Handholding a 400mm 2.8??

I have handheld the 300mm 2.8 with no problems before...

I was curious to know if any of you who have handheld both can provide some insight as to the impact the extra 5+lbs add...I'm not too worried about the physical length as most of the weight is towards the center and back towards the mount....

anyone?

thank you

If I'm only taking a hand full of shots I would handhold it but anything more it goes onto a monopod.

Sledhed wrote in post #7685263
If I'm only taking a hand full of shots I would handhold it but anything more it goes onto a monopod.

I've hand held the 300mm 2.8 for 2 and half hours straight many times with no problem....I guess the 400 is that much tougher to hand hold...

Yikes. Hand-holding the 400 2.8 for an extended period of time is a stretch, at best.

Bryan

you can shot 1 or 2 frames or a bit more if you're really in shape. However, how sharp it would be is another story. It is DAMN heavy.

why would you want to degrade your image - IMHO your kidding yourself if you think you'll get the same quality handholding vs support.

I can see the next thread - my 400mm is soft or I got a bad copy

Palladium wrote in post #7689083
why would you want to degrade your image - IMHO your kidding yourself if you think you'll get the same quality handholding vs support.

I can see the next thread - my 400mm is soft or I got a bad copy

Exactly! Don't do this lens an injustice...

I hand hold all the time for airshows and A/C stuff. But other than that it gets a monopod. I have the II model so no IS and there extra weight, is a bear sometimes but the real gotcha is the mass of the lens. Moving it is not so easy after a few hours and you will get a good workout and sore arms. But the quality far exceeds the temp pain.

The key is a good relaxe grip and balance.

Jungleland26, do you pump iron? LOL! A monopod to support the weight of that lens will certainly serve you better...

I use a monopod when I'm using my 300 f2.8 or even my 70-200 f2.8. I don't see any point in trying to hand hold those lenses and a 400 f2.8 is going to be even worse. I don't know what this is, a manhood issue? "I am big and strong so I can hand hold these lenses." There are no prizes given out for hand holding cameras, only for good images, and a monopod on all of them will give you better results.

jungleland26 wrote in post #7688288
I've hand held the 300mm 2.8 for 2 and half hours straight many times with no problem....I guess the 400 is that much tougher to hand hold...

Yes, the 400/2.8 is a beast to handhold. As stated, you can fire off a couple of shots in good light but it is a bit heavy to hold steady even with IS. A monopod is a great solution.

The 300/2.8 is considerably lighter and shorter - I've taken moon pictures with the 300/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter handheld (though it's not as steady as a tripod, obviously).

I just got the 400/2.8 IS and you can hold it for a couple of shots. One of the issues I found is that you are holding your arm somewhat up in the air. Almost like when you are painting. Therefore, you don't get optimal blood circulation and your arm gives out sooner. Try holding a 15lb weight extended out about one foot in front of you with one arm and you will see. I found out that RRS recently came out with a swivel mount head (for monopods) that can support 75lbs and looks perfect for this application. However, money is tight and I might not even be able to keep the 400 BTW, I am not sure which 400 you have but I think the older non-IS ones were heavier.

No the issue is the location of my subject - UP. I can hand hold the 400 through an entire aerobatic routine and get frazor sharp shots throughout, like I said it is a balance and technique issue. It does take some grit but.... I get what I want. FYI I often have the copr factor and the 1.4 at the same time.

Here's a shot I made of an airshow photographer hand holding a 600mm f4 with 1.4x.

LBaldwin wrote in post #7689165
I have the II model so no IS and there extra weight, is a bear sometimes but the real gotcha is the mass of the lens.

Actually the IS version is lighter than the Series II (not by much).