Posted by Jagdeep Rajput on September 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM
My main work is mammals and I'm quite successful in that, but I shoot birds too. After getting 5D Mark III, I decided to get rid of my old 500mm F 4.5 lens, which proved to be a dedicated companion for more than 10 yrs. Now I'm confused, as I want to get a 500mm IS II, which is proving to be bit beyond my budget, but I'm getting a 400mm F2.8 IS II, slightly used, about 20% cheaper than a new 500 IS II.
Kindly suggest, if I should wait for 500mm or go in for 400mm.
Your response is much appreciated!
Sincerely,
Jagdeep Rajput
www.jagdeeprajput.com
Posted by Keith Bauer on September 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM
As a bird photographer, it seems like there is never enough focal length. While the 400mm f/2.8 is a nice lens, it is still 400mm. With a 1.4x it is 560, with a 2x it is 800. Using a 2x will cost some sharpness. I've never been a big fan of the 2x converters (even the newest versions). With the 500 and a 1.4x you will be at 700 with virtually no loss of sharpness. I can't tell a difference in image quality between my 500 and the 500 with a 1.4x. My vote (easy, since it is not my money ) is the 500. I just think it is a more useful lens for birds as well as mammals.
Posted by Brad Hill on September 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM
Hi Jagdeep,
Now for feedback from a mammal guy! While I shoot Nikon, there are obvious parallels in the brands that are relevant here (and I have shot with a ton of Canon guys who have the lenses in question). I'd say go with the 400. Not only does it take to teleconverters very well (if needed), but that lens is (for both brands) unbelievably sharp, and unbelievably fast in focusing (think birds in flight or other action shots). In my opinion wildlife photography isn't all about focal length (even for birds) and I own a 400 and a 600 and have ready access to a 500mm. Yet about 90% of my shots - and probably 95% of my BEST shots - have come with my 400mm f2.8.
The wild card here - that really no one can help you with - is your own personal style and the working distance of the subjects that you most often encounter in your own world. From what I have seen of your work (which is great), I personally think you'd be happier - and produce better imagery - with the 400. But that's just my opinion...
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Martin Dunn on September 23, 2013 at 3:53 AM
Jagdeep, as you've already been using a 500mm for some time this may not be applicable to you but the advice I give my clients is to go with the shorter lens.
Yes you lose a bit of reach but the plus side is that you will be able to get more hand held shots with the shorter lens and will be less susceptible to camera shake.
If you get a sharp image you can easily crop it - if you don't get a sharp image there is little you can do to rescue it.
You'll also find that there are occasions when a 500mm is just too long for shooting mammals and you won't have time to re-position.
Sorry if all this is a bit obvious.
Posted by John Reed on September 23, 2013 at 7:39 AM
A Canon 400 f//2.8 actually weighs more than a 500 f/4 (~8.5 lb vs 7+ lb) so hand holding the 400 will actually be harder.
If you can't afford the 500, the point is moot. If you can, then you never have enough reach and so the 500 is the way to go. Teleconverters are great but anytime you make light go through more and more glass bad things can happen, and often do. I use a 1.4x all the time with my 500 but IMHO the results with 2x are never good enough.
Don't take shortcuts unless you simply can't afford the 500 and if you can't, the question is answered before asked! Good luck.
Posted by Nate Chappell on September 23, 2013 at 10:13 AM
My take is that since you are using a 5D3 which is a full frame camera with excellent iso performance than the 500F4 would be my first choice. The 400 gives you an extra stop but you probably aren't going to need it often as the 5D3 is excellent at iso 800 and good up to iso 1600. The full frame aspect means you have a lot less reach than with the 1.6 crop factor 7D so you need all the focal length you can get especially for birds (I do also photograph mammals a fair bit). The 500 is also lighter and will be easier to hand hold and use in safari vehicles etc. In the end, they are both great choices.
Posted by Brad Hill on September 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Hey Jagdeep,
Seems like a real each-to-their own thing. A few points I want to clarify - in my opinion it's not about the extra stop of the 400. It's about the increased sharpness and AF speed. And, with the same lenses in Nikon's lineup (and I have had several Canon pros agree with me on this) you can't extrapolate from how a TC works with a 500 and say it will be the same with the 400. It's my experience that the additional sharpness of the 400 makes a big difference with the TC's - I actually PREFER the results of the 400 plus 1.4x TC over that of the 500 f4 (and you have 50mm more in focal length). I totally agree that 2x TC's are tough to use and rarely match the results of the equivalent lens shot native - but a large part of this is the extreme focal length, not just the presence of the 2x TC (an 800mm prime - even a stabilized one - requires very good technique to get the most out of it). I'm NOT a TC fan by nature (at ALL), but I know that there is ONE lens good enough to regularly put them on - a 400mm f2.8 (of either brand).
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by jack jaeger jr on September 23, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Loving my 500 !
Posted by Jagdeep Rajput on September 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Thanks friends !
Thanks Brad for taking your time!
I'm on a tight budget and also it is a question of availability. Agree that 400 is such a cracker and on the other hand, I had been using 500mm on 7D, resulting in 800mm. So the effective difference will be much more, if I go for 400mm on 5D. And I can't afford to have frequent changes. Let me see, which lens comes to me !?!
Jagdeep Rajput
PS. Between these two lenses, I don't think, I can be looser.
Discussion
8 repliesKindly suggest, if I should wait for 500mm or go in for 400mm.
Your response is much appreciated!
Sincerely,
Jagdeep Rajput
www.jagdeeprajput.com
Now for feedback from a mammal guy! While I shoot Nikon, there are obvious parallels in the brands that are relevant here (and I have shot with a ton of Canon guys who have the lenses in question). I'd say go with the 400. Not only does it take to teleconverters very well (if needed), but that lens is (for both brands) unbelievably sharp, and unbelievably fast in focusing (think birds in flight or other action shots). In my opinion wildlife photography isn't all about focal length (even for birds) and I own a 400 and a 600 and have ready access to a 500mm. Yet about 90% of my shots - and probably 95% of my BEST shots - have come with my 400mm f2.8.
The wild card here - that really no one can help you with - is your own personal style and the working distance of the subjects that you most often encounter in your own world. From what I have seen of your work (which is great), I personally think you'd be happier - and produce better imagery - with the 400. But that's just my opinion...
Cheers...
Brad
Yes you lose a bit of reach but the plus side is that you will be able to get more hand held shots with the shorter lens and will be less susceptible to camera shake.
If you get a sharp image you can easily crop it - if you don't get a sharp image there is little you can do to rescue it.
You'll also find that there are occasions when a 500mm is just too long for shooting mammals and you won't have time to re-position.
Sorry if all this is a bit obvious.
If you can't afford the 500, the point is moot. If you can, then you never have enough reach and so the 500 is the way to go. Teleconverters are great but anytime you make light go through more and more glass bad things can happen, and often do. I use a 1.4x all the time with my 500 but IMHO the results with 2x are never good enough.
Don't take shortcuts unless you simply can't afford the 500 and if you can't, the question is answered before asked! Good luck.
Seems like a real each-to-their own thing. A few points I want to clarify - in my opinion it's not about the extra stop of the 400. It's about the increased sharpness and AF speed. And, with the same lenses in Nikon's lineup (and I have had several Canon pros agree with me on this) you can't extrapolate from how a TC works with a 500 and say it will be the same with the 400. It's my experience that the additional sharpness of the 400 makes a big difference with the TC's - I actually PREFER the results of the 400 plus 1.4x TC over that of the 500 f4 (and you have 50mm more in focal length). I totally agree that 2x TC's are tough to use and rarely match the results of the equivalent lens shot native - but a large part of this is the extreme focal length, not just the presence of the 2x TC (an 800mm prime - even a stabilized one - requires very good technique to get the most out of it). I'm NOT a TC fan by nature (at ALL), but I know that there is ONE lens good enough to regularly put them on - a 400mm f2.8 (of either brand).
Cheers...
Brad
Thanks Brad for taking your time!
I'm on a tight budget and also it is a question of availability. Agree that 400 is such a cracker and on the other hand, I had been using 500mm on 7D, resulting in 800mm. So the effective difference will be much more, if I go for 400mm on 5D. And I can't afford to have frequent changes. Let me see, which lens comes to me !?!
Jagdeep Rajput
PS. Between these two lenses, I don't think, I can be looser.