# 400 2.8



## wdh777 (Mar 30, 2013)

Any thoughts about this lens. Wicked expensive. But for sports is it worth it vs 70-200 2.8 cropped or the 400 At a higher f. It would be strange for me not to have a zoom have to move to get the proper frame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

Are you expecting different answers than when you asked basically the same question, just two days ago?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13837.0


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you expecting different answers than when you asked basically the same question, just two days ago?
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13837.0



To be fair to him, it actually was different: ;D



neuroanatomist said:


> Just crop, the IQ is the same. Why would anyone use a 400/2.8?
> </sarcasm>
> 
> The supertele lenses are in a different IQ class. Cropping reduces IQ, a TC reduces IQ. There's no free lunch. The cropped 200mm or the TC might produce an acceptable image, but it would be better with the 400/2.8.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 30, 2013)

So, since it actually is a slightly different question, maybe, I'll give you a quick response.

There's a reason why all the _Sports Illustrated_ (and other) photographers you see by the sidelines of NFL games all have two cameras with them that they're constantly switching back and forth between. And there's a reason that the one is a 400 f/2.8 and the other is a 70-200 f/2.8.

I'll also give you a bonus response.

If you don't know what that reason is, there are _much_ better things for you to blow your dozen large on.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 30, 2013)

I'm not SI or NFL, but I do shoot football games at the collegiate level and YES, I HAVE A 400 F/2.8L I IS ON ONE CAMERA AND A 70-200L ON THE SECOND CAMERA.


----------



## RGF (Apr 2, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> So, since it actually is a slightly different question, maybe, I'll give you a quick response.
> 
> There's a reason why all the _Sports Illustrated_ (and other) photographers you see by the sidelines of NFL games all have two cameras with them that they're constantly switching back and forth between. And there's a reason that the one is a 400 f/2.8 and the other is a 70-200 f/2.8.
> 
> ...



Which super Tele would you recommend for wildlife, including birds. The downside of the 400 is it is short, the downside of the 600 is that it physically long and has 15' minimum focus distance. That leaves the 500 but with the new 200-400 (if it ever is a really product) is the overlap with the 500 too much? Does that speak to the 600 for car travel and the 200-400 to fly with?


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 2, 2013)

RGF said:


> Which super Tele would you recommend for wildlife, including birds. The downside of the 400 is it is short, the downside of the 600 is that it physically long and has 15' minimum focus distance. That leaves the 500 but with the new 200-400 (if it ever is a really product) is the overlap with the 500 too much? Does that speak to the 600 for car travel and the 200-400 to fly with?



You could always add a 1.4x mark iii or even a 2.0x mark iii to the 400 and you still have a relatively compact lens, and you are still only at f/4.0 with the 1.4 and f.5.6 with the 2.

The 200-400 is a big lens. Someone posted pics of it in another thread here at CR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2013)

RGF said:


> Which super Tele would you recommend for wildlife, _*including birds*_. The downside of the 400 is it is short, the downside of the 600 is that it physically long and has 15' minimum focus distance. That leaves the 500 but with the new 200-400 (if it ever is a really product) is the overlap with the 500 too much? Does that speak to the 600 for car travel and the 200-400 to fly with?



It's a challenging choice. When you mention birds, my inclination is that you can't have too long a lens. I often find I'd like more reach when shooting with the 600/4 II and 2xIII. The 600 II will fit in a Lowepro Flipside 500 AW for air travel, or in a Storm im2500 hard case if you carry the hood separately.


----------



## dolina (Apr 2, 2013)

From most ideal to least. All these must have 1.4x & 2.0x TC

600mm IS II 
800mm IS
500mm IS II
400mm 2.8 IS II
300 2.8 IS II

Wildlife + birds require focal length.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 2, 2013)

"But for sports is it worth it vs 70-200 2.8 cropped"

Fantastic lens. Just like the 70-200 it works with FF and cropped, so it's 2X the reach no matter which camera you attach.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 2, 2013)

RGF said:


> Which super Tele would you recommend for wildlife, including birds.



It would depend on whether the birds are the primary purpose for the lens or just one of many purposes.

If all you're going to do is shoot birds, you want the longest and fastest lens you can get. Think of the Hubble, or maybe the Keck.

But the ideal birding lens is not going to be very useful for much else.

The 400 is the most versatile of the Great Whites. It's the fastest, for starters. And if you put on teleconverters you get the same reach and speed as the others. If a teleconverter is going to live on the lens, then the native equivalent will be better in every respect, but not by leaps and bounds; the 400 is still a superlative 560 f/4; it's just not quite as superlative as the 500 f/4. And the 400 is an awesome 800 f/5.6, even though the 800 f/5.6 is more awesome still.

So, that would be my recommendation. If you want an all-puropose Great White that'll be fantastic at a bit of this and a bit of that, the 400 is for you. If your needs are more specialized, get the one that best fits your specialty.

And, if you don't know what your needs are...get one of the Lesser Whites such as the 300 f/4 or 400 f/5.6 or 100-400. First, those are still wonderful lenses with many advantages over the Great Whites, especially including weight, size, and cost. You may well find that one of the Lesser Whites is your dream lens. And, if it turns out that you need more...by the time you outgrow the Lesser White, you'll know exactly which Great White is for you.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RGF (Apr 2, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Which super Tele would you recommend for wildlife, including birds.
> ...



Thanks everyone for their great thoughts. I like shooting birds but also shoot cats (think Lion, Leopards, Cheetahs) as well as bears (Grizs). 

Luckily I don't have all the money in my pocket yet - otherwise I buy one of each (if I had a really BIG pocket).

The biggest downside to the 600 is travelling. It will barely fit in my Gura Gear Kikobo and is pain to use in Safari vehicle in africa. 500 is the best compromise between weight, size and reach.

A buddy has the 400 which he loves and has encouarged me to get one - my expereince of the 2x on the 500 is mixed (at best), so I am bit cautious to go that routine.

How does the 400 w/ 2x compare to 500 w/ 1.4. Granted I loose a 100mm of length.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 2, 2013)

dolina said:


> From most ideal to least. All these must have 1.4x & 2.0x TC
> 
> 600mm IS II
> 800mm IS
> ...


As usual, there is not a single answer because it all depends on what you are doing. An 800mm, for example, would be useless for trekking and hand held shots, but could be the best on a tripod in a hide. Read, for example, what the doyen of bird photography, Arthur Morris, says about the 300mm in http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/03/07/gear-evaluation-the-canon-300mm-f2-8l-is-ii/

"_Wrong Again?

Though it happens rarely, I never mind admitting that I was wrong. Again. The 300 f/2.8L IS lens is a superb tool for bird photography; it is light enough for most folks to hand hold, it is fast, it is versatile, and it produces stunningly sharp images with incredible fine detail_."

So, for hand held and birds in flight, you would invert that list.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2013)

RGF said:


> How does the 400 w/ 2x compare to 500 w/ 1.4. Granted I loose a 100mm of length.



Based on TDP's ISO 12233 crops, the 400 II takes a reasonable IQ hit with the 2x. The 500 II + 1.4xIII is noticeably better. 

I love my 600 II, and I can see adding a 300 II to my kit down the line, as well.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 2, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> So, since it actually is a slightly different question, maybe, I'll give you a quick response.
> 
> There's a reason why all the _Sports Illustrated_ (and other) photographers you see by the sidelines of NFL games all have two cameras with them that they're constantly switching back and forth between. And there's a reason that the one is a 400 f/2.8 and the other is a 70-200 f/2.8.
> 
> ...


+10


----------



## RGF (Apr 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > How does the 400 w/ 2x compare to 500 w/ 1.4. Granted I loose a 100mm of length.
> ...



I know there is speculation here but any thoughts on the 300 II versus 200-400 vaporware. Rumors are that 200-400 will be (is in the prototype form) a great lens. 300II will be smaller and lighter but the 200-400 would be more versatile. The trade off will be IQ which remains to be seen.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 4, 2013)

RGF said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...


The 500 sounds like a good compromise in your situation...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't shoot wildlife. But this spring I'm shooting track & field and golf. I am taking my 400 f/2.8L IS I tomorrow and Monday for the golf tournament (one camera A) and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on camera B. I did a track meet today and while the 300 f/2.8L IS I was great, there were times when I reallly could have used the 400. For instance, sun was going overhead, and from closest to farthest away from me, you had 1. pole vault, 2. javelin (center of track), and 3. long jump (other side of infield). I could have easily gotten pole vault with the zoom and both javelin and long jump with the 400, but alas, I had the 300 and long jump was iffy so I moved.


----------

