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

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16745262
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".


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.

I dunno. I can look at stuff online all day long and get a general idea of what I'm in for, but seeing something in person really makes it hit home.

Besides, as photographers we should know and acknowledge that playing around with perspective (ie focal length and shooting distance) can make things look bigger or smaller and longer or shorter than in real life.

davidfarina
Originally Posted by nellyle

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I can relate to that! My most used lens is a 500 f4, so a bit lighter than a 400, but a bit longer.
No lens smaller than mine is heavy. I used to have a 100-400 and that really was a light one, My 300 f4 feels like a feather.

You both forget that there are people here which are not shooting wildlife etc and have other interests of photography. What about a street photog? He needs an unobtrusive lens to not disturb his subject. Sure 5kg is not heavy but its also about how confortable you feel. I do also citytrip photography and there i would lose the fun when taking a 30 or 40cm lens with me all the time

Sometimes i laugh when i see peoples pictures shot with a >5000$ Lens where there is nothing speciel in the images. Its like with cars: you can have a bugatti veyron for a million or an old chevy. But if you dont know how to drive fluent you get to your destination slower as a guy who knows how to drive his chevy. That said i also find it ridiculous when i see the people shooting a big white lens in middle of a crowded city street. Its not about creating art anymore

davidfarina
Erm, I don't! I doubt that a street tog would use a 400 or 500!

I know you said to each its own but ... why should one be limited by "the big lenses" when it's about street photography?
Personally I go in search of "the story behind" a street picture, and therefore I use lenses like 24-35-50mm but in most cases I'm also searching for "the perfect spontanious street portrait". You encounter situations that you can't recreate in a studio nor on one some official event. In the examples both subjects were pleasantly surprised and the gilr-wth-icecream still uses this picture as her FB-profile-photo.
For me it's an honest way to do street photography. You are in the open with a monster lens and everyone knows you mean business (and not fool around with a sneaky compact or DSLR-with-small-lens).
Maybe its just me who like to go to extremes but where some sees problems I see opportunities .
Good luck,
Alain,

Lenty007 wrote in post #16745582
... where some sees problems I see opportunities .

I bow to that attitude. Sincerely!

Like the photos too, especially #2.

Me too, when I finally had a chance to use the 400mm and the 500mm I was very surprised of the size. Trying to carry something that big around would take a lot of fun away owning one of them. 300mm and a 1.4 and 2.0 TC works just fine for me.

Ricky

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??

RLJSlick wrote in post #16746285
Me too, when I finally had a chance to use the 400mm and the 500mm I was very surprised of the size. Trying to carry something that big around would take a lot of fun away owning one of them. 300mm and a 1.4 and 2.0 TC works just fine for me.

Ricky

I have my old 2x back. and JUST sent money for a 1.4 kenko from another member in the for sale section. I agree 100% that I'd much perfer the 300 w/ both TCs.

Here's my first outing and first time w/ 600mm:

Excellent work Talley, I use the Canon TC but heard good things about the kenko TC!