To do or Not to do it.....

Sell my 400 F4 DO (circa 2003)and obtain either a 400 2.8L IS or 500

F4 IS.

 

Image quality is the prime concern. Wt. is secondary

 

I have never used (or even seen ) any of the two I am considering. I

am just reading about these two.

 

Input from gurus will be highly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

 

P.S. I am an ametuer with some good gadgets and not at all good

skills.

First question is: What do you want to do with it, once you get it?

 

 

Second: What camera will you use it on?

 

 

Third: What concerns do you have about keeping the 400/4 DO?

 

 

I have a 25 year old Canon 400/2.8, optically it is phenomenal and probably not much different than the current L IS except now you get autofocus and IS, and of course, and I believe, even more weight. I have handheld it twice, so I will say that it MUST be used on at least a monopod. The f2.8 comes in handy if you like using 25 and 50 ASA films for outdoor sports in sunshine or you like using 100 and 200 ISO settings for indoor sports with flash. Built primarily for sports and with a 1.4x gives you a 560mm f4 and you can barely tell it has a converter on it. In the DSLR era when you have a base ISO of 100 (2 stops more than the best film) and the ability to change ISO on the fly the importance of f2.8 has diminished somewhat, but personally I can always find a new use for it! The 500 f4 L IS appears to be more for the nature set which I am unfamiliar with. It is lighter, easier to manoeuver, and only a little shorter than the 400 with a 1.4x and would very highly likely be sharper! But no f2.8 if you need it!

 

 

I suggest you go and see them in person, and more importantly at least hold them, and better yet shoot with them. Be forewarned though once you've seen what one can do you won't settle for less. That is assuming you have done enough photography to appreciate the difference. Perhaps you should take some more pictures first so that you know what you are getting into. Good luck.

I can only vouch for the EF 500mm f/4L IS - it's an incredibly sharp lens. But you didn't mention the application for which you'll be using a long lens for, nor if you're shooting film or digital. If you shoot with a 1.6x "crop factor" digital camera, you'll get a little more reach out of any telephoto but the 500mm works out to an 800mm lens in terms of film or FF digital-equivalent. Add a 1.4x TC to it and you're over 1000mm and still quite sharp. The 500mm is a beast. Some people can handhold it but when I try I don't get very sharp shots. You'll likely want a gimbal head for your tripod which typically adds around $500 to the cost. Good luck!

John/Beau,

 

Thanks for the reply and sorry for not mentioning more. Here are the answers:

 

1) Primarily for bird and wildlife photography

2) 1Ds Mk II and 1v ( I still shoot Velvia 50/100)

3) I have a concern that I am not getting the best picture! A lot of it has to do with technic I know and I have no solid reason to say what I said but just thinking...can I get better....

4) It will be on a Gitzo 1548 MK2 with an Arca Swiss ball head using Wimberley sidekick with RRS plates.

 

The advantage of 400 Do is obvious, especially when I go to India on my yearly trip ! Nicely fits in the bag attached to a camera ! Lighter ! But I am ready to face some inconvenience it image quality compenstaes it !

 

thanks.

Swapan, I suggest you rent one for a week, and compare them side by side. I myself believe it's a technique thing.

Yaron,

 

Too much to rent !

 

I also believe it is mainly my poor technic but a better lens with same technic should statisticallly give a better picture.

 

This is my theory..."everything else remaining constant, the quality of an image is directly proportional to the quality of the lens producing it".

 

Probably a classic case of "a bad workman quarrels with his tools" ! lol

On a full frame body with film/digital for wildlife/birds, I vote for the 500mm f/4 L IS. Image quality for both will be equally excellent, but you will get more reach, lighter weight, and a cheaper price. Since you are using 1 series bodies, you would still retain autofocus even with a 2x converter, though a 1.4x converter would be a little better optically.

 

The 400mm is more ideally suited to field sports where you need f/2.8 for action stopping shutter speeds, and very shallow DOF to get rid of distracting backgrounds.

 

Keep in mind that the 500mm f/4 weighs almost double your 400mm DO, and that the 400mm f/2.8 weighs almost triple.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

Techniques used in 12 pound lenses are substantially more demanding than for 4 pound lenses. I have absolutely no idea how the 400/4 compares optically to the others but you really need to see and feel the heavy lenses to appreciate what is required. I love my 400/2.8 and 200/2 but if I were going half way around the world I think I would find a lighter way to go. Neither of these lenses will go on even a 1 mile hike and truthfully I won't stray more than 500 feet from my trunk with them!

Swapan, 500mm f4 IS is one of the best lenses and it is still possible to handhold it if necessary. In fact I handhold it most of the time. Below is example of handheld shot @160/sec with no support at all. Buying this lens, if cost is no issue, is a no-brainer decision. With tripod it can only work easier.

 

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4100344-lg.jpg" /></p>

"but a better lens with same technic should statisticallly give a better picture."

 

Swapan -that ain't how it works! Fast, long heavy glass requires precise technique to use

well since it's heavy and poorly balanced, has a small field of view and a tiny DOF. Precise

framing and focussing as well as proper lens holding technique is required. In other

words, heavy, high precision equipment provides you with a more ways to screw

up than lighter, more conventient gear. Assuming constant "technique", the

probability of your getting a quality image goes DOWN with faster, heavier glass!

 

If the issue is user error - learn to use your equipment properly. Attend a workshop, rent

some videos, better yet practice!

 

-b

If birds aren't too important to you, a possible replacement would be the 300/2.8 IS. It "only" gains two pounds in weight, and image quality is amazing. Even with the 2x teleconverter it is very sharp if you can stop down to f/8 or more. It is much more transportable than the behemoth 500mm lens, let alone the 600 or 400/2.8.

 

Only disadvantage is that 600mm is not enough focal length to satisfy most birders. Only reason I mention it is that it appears transportability is important to you.

The 400 DO lens is famous for the medium quality of its optics. It is really not up to L standards or even close. On the other hand, it's doesn't perform at the level of a cheap consumer lens, either. Canon has a long way to go before DO optics give the sharpness that L users expect. When you buy a DO, you're paying dearly for the reduction in size and weight and that really is important to some folks. With an L lens, you're paying dearly for the optical performance and that's what most folks want. For the time being, you're making a choice between the two. Maybe in another five or ten years, there will no longer be a choice and all of Canon's long lenses will be DO and also give L performance at the same time. Remember that the IS system was first used on several prosumer lenses before it was made standard on all long teles and now the 17-85 and the 24-105. Today's IS is a big improvement over the original and I suspect the same will hapen with DO as well.

Using either of the 400 2.8L IS or 500 F4 IS lenses will almost require you to upgrade from your ball head and sidekick, to the full Wimberley head. The 400 2.8 is close to 12 lbs. and the 500 F4 is like 7 lbs.

Upgrading to the full Wimberley will show immediate improvements in ease of use and the routine capture of images that could not be taken without it.

I must not be eating my spinach like Mark because I have a helluva time hand-holding the 500mm f/4L IS... I usually don't even try. Mark's bird shots are better examples, but here's another. I'd lugged my camera - 1Ds II and 500mm lens up to the Blue Ridge Pkwy during the hawk migration this fall. Unfortunately that day there were no hawks to be found but this little critter landed on a thistle nearby so I leveled my "bazooka" at him instead. It's hard to tell from this scrunched-down shot but it's a *sharp* lens!<P>

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3920107-md.jpg"> </center><P>

<center>Monarch? on a thistle. 1DsII + 500mm f/4L IS</center>

I'll switch to Canon if you give the 400/4 DO to me. I liked that lens!

Beau, awesome shot.

<I>but a better lens with same technic should statisticallly give a better picture</I>

<P>

<P>

Personally I agree with this 100%.

<P>

Beau as much I like spinach, really, I have no time to cook it. I will bet that you are in better shape. Technique is all what you need. My examples here are far from my best photos but rather show what is an average you can get to help poster make his decision. Below is another shot taken with 500mm +1.4X, forgot to mention that first also was taken with 500+1.4X - this converter is usually glue to my lens. With good light and shutter speed over 1/1000sec is quite easy to fully handheld shot with proper technique. This particular shot was taken after several hours active shooting when hiking all day long in SANWR in South Texas. They permanently closed roads there so driving is no option anymore. Any interesting spot is miles away and there are many of those spots to check. No way I would drag my Gitzo 1415 with full Wimberley head all day long. I prefer to stalk animals rather then wait for them to come near me close from time to time.

 

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3975273-lg.jpg" /></p>

Guys,

 

Thanks for all these input.

 

You know, sometime I wonder what actually is wrong with me so that I do not get sharp pictures as I hoped. I will, if you permit, give a scenario.

 

The DO with 1DS MK II is on the Gitzo 1548 nicely balanced, the object is a static bird. F11 at 1/400 sec is my exposure at ISO 400. I focus, first AF but then manually. The center AF locks on the head. The bird doesn't move, waiting for me to take the shot. I put my right hand on the lens, press it firmly down on the axis of the tripod and half press the remote shutter. I see the IS makes the VF shake but then it dies down and I push the shutter all the way down. The bird did NOT move. I am happy!

 

Later, I look at the shot on the desktop, I do NOT see the sharpness that I expected and when I compare it to a different shot taken with a 70-200 2.8L with an 1.4 X II attached to it in an almost identical situation, I like the 2nd one better!

 

Could it be my focusing ? I wear glasses but while taking pictures I take them off and depend on the dioprtic correction of the viewfinder to give me a sharp picture on the VF.

 

One good thing about photography in India for me is the fact that I don't have to carry my gear myself if I dont want to. Normally I do but I can get somebody to do it for me, if necessary. About US $ 5 for the whole day is double than the expectation for the helper. That tkes care of carrying these heavy lenses around. Also, I have enough nephews/cousins to work as my slaves.(lol)

 

I can not shoot handheld even with my 24-70 2.8L and come out with sharp pictures ! So, forget about me handholding anything of these size!

 

Beau, unbelievable shot. One accomplishment like this will make my day.. no, my week !

 

Mark, excellent pictures. You guys are gifted! I dont feel jealous exactly but want to know what is the trick ! I also know the answer-practice, practice and practice...

 

Bottom line... I MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO BUY BOTH THE 300 2.8L AND THE 500 4.0L, if I can sell the 400 DO at a reasonable price and will think that the 70-200 with the 2X II TC will be bridging the gap.

 

APD, you are soooo cheap man ! How many times I told you to forget Nikon and join our club to really enjoy photography ! You just dont listen ! Give me $ 5000 and I will give the lens to you. Sounds good ?

 

Thanks everybody.

 

Swapan

 

P.S. as an afterthought I have added 2 crops (100%, RAW) from the shot I talked about. The second one is the sharpest area in my opinion. Considering my technic described above, what is wrong ? OOF ?

 

Inputs will be highly appreciated.

I can't upload the .tif images ,it seems ! Hence will give JPGs.

Here is the feet...

"Give me $ 5000 and I will give the lens to you. Sounds good ?"

 

Ha. I could buy it new from B&H then. Used Canon's might backfire anyway.

 

Re. your posted shots -- looks a tad underexposed. Can you post the exif data?

 

And always use a sturdy tripod with good ballhead!

I am sure ether one (400 2.8L IS or 500 F4 IS) would be nice.

What about the cheaper and lighter 400mm F5.6L? see picture.

But If I were a Doctor and had lots of money I think I would get the 500mm F4L IS lens first I would go to a store though And see them side by side and feel the weight too.

 

DK.<div></div>

Here's another 400mm f5.6L shot.

 

DK.<div></div>

By the way those are all handheld, I can't stand using tripods or monopods.

I handhold all my shots except for maybe one or two on here.

But Like I said if I had the money I think I would go for the 500mm F4L IS. Its always nice to have the reach. :o)

 

DK.

Swapan, If you get the 300/2.8 and 500/4, you will not be happy with the 70-200+2X combo. The 2X kills the sharpness of the 70-200/2.8. You might want to consider the 400/5.6 if sharpness is you prime goal. ALTHOUGH, the 70-200/2.8 is an awsome lense to gap the 24-70 and 300/2.8.

 

Mark