So my cousin just bought a 400mm 2.8 IS V1 but didn't know that...

That is one reason the 300 f/2.8 was my limit... The 400/500/600 just get too big for what I do, as I want the lens to be hand-holdable and somewhat compact (relatively speaking).

How do you buy a 400 f/2.8 though and not know what size to expect??

Invertalon wrote in post #16741892
That is one reason the 300 f/2.8 was my limit... The 400/500/600 just get too big for what I do, as I want the lens to be hand-holdable and somewhat compact (relatively speaking).

How do you buy a 400 f/2.8 though and not know what size to expect??

I sent him the link I put in my OP and his exact response back to me was...

"Crap"

I died laughing. I can handhold the 300 all day long. I've used my cousins 120-300 which is a 1lb more in weight and used it for an entire 2hrs worth of football and ya it gets tiring but you get use to it.

I completely agree with you. The 400/500/600 is just too big for anything I do either. I have a kenko 2x that is a sharp copy and I need to pick up a 1.4.

I think when I want to carry the 300 I'll have the 24-70, 135, 300 & both TC. Should make for a good sports carry.

Invertalon wrote in post #16741892
How do you buy a 400 f/2.8 though and not know what size to expect??

They're not exactly on the shelf at best buy to pick up and see. Not will you find it in many camera stores. Even flipping through a couple of review sites, I see very few pictures with anything other than the camera it's attached to for reference of scale.

I've noticed a few photogs here and there with Big Whites but I never knew what they were exactly. My biggest lens is a 70-200F4 IS and it's really not a monster.

Hopefully he'll use it a lot.
It could be addicting.
Next he'll get the 800mm

vengence wrote in post #16742019
They're not exactly on the shelf at best buy to pick up and see. Not will you find it in many camera stores. Even flipping through a couple of review sites, I see very few pictures with anything other than the camera it's attached to for reference of scale.

But the lens' specifications, including length, diameter, and weight, are everywhere! Anywhere the lens was for sale by an authorized dealer, there were the specs, for all to see:

http://www.canon.com …oto/ef_400_28li​s_usm.html

Certainly it is normal for someone to look up the specifications of a lens they are planning to spend over $5,000 on. There's no valid reason for anyone to be "caught by surprise" with this stuff, not these days with the internet putting all of the info right at our fingertips.

Craign wrote in post #16741801
Go big or go home. I am going home. This thread is making me feel terribly inferior.

I am not going to say never but I can't imagine ever convincing myself I need a big white much less my more frugal SWMBO either.

The good thing for now is the the kids are still young and playing on smaller fields so my 7D and 70-200 has enough reach. I'm not sure what I am going to do when they get to the larger fields. Hopefully the more consumer mid sized whites (300/4 IS, 400/5.6 & 100-400) will get updated soon.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16742374
But the lens' specifications, including length, diameter, and weight, are everywhere! Anywhere the lens was for sale by an authorized dealer, there were the specs, for all to see:

http://www.canon.com …oto/ef_400_28li​s_usm.html

Certainly it is normal for someone to look up the specifications of a lens they are planning to spend over $5,000 on. There's no valid reason for anyone to be "caught by surprise" with this stuff, not these days with the internet putting all of the info right at our fingertips.

Specifications can be stared at forever, it doesn't mean you "get it". 8lbs? That's a jug of milk. I don't have any problem holding a jug of milk, what's the big deal.

FEChariot wrote in post #16742453
I am not going to say never but I can't imagine ever convincing myself I need a big white much less my more frugal SWMBO either.

The good thing for now is the the kids are still young and playing on smaller fields so my 7D and 70-200 has enough reach. I'm not sure what I am going to do when they get to the larger fields. Hopefully the more consumer mid sized whites (300/4 IS, 400/5.6 & 100-400) will get updated soon.

Disobey....... and take your punishment like a man.

FEChariot wrote in post #16742453
I am not going to say never but I can't imagine ever convincing myself I need a big white much less my more frugal SWMBO either.

The good thing for now is the the kids are still young and playing on smaller fields so my 7D and 70-200 has enough reach. I'm not sure what I am going to do when they get to the larger fields. Hopefully the more consumer mid sized whites (300/4 IS, 400/5.6 & 100-400) will get updated soon.

As long as it's good light, daytime stuff I'd take that new Tamron 150-600 over any prime anyday of the week for field sports.

Talley wrote in post #16743012
As long as it's good light, daytime stuff I'd take that new Tamron 150-600 over any prime anyday of the week for field sports.

If I had to make the choice now, it would be hard not to pick that one. Talk about serious bang for the buck. However, and I am basing this strictly from TDP's crops, it isn't as good IQ wise as the 70-200/2.8 VC. It's only on par with the much older 100-400. Yes it's much cheaper and has much more range than the 100-400, but I think I would have liked to see them be less ambitious and go for a 200-500 replacement that was 5.6 on the long end with better IQ.

If money were no object, I would pick the 200-400/4 L. But it is. I would really like to see some one come out with a competitor to that. If Sigma can make a 120-300/2.8 at that price and size, then a 150-400/4 should be in the same realm price wise and size wise.

Crazy he didn't realize how big it was. I mean the least you can do is Google it these days

https://www.google.com​.au …cQ_AUoAQ&biw=16​00&bih=796

shows very clearly just how big it is

Big but one of the sharpest sharp things ever made, even with TCs...

MakisM1 wrote in post #16740806
Everything in Texas is Texas-sized...

Nope, if the kids were a 200/2.8 would do the job

vengence wrote in post #16742549
Specifications can be stared at forever, it doesn't mean you "get it". 8lbs? That's a jug of milk. I don't have any problem holding a jug of milk, what's the big deal.

Not sure why you mention 8 pounds. The lens is just a hair under 12 pounds, as stated in the specifications. When you see that a lens is 12 pounds, you think of how easy or how difficult it is to hold 12 pounds up to your eye, as you do when taking pictures. Not really hard to "get it".

Aus.Morgo wrote in post #16744871
Crazy he didn't realize how big it was. I mean the least you can do is Google it these days

https://www.google.com​.au …cQ_AUoAQ&biw=16​00&bih=796

shows very clearly just how big it is

Exactly right. A lot of those photos that come up when you google the lens show the lens in context, being held by photographers. Those images give a very accurate, "real life" portrayal of the size of the lens. There is simply no valid reason for anyone to be surprised by the size and weight. If they are surprised, it simply means that they did not do very thorough research prior to purchasing the lens.