In this tech-savy world people often get surprised, when I tell them that I haven't purchased a single lens in the last 10 years. I have an old 500mm F 4.5 Canon lens and about 50% of my photography, both mammals and birds is done with that and I'm still very happy with it.
Recently, I've got a good option to replace it 400mm F 2.8 lens, which will be great for mammals. Now plus factors for 500 are that it is very light (2.7kg), very easy to handle and I can just lift the lens and shoot anytime, especially BIF. Minuses are that with convertors, I have to focus manually. With 400, I'll have no problems with AF or picture quality, even with 2X on any body. But for its weight, about 6kg. I wont't be able to shoot that fast and need to change tripod and head ( presebtly RRS BH55).
Kindly give me a serious thought, if I should go for change or not?
Looking forward to hearing from you !
Jagdeep Rajput
HMMMM Good question Jagdeep. I have the 300 2.8 and swear by it even with the converter (2x) the sharpness is outstanding. I'm not sure how heavy that is compared to mine but I am usually pleasantly surprised at the handheld images I get from mine. I have had some issues with my wrist though from shooting alot but I've been OK with it. The whole tripod head thing is another issue and definately something to consider. You know I think your work is outstanding so the lens you have now is working just fine IMO. Try renting the 400 first and see how you can handle it. I rent from Lensrentals.com. Good luck
Hi Jagdeep, I agree with Cheryl, renting the 400mm before you spend almost 10grand on it sounds like a good idea. I've used borrowlenses.com without any troubles and I think they have a 400 2.8
If you end up with something as heavy as a 400 f/2.8 I would not put it on a ballhead. The only real solution for a lens that heavy and bulky is a gimbal head.
Love the discussion! I have rented from Lens Pro to Go and have never been sorry with the company, service and pricing. Renting has helped me decide what is fantasy and what is reality. Now I am contemplating the Canon 100 to 400L since my 75 to 300 just isn't cutting it for me. I just can't come up with the money or shooting style for a long fixed lens so I guess I'll just strive for improved images that allow me to shoot the way I am most comfortable.
Having used the Canon 400mm f/2.8 professionally for a number of years, I'll say that it is a superb lens; very sharp at f/2.8, very sharp with the 1.4X extender and very heavy. I initially loathed the size of the lens and it's mammoth focus ring, but soon became accustom to it. The new Canon 500mm f/4, which I also used is as good as a 500 gets. It too is very sharp with & without an extender and much lighter. But, the drawback is that with the extender, you're shooting at f/5.6 which can be problem in low light. At least that's my experience.
I'd buy the 400 f/2.8 if I could. Personally, I'd like to switch to all Nikon gear. I've used Canons since the days of the first EOS-1 film bodies , but I think the Nikons are now the better choice.
I'm going to repeat Keith's comment - you really do not want to be using a 400 f2.8 (or even a 600 f4) with a ballhead. The lens is not balanced on a ballhead that makes it easy to use or safe to let go of. A gimbal head is well worth the money for balancing that much of a lens at the top of a tripod, ease of motion and being able to let everything sit for a few minutes while not shooting.
For me, the 400 f2.8 is just too heavy. The 300 f2.8 with tele-converters (which is what I have) or the 500 f4 is a better choice. I used to use a Nikkor 600 f5.6 on a ball head. A gimbal head is a much better choice.
Posted by Nate Chappell on April 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM
Hi Jagdeep,
I think it depends how much you value the ability to have a lens that you can handhold for flight shots and grab shots. I personally wouldn't go with the 400F2.8, just too big and bulky. The F2.8 does give you an extra stop which is nice in low light for mammals but I would rather buy a camera that handles high iso's better to deal with low light and use a lens which is light enough to handhold.
Thanks friends!
I live in India and lens on rentals are not available here. The question was not about the tripod head but the lens, which would be more productive for my kind of work. Nate's suggestion was valueable.
Thanks again!
Jagdeep Rajput
Discussion
9 repliesRecently, I've got a good option to replace it 400mm F 2.8 lens, which will be great for mammals. Now plus factors for 500 are that it is very light (2.7kg), very easy to handle and I can just lift the lens and shoot anytime, especially BIF. Minuses are that with convertors, I have to focus manually. With 400, I'll have no problems with AF or picture quality, even with 2X on any body. But for its weight, about 6kg. I wont't be able to shoot that fast and need to change tripod and head ( presebtly RRS BH55).
Kindly give me a serious thought, if I should go for change or not?
Looking forward to hearing from you !
Jagdeep Rajput
I'd buy the 400 f/2.8 if I could. Personally, I'd like to switch to all Nikon gear. I've used Canons since the days of the first EOS-1 film bodies , but I think the Nikons are now the better choice.
I think it depends how much you value the ability to have a lens that you can handhold for flight shots and grab shots. I personally wouldn't go with the 400F2.8, just too big and bulky. The F2.8 does give you an extra stop which is nice in low light for mammals but I would rather buy a camera that handles high iso's better to deal with low light and use a lens which is light enough to handhold.
I live in India and lens on rentals are not available here. The question was not about the tripod head but the lens, which would be more productive for my kind of work. Nate's suggestion was valueable.
Thanks again!
Jagdeep Rajput