cputeq wrote:
I think a better question - Why no 400 f/5.6 ?
True, to me a 400/5.6 is a staple in my wildfife arsenal because of it's reach vs weight compromise. For around 20 years I had a Sigma 400/5.6 when shooting my Minolta gear and then as soon as I switched to Canon I picked up a 400/5.6. This lens in still my main BIF, action wildlife and sports lens.
When you are buying a $7500-10,000 lens for maximum reach you often use a crop sensor camera (lots cheaper to buy a crop sensor body for $1200 than step up to the next FL.) and, of course, you are on a tripod.
So for such specialized work why not consider a Canon Mk III ($3K used with 1.275 crop) or 50D ($1200-1300 new, 15Mp, maximum 1.6x crop and 6fps) in addition to your Nikon gear?
jamesdak wrote:
True, to me a 400/5.6 is a staple in my wildfife arsenal because of it's reach vs weight compromise. For around 20 years I had a Sigma 400/5.6 when shooting my Minolta gear and then as soon as I switched to Canon I picked up a 400/5.6. This lens in still my main BIF, action wildlife and sports lens.
Yep.
Believe it or not, this single lens on Canon's side has had me considering switching back more than I'd care to admit. I really don't like any of the Nikon alternatives at getting to 400mm.
Even worse, Dave phillips over in the Wildlife forums sometimes posts pics from his 400 f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC attached and it makes me jealous (he's a local and I really need to go shooting with him). 600mm with great IQ (but MF) for around $1200.
there is no 800 f5.6 for the same reason there is no 400 f4 it is called the TC 14
nikon has maintained forever the reason they do not make a 400 f4 is that the 300 f2.8 and a TC14 is just as sharp , lighter and less expensive and more flexable too boot
Apr 13, 2009 at 02:44 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
jmcfadden wrote:
there is no 800 f5.6 for the same reason there is no 400 f4 it is called the TC 14
nikon has maintained forever the reason they do not make a 400 f4 is that the 300 f2.8 and a TC14 is just as sharp , lighter and less expensive and more flexable too boot
J,
This is apparently a difficult concept for people to grasp.
Yet the 400/5.6's on the market are considerable cheaper than the 300/2.8 and 1.4 t-con you are mentioning. Should that not figure into the equation or is that "a difficult concept for people to grasp"?
Nikon 300/2.8 = $4700
Nikon 1.4x = $470
Canon 400/5.6 = $1120
Need I say more, !! Not trying to be a jerk but as usual there are different sides to every situation and a lot of folks obviously cannot afford "Nikon's solution."
Heck, I got into the 800/5.6 for 1/2 of "Nikon's solution" to a 400mm lens. Twice the range at 1/2 the price, what a bargain!
i use my 300/4 with the 1.7x all the time. more reach and AF is almost always as good. the 1.4X makes it a 420 but the half stop more light barely comes into play.
Having just recently acquired an 800 5.6 (Canon IS) I have to say that there is a big difference over the 600. Not only is is insanely tack sharp compared to the 600 and 1.4x, it is also sharper over the straight 600. Also much easier to handle and very doable for handheld shooting. For someone seriously into birds I would say it's the best you can get, and does serve a purpose. Sometimes adding a TC doesn't quite compare.
Art Morris has said it is the sharpest lens he's ever used, and I would agree with him. As sharp or sharper than my 300 2.8, though more affected by atmospheric conditions.
that is a function of Canon's lens design choices. there is no guarantee that if Nikon made a n 800/5.6 they would make it to higher standards than the 600/4. there are so many factors independent of FL that go into a lens design if you actually want to sell one.
I bet that is a Monster jamesdak ..... i shoot a 600mm ( used tact sharp AF-S version I ) off a D700 and that.s all I want / if I need more reach, I can put my D80 on it -- I have a new Nikon 1.7, but I really don't like using it ..
my shooting buddy used to shoot a Sigma 800mm till he got his Canon 600mm IS a few months ago ...... when he had the Sigma on a bean bag out the window, looked like a telephone pole !!
Apr 14, 2009 at 03:56 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
jamesdak wrote:
Yet the 400/5.6's on the market are considerable cheaper than the 300/2.8 and 1.4 t-con you are mentioning. Should that not figure into the equation or is that "a difficult concept for people to grasp"?
Nikon 300/2.8 = $4700
Nikon 1.4x = $470
Canon 400/5.6 = $1120
Need I say more, !! Not trying to be a jerk but as usual there are different sides to every situation and a lot of folks obviously cannot afford "Nikon's solution."
Heck, I got into the 800/5.6 for 1/2 of "Nikon's solution" to a 400mm lens. Twice the range at 1/2 the price, what a bargain!
Knock knock, learn how to read:
300 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC ==> 420 f/4 not f/5.6
300 f/4 + 1.4x TC ==> 420 f/5.6 and come in at $1600
J was talking about a 400 f/4 not a 400 f/5.6
The Canon 400 f/4 come in at a wopping $5500. Is that mud on your face?
!! Not trying to be a jerk but as usual there are different sides to every situation and a lot of folks obviously cannot afford "Nikon's solution."
The AF-I, AF-S, VR, and Ai-s all have different optical designs.
Is that mud on your face? 