Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Bird Talk
Thread started 08 Jul 2012 (Sunday) 14:02
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

400 2.8 IS vs. 500 IS - V1 only?

 
sthwild
Member
sthwild's Avatar
109 posts
Joined Aug 2010
North London
Jul 13, 2012 13:16 |  #16

do you think it will be such a good lens? worth $10,500?




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Billginthekeys
Billy the kid
Billginthekeys's Avatar
7,359 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Islamorada, FL
Jul 13, 2012 15:19 |  #17

sthwild wrote in post #14711937external link
do you think it will be such a good lens? worth $10,500?

If it is prime sharp wide open from 200-400, and the built in TC doesn't significantly alter IQ or focus speed (like a 1.4x on a super tele prime), then one could say so. I would like to see it for a bit lower personally, I would like to think $9,000 or so might not be totally impossble, if not right away, after prices have settled a bit. IMO though, they have to get it PERFECTLY right, it has to be a stellar performer, or it won't sell.


Mr. the Kid.
Go Canes!
My Galleryexternal linkMy Gear
what the L. just go for it.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Larry ­ Weinman
Goldmember
1,310 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Jul 23, 2012 08:12 |  #18

Don't kid yourself, If you have to hike anywhere with the 400mm f 2.8 version 1 and a tripod it will wreck your shoulder.


7D Mark II 6D 100mm f 2.8 macro 180mm f 3.5 macro, MP-E-65 300mm f 2.8 500mm f4 Tokina 10-17mm fisheye 10-22mm 17-55mm 24-105mm 70-300mm 70-200 f 2.8 Mk II 100-400mm Mk II 1.4 TCIII 2X TCIII 580EX II 430 EX II MT 24 EX Tamron 150-600

LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
GMCPhotographics's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
Wiltshire, UK
Jul 23, 2012 11:20 |  #19

I would disagree, sure it's heavy but it's not THAT heavy. I've lugged one about hiking and walking in some pretty remote places. Yep I ached a bit afterwards, but it's completely transportable in a rucksack no problems at all. Hey, I've even hand held it for short periods. There's a lot of fuss about it's weight and size...which is over spun and perpetuated on various forums.


Regards, Gareth Cooper
"If you’re happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then you’re having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Billginthekeys
Billy the kid
Billginthekeys's Avatar
7,359 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Islamorada, FL
Jul 23, 2012 11:27 |  #20

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #14756944external link
I would disagree, sure it's heavy but it's not THAT heavy. I've lugged one about hiking and walking in some pretty remote places. Yep I ached a bit afterwards, but it's completely transportable in a rucksack no problems at all. Hey, I've even hand held it for short periods. There's a lot of fuss about it's weight and size...which is over spun and perpetuated on various forums.

No one is saying it is not possible, but to claim that "weight is no issue" compared to the 500mm, is I think naive. Unless of course you plan to shoot from a stationary position almost all of the time, which I would find very limiting for birding.

I have the lighest 500mm Canon ever built (the non-IS version) and even that on a tripod and gimbal gets to be a chore totting around over the shoulder (sure it is fine in a backpack, anything is fine in a good properly strapped backpack). The 400 2.8 weighs 50% more than my lens, so I would certainly say that is noticable.

I think most people just want to know what the OP is meaning by "weight is not an issue" is he a body builder, will he be shooting all the time from a fixed position, or does he just think "well if I have to carry around 10 pounds of camera, I might as well carry 15! (made those weights up)"? Because to most of us that own the big prime's weight is definitely an issue.


Mr. the Kid.
Go Canes!
My Galleryexternal linkMy Gear
what the L. just go for it.

LOG IN TO REPLY
recrisp
Goldmember
recrisp's Avatar
Joined May 2008
D/FW, Texas
Jul 23, 2012 18:57 as a reply to Billginthekeys's post |  #21

All I know is that when I opened up the box to see my 400 2.8 I was in shock, it is so much BIGGER in person that when you see it online! :)
I have used my 100-400mm for a few years and thought that was a large lens, it attracts way too much attention (that I don't care for), but is LIGHT in comparison. It's a DINKY little thing to me now, after the 400 2.8, all I can do now is go down in weight when it comes to a lens. heheh
At around 12 lbs, it's a LOT to carry hiking, or not hiking, I ain't no wimp, but after hauling that thing around, well, it ain't as fun as it was when I first got it. I have hand-held it mostly, I do some shooting out of my truck's window(s), and 'some', not much from a monopod, but it's all work. If I had it in a backpack I could probably carry it all day with hardly any problem, but I'd not want to. Really, now that I have it, I don't know how much hiking I'll take it on now, to be honest, I can 'almost' get the same results with my 100-400, I said, "almost"...
Using anything that is near that weight is going to have the same end results, it'll be hard to transport, heavy to lift all day long, and it can be hard on you if you are like me, people that have carpal-tunnel. (CT) I have a semi-mild case of it, then after I got my 400 2.8 I got a worse case of it. Even carrying in in my truck and shooting out of the window (hand-holding it) can be detrimental on my wrists. I prop it up on the window with a closed-cell foam piece I made just for that, but lifting it on and off all day long takes its toll.
Even if I didn't have CT, hand-holding it is tiresome, I mean, yeah, it's definitely doable, but it doesn't make sense to, it's like pumping iron, it'll make your arms tremble after a few sets. :D

What would make the 200-400 worth the money is if if did what the 400 2.8 can, but is a LOT lighter, at least 5 lbs. That won't happen probably, but it'd make me think about it if I were in the market for a new lens.
(Not that I can afford any 'new' anything after my last few purchases)

Randy


Gear List
flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
MajesticMomentsPhoto
Senior Member
MajesticMomentsPhoto's Avatar
Joined Jun 2007
Northern NJ
Jul 23, 2012 19:56 |  #22

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #14705882external link
Does anyone know the Min focus Distance for the new 200-400 from Canon?

I have been looking everywhere as well can't find it anywhere..


:cool:Lots of Bodies & Glass....:cool:

LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,246 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Aug 16, 2012 14:49 |  #23

Answers to a couple question posed here that I missed:

I have had the 500 before and found that I am unable to HH for any amount of time. After some extensive testing, I realized my best form that lens always came when it is gimbal mounted and on a tripod. As I don't have to do alot of hiking for my wildlife and it is 95% tripod mounted, weight, in this case, is not an issue.

I do shoot both BIFs and other wildlife. I will be in Alaska next year doing a little bear work. Whatever else comes along is gravy. Deer and waterfowl in the fall and winter, black bears in the spring - fall. This is really where the 400 peaked my interest - good low light capabilities with the ability to get longer if needed.

Last point - I asked about the 400 and 500. However, used prices being what they are, the 600 and 500 are now the same price and the 400 is running less. Would this sway your decision at all?


Facebook (external link)

Starting over after moving WEST!!!

LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
GMCPhotographics's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
Wiltshire, UK
Aug 16, 2012 17:22 |  #24

I think I'd pop for a 600/f4 LIS if I needed to reach. A 400/2.8 LIS with both extenders if I wanted versatility or a 500/f4 LIS if I wanted light and versatile.


Regards, Gareth Cooper
"If you’re happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then you’re having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,246 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Aug 20, 2012 08:37 |  #25

Picked a 400 2.8 IS with 1.4x yesterday on FM. Versitility won me over.

Now to move my 120-300.


Facebook (external link)

Starting over after moving WEST!!!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Aug 22, 2012 21:12 |  #26

huntersdad wrote in post #14881605external link
Picked a 400 2.8 IS with 1.4x yesterday on FM. Versitility won me over.

Now to move my 120-300.

C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S ! ! !

I think you will be very pleased!

Hopefully you have a really, really solid tripod and a good head for it (like a Wimberley). That'll make a world of difference in your sharpness & overall image quality.


Tell us about your avatar here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=62390
Wildlife Photographed in the Wild: http://www.tomreichner​.com/Wildlife (external link)
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/9036119@N02/ (external link)
Please feel free to send me a PM, or to email me at tomreichner@yahoo.com

LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,246 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Aug 23, 2012 14:11 |  #27

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14894326external link
C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S ! ! !

I think you will be very pleased!

Hopefully you have a really, really solid tripod and a good head for it (like a Wimberley). That'll make a world of difference in your sharpness & overall image quality.

Well, I also picked up a RRS replacement foot and a Feisol 3772 tripod. For the time being, I'll use my Vanguard ballhead and Wimberley Sidekick for mounting.

Unfortuantely, when I received the lens yesterday, apparently there was an electrical short inside and the former owner was unaware of. It was working fine he shipped it, so we're thinking that it "broke" lose while in FedEx custody. So, it is being shipped to Canon for repair and a clean and check. Should get it back next week.


Facebook (external link)

Starting over after moving WEST!!!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Diamond ­ Lil
Cream of the Crop
Diamond Lil's Avatar
6,495 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Aug 31, 2012 08:13 |  #28

Wow! I just saw this. Very many congratulations! I look forward to seeing your photos and learning of your thoughts about it. Happy shooting!


Wow do I have a lot to learn! The Chosen Spot, NY
50D, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM, EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, EF 1.4X III Extender, Flight Braceexternal link



LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,246 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Aug 31, 2012 08:31 |  #29

Came back from Canon all well Wednesday. Of course, with an 18 month old running around, I haven't had time to really test it. 2x arrived yesterday, 1.4x came with lens. Leaving work at 1200 to go home and get it out.


Facebook (external link)

Starting over after moving WEST!!!

LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
GMCPhotographics's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
Wiltshire, UK
Aug 31, 2012 14:42 |  #30

That's great to hear, can you post a few piccys of your 400L with the RRS foot....I'd love to see what it looks like. I might get one myself :D


Regards, Gareth Cooper
"If you’re happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then you’re having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

4,735 views & 0 likes for this thread
400 2.8 IS vs. 500 IS - V1 only?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Bird Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00169 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is mknight12
932 guests, 657 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016