home and bring a 70-300 instead
I have been reading this thread with great interest as I'm trying to come to conclusion on which longer reach lens to get. I'll echo the earlier use - some outdoor sports, some wildlife/day hiking activity.
At present I my longest is the 200/1.8 which I use primarily for indoor sports. I'm able to hand hold for about 30-45 minutes so I'm concerned about getting something like the 500 or 400/2,8 due to weight. The DO seems the ticket as it is light, has reasonable native reach and with extenders can get a credible 800mm with AF on my 1D.
Some of have suggested getting the 300/2.8 IS with extenders; my question is:
Is the 300/2.8 too close to the 200/1.8 to make sense?
The 200 is for sure awkward (strange balance) and is a bit heavier than the 300. To get a meaningful jump I'd need to use with at least an extender always attached - seems like there is too much overlap.
Dec 31, 2005 at 03:42 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Dan,
I think the 300/2,8 is a bit too close to your 200/1,8 lens. It all depends what your main use of the lens will be.
For outdoor sport maybe 300-400 is the best.
For wildlife & birds maybe 500-600 is the best.
The 400 DO is of course nice with a small size and not so heavy. But nearly all people say that even if it's very good, the image quality is not really like the other super-tele lenses.
dlemkow wrote:
I have been reading this thread with great interest as I'm trying to come to conclusion on which longer reach lens to get. I'll echo the earlier use - some outdoor sports, some wildlife/day hiking activity...so I'm concerned about getting something like the 500 or 400/2,8 due to weight. The DO seems the ticket as it is light, has reasonable native reach and with extenders can get a credible 800mm with AF on my 1D...
The 400 DO is a great lens for its size, and I have gotten some pictures I am really happy with using it. A lot of people will compare apples & oranges here as far as long lenses are concerned. Some will recommend the 500 & 600 f/4 (great lenses), a 400 f/2.8 (a great lens) and a 300 f/2.8 (a great lens), or the 400 DO... These are all different pices of glass, and the question is what you want for the (dis)advantages of each.
Despite what some will say, using anything longer than a 400 without a tripod is just asking for blurry pictures, even with IS. Using a tripod gets rid of weight issues while shooting, and now you only have to worry about transporting the thing. What you can carry when hiking is very dependant on you. I usually carry the 600 when hiking, but I am a fairly big person, and I hike a lot. The size and weight limits where I can go sometimes. For others, this is not an option or they want to go lighter.
The 400 DO excells at light weight vs. long focal length/large aperture. There's nothing else that does the same job. The 300+1.4x is close, but still another 1.5lbs, you have to use a TC, but is not nearly as expensive. The 400 f/2.8, 500 & 600 f/4 are much heavier. For me, the investment in the DO was worthwhile. It's up to each photographer to decide what goes in their kit - you have to decide what you want to carry, what you want to shoot, how much reach you need, how much weight you can carry, etc. Have fun with the decision, it's a good problem to have
I just traded my 300 f/2.8 for the 200 f/1.8, because since I got the 400 f/2.8 I've used the 300 very little.
If the 200 had IS I'd say it and the 300 were very close to being redundant because the 200 works so well with the 1.4x extender, but then I'd guess the 200 with 2x is not as good as the 300 with 1.4x, and IS makes a significant difference at those focal lengths, even on a tripod.
The 500 is closer to the 300 than to the 400 from a portability standpoint. I'd say at this point you'd probably be best served by the 500.
I have hiked a mile or so uphill with the 500f4 on my 1300 series Gitzo tripod. Can't say it was super comfortable but it could be done. I also used my 500f4 chasing mountain sheep a couple of days ago handheld and it worked well although my arm was sore after 30 minutes. Finding something to rest it on helps a lot and with IS, works nearly as well as a tripod.
As for 400DO, I have it but rarely use it. To me, you are either serious about this work or not. If it is for casual work, then the DO is too much to spend. If it is serious, then you need to invest in proper gear and that means 500f4. By the time to add the weight of a head and tripod, the weight difference is not as larger. I actually prefer the 100-400 zoom to the DO.
While shooting mammals in Yellowstone this week, I wished for 400f2.8 many times to blur the busy backgrounds. But then was happy with the 500f4 and lusted at friend's 600f4 while shooting wolves at 100+ yards. As they say, life is full of compromises. Ideally, one would wind up with all three of these super telephotos and someone to carry them all for you .
. Btw, have you heard about "the last straw that breaks the camel's back"? Happy NewYear, guys.
