PDA

View Full Version : 400 5.6L vs. 400 2.8L

ifurlong
23rd of August 2003 (Sat), 12:09
I want to get a 400mmL lens. I am wondering about the quality difference of the two, i.e., if I took a shot with each lens at say f/8 would all things be equal? or is the much more expensive 2.8 going to give a sharper image. I can afford the 5.6 but I dont want to get it if it is to big a compramise. I will mostly do outdoor landscape and things like that with it.
pwagner
24th of August 2003 (Sun), 00:32
Just look at the price and weight of the two lenses. They are not in the same league!

For outdoor photography, you can probably get away with the f/5.6. All the canon L primes are superb and match or exceed the image sensor of the 10D. The newest version of the f/2.8 has image stabilization; the IS and the extra 2 stops make it great for low-light shooting. For outdoor bright-light use, the f/2.8 works spectacularly well with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (the f/5.6 will lose autofocus on the 10D, but the f/2.8 will still autofocus even with 2x).

Speaking of teleconverters, perhaps you would prefer the 300mm f/2.8 and the 1.4x and the 2x teleconverter.
lightandlife
24th of August 2003 (Sun), 19:51
Ifurlong is probably in bird photography. I suspect 400mm L may be needed for birds far away.

I would like to get shots of humming birds which somtimes fly to my garden. They sometimes sit on a tree branch. What lens would be best?
ifurlong
24th of August 2003 (Sun), 19:57
?? bird photography ?? huh no, more into landscape and abstract industrial (as far as this lens is going to be used)
CyberDyneSystems
24th of August 2003 (Sun), 22:25
The 400mm f/5.6 is a wnoderfaully sharp lens.

Althought htere may be some neglible image quality difference between the two,. I don't agree thsat the difference will be dramatic. It is of course the speed of the 400mm f/2.8 that makes it so huge and expensive.

If you don't think you need that bug aperture,. then the f/5.6 may be a good deal. (if your doing sports or Nature photography than the f/2.8 would be more of a neccesity.)

Keep in mind the 5.6 also has no "IS".

PWagner raised a great alternative. The 300mm f/2.8 DOES have IS and when used with a 2X converter you have a 600mm f/5.6 with IS!!!

Not a bad set up?