Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: maggieddd on December 24, 2005, 09:54:34 am
-
I am looking for honest opinion about Canon 400mm DO f4.0 in this particular application. Hand-handled in unexpected situations, ready to shoot without too much time for proper set up, in a clearings of bush/thicket environment, mainly for extremely skittish, relatively small wildlife. So you know, its NOT for open savannah or neatly cleared water holes where one could set up a tripod and wait for big game to arrive.
What is your take on this lens for this application? Any other advices would be greatly appreciated.
-
The 400mm DO is an extreemly versatile lens. I know about a half dozen professional wildlife photographers that swear by it. There are some though that swear at it.
The problem is that like all DO lenses, you have to know how to deal with the files. They will be somewhat "softer" in terms of accutance and contrast than those from a non-DO lens. This means that a bit more "sharpening" needs to be added, and also a bit of local contrast enhancement. Once this is done the images are really excellent.
For its size and weight there's nothing that can touch it.
Michael
-
The problem is that like all DO lenses, you have to know how to deal with the files. They will be somewhat "softer" in terms of accutance and contrast than those from a non-DO lens. This means that a bit more "sharpening" needs to be added, and also a bit of local contrast enhancement. Once this is done the images are really excellent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is an issue I am having trouble resolving. While the weight difference over the non-DO 400mm is undeniably a huge benefit (11+ pounds vs. 4+ pounds ... plus the addition of IS), should the 'quirks' of Canon's current DO line be considered acceptable for the price? I'm uncertain that they are. A lens that produces a file that requires this sort of post-processing for nearly every shot shouldn't be considered a 'great' lens to my thinking. Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm just a plodding along amateur who admires the works of dedicated pros ... but I want peformance for my hard earned cash. I just don't think the current state (and pricing) of Canon's DO technology provides that great a value over comparable older tech lenses. A seven pound weight reduction, plus the addition of IS, does make me drool a bit though.
-
Not an owner of this lens and from the pictures I've seen in the net which illustrate the bokeh and flare, I guess I never will. Some also claim that 300/2.8 + 1.4X TC was sharper.
I think that for this kind of money one should get not only light weight, but also un-paralleled optical performance.
If I was into super-tele I'd buy another lens. 500/4 IS would probably the most likely candidate.
-
I think that for this kind of money one should get not only light weight, but also un-paralleled optical performance.
If I was into super-tele I'd buy another lens. 500/4 IS would probably the most likely candidate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is exactly what I was thinking. The difference between 300mm and 400mm is rather small and one can buy a very good Canon 300mm with a decent TC for much less than the cost of this lens and get comparable (or better) performance. I'd rather spend this sort of money to go for a 500mm or 600mm. Situationally, Maggieddd raises the only case in which I'd consider the 400mm DO. Still, I'd probably go with either a 300mm f/4 IS or the 100-400mm IS and save $4000. Even the Sigma monster tele zooms seem better options for this kind of money. Oh well, perhaps that is just my nearly empty wallet talking.
-
I appreciate all your answers, but it seemes like you completly ingnored the application I want to use this lens in. The 300mm with teleconverter (which I already own) or another 400mm, 500mm or even the 600mm are beautiful lenses to be used on the tripod, but I really neeed to be able to hand hold it. If that means a slightly inferior quality, which can be fixed at processing time, I think I have no alternative.
So, again, under the circumstances I described in my first post, do you think that lens is acceptable? Let me add, the price tag is irrelavant. I just need a tool for my application.
-
Will a f/5.6 (either in 400/5.6, 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC or 100-400 IS) be too slow?
-
So, again, under the circumstances I described in my first post, do you think that lens is acceptable? Let me add, the price tag is irrelavant. I just need a tool for my application.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael answered that in his response. He does give a sort of caveat that while some pros love the lens, others are not so happy. Obviously, one can get quality shots from the 400mm DO. As to whether it is the best solution ... that is what's debatable. Since price isn't an issue, go ahead and get it. It fits your requirements.
-
So, again, under the circumstances I described in my first post, do you think that lens is acceptable? Let me add, the price tag is irrelavant. I just need a tool for my application.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I currently own the 400 DO and have owned the 300 f4 and f2.8 IS lenses -- the simple answer to your question is, "Yes."
1) The 300/4 plus 1.4 TC is light, but focus slows notably with the TC added. Sharpness is good with the extender, but a good 400 DO is better (see final point below).
2) The 300/2.8 with or without the TC is too heavy IMO to use handheld for extended periods.
3) The 400/5.6 is an excellent lens for the money and a worthwhile consideration if the maximum f5.6 aperture and IS are not concerns, however;
4) The 400 DO (at least a good one) performs exceptionally well with either converter, so you really end up with usable and handholdable 400/4, 560/5.6 and 800/8 focals -- and I did these tests on my 1Ds2 body.
5) In the end I sold both my 300's and even sold my 500/4 IS because I always reached for the 400 DO instead. HOWEVER!;
6) I had to go through three 400 DO's to find a good one. Mine does not show a significant loss of contrast as did my earlier samples and is very sharp corner to corner -- not as sharp as my 500/4 IS was, but about as sharp as my 300's were. My advice is to buy a relatively recent manufacture lens as they seem to generally better performers. Mine is a UR date code which I believe is 2003. If you are buying new, check the date code before you purchase -- this lens could have been sitting on the dealer's shelf for a while. Also note that the optical formula of this lens (as in all the long teles) is designed to have the flat piece of filter glass in the filter drawer -- so do not follow any well-intentioned advice to remove it for better performance. Moreover, make sure it is clean and positioned correctly in the slot.
Hope this helps,
-
Will a f/5.6 (either in 400/5.6, 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC or 100-400 IS) be too slow?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've sold my 100-400 IS, I didn't like that lens.
-
I currently own the 400 DO and have owned the 300 f4 and f2.8 IS lenses -- the simple answer to your question is, "Yes."
1) The 300/4 plus 1.4 TC is light, but focus slows notably with the TC added. Sharpness is good with the extender, but a good 400 DO is better (see final point below).
2) The 300/2.8 with or without the TC is too heavy IMO to use handheld for extended periods.
3) The 400/5.6 is an excellent lens for the money and a worthwhile consideration if the maximum f5.6 aperture and IS are not concerns, however;
4) The 400 DO (at least a good one) performs exceptionally well with either converter, so you really end up with usable and handholdable 400/4, 560/5.6 and 800/8 focals -- and I did these tests on my 1Ds2 body.
5) In the end I sold both my 300's and even sold my 500/4 IS because I always reached for the 400 DO instead. HOWEVER!;
6) I had to go through three 400 DO's to find a good one. Mine does not show a significant loss of contrast as did my earlier samples and is very sharp corner to corner -- not as sharp as my 500/4 IS was, but about as sharp as my 300's were. My advice is to buy a relatively recent manufacture lens as they seem to generally better performers. Mine is a UR date code which I believe is 2003. If you are buying new, check the date code before you purchase -- this lens could have been sitting on the dealer's shelf for a while. Also note that the optical formula of this lens (as in all the long teles) is designed to have the flat piece of filter glass in the filter drawer -- so do not follow any well-intentioned advice to remove it for better performance. Moreover, make sure it is clean and positioned correctly in the slot.
Hope this helps,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54331\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thak you Jack, this was very helpful.
-
Maggieddd,
I often shoot the same subjects and conditions that you describe, and I’m not at all sure I would choose a 400mm fixed length telephoto. I often find myself surprisingly close to my subjects, so that framing can be a significant issue that favors a zoom lens. Because a tripod cannot always be deployed, lens speed can be critical even if the lens is IS/VR, (more is always better). The 400mm DO IS has a seriously long minimum focus distance of 11.5 feet, which can be too great for small animals. Since you have already rejected the 100–400 mm IS, you may wish to spend some time practicing with the 300mm f2.8 plus 1.4 TC. This combo has a weight disadvantage of 1.78 pounds, but has the ability to focus at 8.2 feet. As I'm sure you know, it is also devastatingly sharp even with the 1.4 TC, and in my estimation, very well balanced and steady for hand-holding. Oftentimes when photographing small animals, we must get down to ground level, and this can provide an extremely stable shooting position making the 300 f2.8 quite manageable. I have never heard of anyone rejecting a C or N 300mm f2.8 for lack of sharpness and contrast, NEVER. For my $5300 US, 1 in 3 odds of getting a good performer is simply unacceptable, as is additional postprocessing to correct for lens deficiencies.
If this type of subject comprises the bulk of your work, you should consider all available options including the Nikon 200–400 f4 VR and the D2x. This lens weighs 7.2 pounds, focuses down to 6.5 feet, and stands up well to the prime lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast and boke. With Nikon, you also have access to the 200 f2 VR which can yield a very potent 280mm f2.8, 340mm f3.3, or 400 f4 when paired with the 1.4, 1.7 or 2.0 TCs. This setup would weigh a bit more than the 400mm DO IS, be shorter in length, focus down to 6.2 feet, and offer much greater flexibility.
One final comment. The attached images were all taken with an 80-200 f2.8 hand held, at less than 200mm focal length. Without zoom capability, I would not have gotten these images.
Holiday Cheers,
Scott
[attachment=84:attachment][attachment=82:attachment][attachment=85:attachment]
-
Maggieddd,
I often shoot the same subjects and conditions that you describe, and I’m not at all sure I would choose a 400mm fixed length telephoto. I often find myself surprisingly close to my subjects, so that framing can be a significant issue that favors a zoom lens. Because a tripod cannot always be deployed, lens speed can be critical even if the lens is IS/VR, (more is always better). The 400mm DO IS has a seriously long minimum focus distance of 11.5 feet, which can be too great for small animals. Since you have already rejected the 100–400 mm IS, you may wish to spend some time practicing with the 300mm f2.8 plus 1.4 TC. This combo has a weight disadvantage of 1.78 pounds, but has the ability to focus at 8.2 feet. As I'm sure you know, it is also devastatingly sharp even with the 1.4 TC, and in my estimation, very well balanced and steady for hand-holding. Oftentimes when photographing small animals, we must get down to ground level, and this can provide an extremely stable shooting position making the 300 f2.8 quite manageable. I have never heard of anyone rejecting a C or N 300mm f2.8 for lack of sharpness and contrast, NEVER. For my $5300 US, 1 in 3 odds of getting a good performer is simply unacceptable, as is additional postprocessing to correct for lens deficiencies.
If this type of subject comprises the bulk of your work, you should consider all available options including the Nikon 200–400 f4 VR and the D2x. This lens weighs 7.2 pounds, focuses down to 6.5 feet, and stands up well to the prime lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast and boke. With Nikon, you also have access to the 200 f2 VR which can yield a very potent 280mm f2.8, 340mm f3.3, or 400 f4 when paired with the 1.4, 1.7 or 2.0 TCs. This setup would weigh a bit more than the 400mm DO IS, be shorter in length, focus down to 6.2 feet, and offer much greater flexibility.
One final comment. The attached images were all taken with an 80-200 f2.8 hand held, at less than 200mm focal length. Without zoom capability, I would not have gotten these images.
Holiday Cheers,
Scott
[attachment=84:attachment][attachment=82:attachment][attachment=85:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
but why would you recommend me a Nikon lens when (I think it is obvious) I am a Canon user?
-
Another thought: 400/4 DO is 1.9 Kg and 5300$. 500/4 is 3.9 Kg and 5500$. Now hear another interesting figures: Minolta 7D + Minolta 400/4.5 are only 2.7 Kg and 3400$. You have built-in AS (equivalent to IS but inside the camera so it works with all lenses) and a 600mm FoV. Don't know what about you but I call that a very interesting offer. You don't have a fast AF motor like USM but considering both weight and price figures, I think it's a minor loss.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...inolta-7d.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/minolta-7d.shtml)
http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/apo400.php (http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/apo400.php)
-
Another thought: 400/4 DO is 1.9 Kg and 5300$. 500/4 is 3.9 Kg and 5500$. Now hear another interesting figures: Minolta 7D + Minolta 400/4.5 are only 2.7 Kg and 3400$. You have built-in AS (equivalent to IS but inside the camera so it works with all lenses) and a 600mm FoV. Don't know what about you but I call that a very interesting offer. You don't have a fast AF motor like USM but considering both weight and price figures, I think it's a minor loss.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...inolta-7d.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/minolta-7d.shtml)
http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/apo400.php (http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/apo400.php)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54397\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, I am a bit lost in your post. Are you suggesting to me to buy Minolta DSLR and Minolta lens?
-
Gentlemen -- The lady has already stated that cost is irrelevant. She has also stated she needs to hand-hold it. She has also stated she tried the 100-400 and did not like it.
So, assuming she wants to stay within the Canon family, her choices really are only the two 300mm primes with converter, the 400/5.6L or the 400 DO.
The 300/2.8 with 1.4x converter gets a little unwieldy -- I am male, 6'-6" tall, weigh 240 pounds and am in relatively good physical shape. I could use that combo hand-held all day long and probably not suffer much. My 5'-8" tall 135 pound wife OTOH might find it a bit cumbersome to use hand-held all day long
The 300/4 IS with converter is light enough and focuses quite closely, so it might be worthy of consideration if she can put up with the slower AF speed and f5.6 effective maximum aperture.
Ditto the 400/5.6, except it AF's faster than the above combo but it does not have IS. IMO, IS is a very worthy feature when hand-holding any long lens, so I wouild dissuade her from this choice.
That leaves the 400 DO which probably covers all her needs nicely -- except perhaps for the close focus, which is easily handled with the EF12 tube if she needs to be closer regularly.
That really only leaves third party offerings from companies like Tamron and Sigma...
-
Gentlemen -- The lady has already stated that cost is irrelevant. She has also stated she needs to hand-hold it. She has also stated she tried the 100-400 and did not like it.
So, assuming she wants to stay within the Canon family, her choices really are only the two 300mm primes with converter, the 400/5.6L or the 400 DO.
The 300/2.8 with 1.4x converter gets a little unwieldy -- I am male, 6'-6" tall, weigh 240 pounds and am in relatively good physical shape. I could use that combo hand-held all day long and probably not suffer much. My 5'-8" tall 135 pound wife OTOH might find it a bit cumbersome to use hand-held all day long
The 300/4 IS with converter is light enough and focuses quite closely, so it might be worthy of consideration if she can put up with the slower AF speed and f5.6 effective maximum aperture.
Ditto the 400/5.6, except it AF's faster than the above combo but it does not have IS. IMO, IS is a very worthy feature when hand-holding any long lens, so I wouild dissuade her from this choice.
That leaves the 400 DO which probably covers all her needs nicely -- except perhaps for the close focus, which is easily handled with the EF12 tube if she needs to be closer regularly.
That really only leaves third party offerings from companies like Tamron and Sigma...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
Tremendous thanks for your reply. This is the exact assurance I was looking for. I wish post like this were more visible. Thank you so much for all your help.
-
but why would you recommend me a Nikon lens when (I think it is obvious) I am a Canon user?
Maggieddd,
For two reasons:
You said in your previous post, “What is your take on this lens for this application? Any other advices would be greatly appreciated”, and “Let me add, the price tag is irrelevant. I just need a tool for my application.”
While I can readily see that you shoot Canon gear, I was not aware that you restrict yourself to shooting only Canon gear. I did not wish to place such an arbitrary restriction on you, so suggested tools that seemed to fit your requirements.
Again, I think a 400mm tele is a very limited tool for the situations you describe. A zoom would be a far better choice. I really think a 70-200 f2.8 plus 1.4 TC is nearly ideal. When coupled to a 1D Mk II, you get an effective focal length of 160-450mm @ f4.0.
Scott
-
Maggieddd,
For two reasons:
You said in your previous post, “What is your take on this lens for this application? Any other advices would be greatly appreciated”, and “Let me add, the price tag is irrelevant. I just need a tool for my application.”
While I can readily see that you shoot Canon gear, I was not aware that you restrict yourself to shooting only Canon gear. I did not wish to place such an arbitrary restriction on you, so suggested tools that seemed to fit your requirements.
Again, I think a 400mm tele is a very limited tool for the situations you describe. A zoom would be a far better choice. I really think a 70-200 f2.8 plus 1.4 TC is nearly ideal. When coupled to a 1D Mk II, you get an effective focal length of 160-450mm @ f4.0.
Scott
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Scott for clarifying that for me. You know, I will give the 70-200 f 2.8 plus 1.4 TC a serious thought. This may actually be a pretty good idea. Althought, I will be using it on 5D therefore it may not give me the focal length you calculated. But might be a good idea anyway.
Thank you
-
OK, I am a bit lost in your post. Are you suggesting to me to buy Minolta DSLR and Minolta lens?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't speak for Yakim, but it is not unusual to keep one body permanently attached to a ~400m lens for grab shots etc. If you take this approach, then you can think about other brands. The KM 7D + 400 F4.5 combo is much cheaper than the Canon 400mm F4 DO lens, offers similar weight savings (the lens alone weighs 2Kg) and offers IS from the KM body. The question then is do you want to have to carry a camera body that cannot be used with your other lenses and hence cannot act as a backup. Also it cannot be used with your other Canon bits and pieces such as flash, teleconverters etc. And of course the 7D 'only' has 6MP. (Or do you shoot film?) But the benefits (for which read cost savings) might outweigh the negatives. And of course you could add other lenses if you needed an IS enabled lens that Canon do not offer.
Just my thoughts.
Leif
-
I will give the 70-200 f 2.8 plus 1.4 TC a serious thought. This may actually be a pretty good idea. Althought, I will be using it on 5D therefore it may not give me the focal length you calculated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54435\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you did not care for the 100-400 zoom, I doubt you will find the 70-200 plus converter much better optically. It does handle better though -- at least IMO -- since the 70-200 is not a push-pull design.
Another consideration is that on the full-frame 5D you'll need the 2x converter to get to your desired 400mm... And this of course raises the maximum aperture of that assembly to f5.6...
Regarding the 1D2 concept: If you go this route, you may then get by quite well with the 300/4 IS mounted on it for a lightweight, close-focusing package with an effective 390mm focal. If it is birds and small mammals you are shooting, the 8 frames per second drive may not be bad to have either
-
If you did not care for the 100-400 zoom, I doubt you will find the 70-200 plus converter much better optically. It does handle better though -- at least IMO -- since the 70-200 is not a push-pull design.
Another consideration is that on the full-frame 5D you'll need the 2x converter to get to your desired 400mm... And this of course raises the maximum aperture of that assembly to f5.6...
Regarding the 1D2 concept: If you go this route, you may then get by quite well with the 300/4 IS mounted on it for a lightweight, close-focusing package with an effective 390mm focal. If it is birds and small mammals you are shooting, the 8 frames per second drive may not be bad to have either
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, you got me thinking again. Alternatively, I could use my 20D instead of 5D and that way I gain extra focal length with the cropping factor which is 1.6. That puts me at 640mm with the 400 DO lens without the converter. If I were to get 70-200mm without the converter I am only at 320mm. As the idea of having different focal lengths available is appealing, I have to admit that 320mm is not really that great. When I had my 100-400mm I always ended up using it at 400mm (which with the converter and the cropping factor was really 896mm) and I always wished I could get closer. So, Seigmunds point of 70-200mm lens being more versitile since I would be able to zoom in and out is a bit out of question since in my experience I rarely had a reason to zoom out.
-
If you did not care for the 100-400 zoom, I doubt you will find the 70-200 plus converter much better optically. It does handle better though -- at least IMO -- since the 70-200 is not a push-pull design.
Not only is it the push-pull design, but the 100-400 is also poorer at autofocus (naturally, it has a smaller max aperture) and the IS isn't very good.
Optically, the sample that I've tried, is not up to par with the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender II, not on the 20D nor the 5D.
The 100-400 with a 1.4x extender not only means a lack of autofocus, but also that the lens (again, the sample I tried) will seem noticeably soft at apertures down to f/11, and I thought it was best around f/13 to f/16.
Regarding the 1D2 concept: If you go this route, you may then get by quite well with the 300/4 IS mounted on it for a lightweight, close-focusing package with an effective 390mm focal. If it is birds and small mammals you are shooting, the 8 frames per second drive may not be bad to have either
Yes, the 1D2(N) seems a much more usable choice for this kind of work.
-
Regarding small mammals and birds...
Believe it or not, I used to shoot these subjects fairly often, though it was back in film days. Anyway, my point is when I was doing that I NEVER had too long a lens... In fact I was shooting Nikon then and my lens of choice was the 800/5.6 -- talk about a tank!
-
Hello Maggie,
Looks like you're getting a lot of opinions on this post. Well, as I am currently going through the same decision, I would like to share my thoughts as well.
I am also weighing up the 300 2.8 and 400 f4DO. My experience is that I want hand-holdability and IS capability over other features.. However image quality must be at least "good". Many say that a 300 2.8 + 1.4 is sharper than a 400 DO.. However my experience in using TC's is that they slow the focus and degrade optical performance and lengthen the lens, unbalancing it's proportion and affecting hand-holdability. This is the case with my 70-200, with the 1.4TC and especially with the 2xTC. If you are going from zoom telephotos then the I think the image quality of the 400DO will be better. It is not comparable to it's own breed (Canon IS telephotos) but it should be better than L zooms.. so in actual fact your image quality should improve, compared to the lenses you have been using. This is however a "hunch" so if anyone can comment on this comparison (70-200 and 100-400 vs the 400DO) then this would be helpful.
Also, another suggestion.. generally try to double the focal length of your lenses, especially at the telephoto end. That means if you have a 70-200 then rather go for a 400 in whatever guise (DO, 5.6, 2.8IS) instead of the 300, as the incremental reach of a 300 over a 200 is not really that great.
So, in conclusion, if you can live with the marginal loss of image quality (sharpness and contrast which are both easily corrected in photoshop) then I would suggest the 400DO. The best lens is the one you use the most, have pleasure in using and that gives you the results you need. Simply having the sharpest lens at the expense of portability and convenience is not, I believe, the right approach for all of us. Perhaps the ardent pro who is in competition with other pro's and makes money from his images.. but in that case the pro in question will have a lens for very specific situations, not just one. If you are looking to please yourself and your audience with your images then go for whatever feels most confortable, as that is the lens you will take more often and get more pictures with.
As for me... well, cost is an issue so I have delayed in purchasing either the 300 or 400.. and picked up a Pentax 500 f4.5 screw mount manual focus lens.. A 30 year old lens that is a real pain to work with, but it gives me the reach I need for African wildlife.. and it only cost me $500!
In time I will come around to going for a Canon telephoto.. and by then my experiences might have changed my outlook... but for the moment I suggest the 400 DO.
Hope this helps.
-
Let me elaborate a little.
Even if would not have any financial limitations, I would not buy the 400/4 DO. Reasons: I don't like it's bokeh and flare resistance. Also, as Jack stated, not all copies are sharp. As someone who don't live in USA with its liberal return policy, this is also an issue for me. I therefore would consider Canon's 300/2.8 IS, Canon's 500/4 IS or 7D + 400/4.5. The Minolta set would be considered because of its weight. The Canon options would be considered because of the USM, focal length and aperture.
When you put money into consideration (yes, I know it is not important to you but unfortunately it is for me), the Minolta set would score more valuable points. Again, for me.
All the above are my personal thoughts on the subject and what I would do if I were in your shoes. I only tried to help you. If I didn't, please ignore my posts.
-
Let me elaborate a little.
Even if would not have any financial limitations, I would not buy the 400/4 DO. Reasons: I don't like it's bokeh and flare resistance. Also, as Jack stated, not all copies are sharp. As someone who don't live in USA with its liberal return policy, this is also an issue for me. I therefore would consider Canon's 300/2.8 IS, Canon's 500/4 IS or 7D + 400/4.5. The Minolta set would be considered because of its weight. The Canon options would be considered because of the USM, focal length and aperture.
When you put money into consideration (yes, I know it is not important to you but unfortunately it is for me), the Minolta set would score more valuable points. Again, for me.
All the above are my personal thoughts on the subject and what I would do if I were in your shoes. I only tried to help you. If I didn't, please ignore my posts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yakim,
I would like to thank you very much for the time you took to respond to my questions.
The thing is that you are stating that that's what you would do if you were in my shoes but you also tell me that you would or wouldn't buy certain things because of the cost constrains, which is an issue for you. Then you are not telling me anything as you are putting your situation in perspective and not mine.
But I thank you very much for responding and I appreciate your effort.
-
Hello Maggie,
Looks like you're getting a lot of opinions on this post. Well, as I am currently going through the same decision, I would like to share my thoughts as well.
I am also weighing up the 300 2.8 and 400 f4DO. My experience is that I want hand-holdability and IS capability over other features.. However image quality must be at least "good". Many say that a 300 2.8 + 1.4 is sharper than a 400 DO.. However my experience in using TC's is that they slow the focus and degrade optical performance and lengthen the lens, unbalancing it's proportion and affecting hand-holdability. This is the case with my 70-200, with the 1.4TC and especially with the 2xTC. If you are going from zoom telephotos then the I think the image quality of the 400DO will be better. It is not comparable to it's own breed (Canon IS telephotos) but it should be better than L zooms.. so in actual fact your image quality should improve, compared to the lenses you have been using. This is however a "hunch" so if anyone can comment on this comparison (70-200 and 100-400 vs the 400DO) then this would be helpful.
Also, another suggestion.. generally try to double the focal length of your lenses, especially at the telephoto end. That means if you have a 70-200 then rather go for a 400 in whatever guise (DO, 5.6, 2.8IS) instead of the 300, as the incremental reach of a 300 over a 200 is not really that great.
So, in conclusion, if you can live with the marginal loss of image quality (sharpness and contrast which are both easily corrected in photoshop) then I would suggest the 400DO. The best lens is the one you use the most, have pleasure in using and that gives you the results you need. Simply having the sharpest lens at the expense of portability and convenience is not, I believe, the right approach for all of us. Perhaps the ardent pro who is in competition with other pro's and makes money from his images.. but in that case the pro in question will have a lens for very specific situations, not just one. If you are looking to please yourself and your audience with your images then go for whatever feels most confortable, as that is the lens you will take more often and get more pictures with.
As for me... well, cost is an issue so I have delayed in purchasing either the 300 or 400.. and picked up a Pentax 500 f4.5 screw mount manual focus lens.. A 30 year old lens that is a real pain to work with, but it gives me the reach I need for African wildlife.. and it only cost me $500!
In time I will come around to going for a Canon telephoto.. and by then my experiences might have changed my outlook... but for the moment I suggest the 400 DO.
Hope this helps.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you, this was very helpful.
-
Regarding small mammals and birds...
Believe it or not, I used to shoot these subjects fairly often, though it was back in film days. Anyway, my point is when I was doing that I NEVER had too long a lens... In fact I was shooting Nikon then and my lens of choice was the 800/5.6 -- talk about a tank!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I love my 400 DO. I sold my 300 f2.8L IS. Of course zooms are more flexable and the 70-200 f2.8L IS would be good with the 1.4 extender. But primes are better than zooms and whenever I'm shooting as you describe I always end up with the longest lens I've got. The WAY I use mine is what makes it usable all day without fatigue. I use a video monopod adjusted to about 30 inches long, anchored in the cup of a flagbearers harness. I say a video monopod because it has a tilt handle. Turn the monopod around so that the handle is pointing away from you and is under the lens. Leave the tilt locking knob loose. Now control and aim by your left hand on the tilt handle (under the lens) and your right hand on the camera. This works extremely well. I would go so far as to say that , when combined with a fast shutter speed and IS, it is essentially as good as a tripod ! You can shoot all day without getting tired because all the weight is supported by the harness and the camera is very easy to aim as it is balanced (by using an Arca-Swiss type clamp on the monopod head and sliding the camera/lens back and forth to find the best balance) on the monopod. Handholding ANY tele for long periods will wear you out and make you less stable. Which ever lens you chose, try the harness/monopod for mobility and weight-free shooting!---Ken
-
I love my 400 DO. I sold my 300 f2.8L IS. Of course zooms are more flexable and the 70-200 f2.8L IS would be good with the 1.4 extender. But primes are better than zooms and whenever I'm shooting as you describe I always end up with the longest lens I've got. The WAY I use mine is what makes it usable all day without fatigue. I use a video monopod adjusted to about 30 inches long, anchored in the cup of a flagbearers harness. I say a video monopod because it has a tilt handle. Turn the monopod around so that the handle is pointing away from you and is under the lens. Leave the tilt locking knob loose. Now control and aim by your left hand on the tilt handle (under the lens) and your right hand on the camera. This works extremely well. I would go so far as to say that , when combined with a fast shutter speed and IS, it is essentially as good as a tripod ! You can shoot all day without getting tired because all the weight is supported by the harness and the camera is very easy to aim as it is balanced (by using an Arca-Swiss type clamp on the monopod head and sliding the camera/lens back and forth to find the best balance) on the monopod. Handholding ANY tele for long periods will wear you out and make you less stable. Which ever lens you chose, try the harness/monopod for mobility and weight-free shooting!---Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken,
Thank you so much for your suggestions. Would you be so kind and tell me what brand of monopod and harness you use or maybe get me a link to those items? Brand names? I really appreciate it.
Maggie
-
[attachment=90:attachment][attachment=91:attachment]
Ken,
Thank you so much for your suggestions. Would you be so kind and tell me what brand of monopod and harness you use or maybe get me a link to those items? Brand names? I really appreciate it.
Maggie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maggie,
The Giotto mv-825 monopod, avail. at B&H, is very similar to mine. The setup is similar to the enclosed pic. But if you get a flag bearers harness from a flag store, it will be very cheap. I don't have a pic of my exact set-up. The most expensive item will be the Arca-Swiss, or similar, clamp. I have been using this set-up for about 10 yrs and it's the best thing I've found for wildlife because you are so mobile and weight-free. Also, as I said I love the Canon 400 f4 IS DO. You cannot find ANY other f4 lens as long & as sharp for the weight.
Ken
-
[attachment=92:attachment][attachment=97:attachment][attachment=99:attachment]
[attachment=90:attachment][attachment=91:attachment]
Maggie,
The Giotto mv-825 monopod, avail. at B&H, is very similar to mine. The setup is similar to the enclosed pic. But if you get a flag bearers harness from a flag store, it will be very cheap. I don't have a pic of my exact set-up. The most expensive item will be the Arca-Swiss, or similar, clamp. I have been using this set-up for about 10 yrs and it's the best thing I've found for wildlife because you are so mobile and weight-free. Also, as I said I love the Canon 400 f4 IS DO. You cannot find ANY other f4 lens as long & as sharp for the weight.
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maggie,
Hear are some proof-is-in-the-pudding shots taken with my 400 DO & monopod
Ken
-
You can also try a GoPod (http://www.pixelagogo.com/gopod/).
-
>> The thing is that you are stating that that's what you would do if you were in my shoes but you also tell me that you would or wouldn't buy certain things because of the cost constrains, which is an issue for you. Then you are not telling me anything as you are putting your situation in perspective and not mine.
Well, I tried to put myself in your shoes. Look at the first sentence I wrote: "Even if would not have any financial limitations, I would not buy the 400/4 DO. Reasons: I don't like it's bokeh and flare resistance".
But then again, each lens has it's pros and cons and it's what suites the individual photographer that counts in the end.
-
[attachment=90:attachment][attachment=91:attachment]
Maggie,
The Giotto mv-825 monopod, avail. at B&H, is very similar to mine. The setup is similar to the enclosed pic. But if you get a flag bearers harness from a flag store, it will be very cheap. I don't have a pic of my exact set-up. The most expensive item will be the Arca-Swiss, or similar, clamp. I have been using this set-up for about 10 yrs and it's the best thing I've found for wildlife because you are so mobile and weight-free. Also, as I said I love the Canon 400 f4 IS DO. You cannot find ANY other f4 lens as long & as sharp for the weight.
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Ken. I will look into this set up. I even already have this monopod
-
I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I just ordered a 400mm DO. I was in Africa last week and a fellow photographer had this lens.
Awesome.
-
I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I just ordered a 400mm DO. I was in Africa last week and a fellow photographer had this lens.
Awesome.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=55372\")
I'm entering this thread rather late but as a 400DO owner I'm really pleased you took the plunge. I'm only an amateur photographer and this lens is by far the most expensive item I have ever bought. I still lie awake at nights wondering whether I should have got the 500IS instead. But when I remind myself that the DO weighs in at half of the 500IS and is a joy to use out in the field, I figure I may have made the right decision.
Anyway, as I said, I'm only an amateur who has to do a boring office job during the week, but you may be interested to see some of the photos I've taken during my first year of ownership. All the bird and mammal shots were taken using the 400 DO, some with the addition of the 1.4 converter. My one and only body is the 20D.
[a href=\"http://www.photosofwildlife.co.uk]http://www.photosofwildlife.co.uk[/url]
Cheers,
-
The 400 DO IS seems to have inspired controversy ever since its introduction; folks seem to love it or hate it, but are rarely neutral about it.
I get the feeling tha those who do not care for it, based that opinion on the early production cycle lenses. I read on the web, that there were modest changes made to the lens sometime after the early lenses were introduced. I wish I had a nice link to document this fact, but I do not.
Nonetheless, the lens seems to be highly regarded by the newer users coming to it. Uwe Steinmueller wrote nice comments about it here - http://www.outbackphoto.com/the_bag/uwes_c...2004/essay.html (http://www.outbackphoto.com/the_bag/uwes_canon_lenses_2004/essay.html)
I own and use the 300 f2.8 IS L, the 400DO IS, and the 500 f4 IS L and see little difference in image quality between them. I base my useage on focal length needed, and how far I need to hike. The 500 is a superb lens, but not a very portable one. The 400 DO with a 1.4 TC is a very portable device, and is responsibe for this image from a few years ago with a 10D.
) I have wondered if he sees the doughnut halo highlights with his 70-300 DO too.
There has been further discussion of the 400 DO here - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=10554 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10554)
-
Regarding the 1D2 concept: If you go this route, you may then get by quite well with the 300/4 IS mounted on it for a lightweight, close-focusing package with an effective 390mm focal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 1DII has the same pixel pitch as the 5D (and bigger than the 1DsII) so the "390mm equivalence" of a 300mm lens is no advantage over the 5D at all. As far as resolution and FOV, it gives you exactly what you would get with an 8MP crop from the 5D with the same lens.
Since the 1DII and 5D have the biggest pixels and lowest sensor resolution (lp/mm) of any current DSLR, they are arguably somewhat poor options for super-telephoto work. For example, a 30D with 300/2.8 IS lens has the same telephoto reach as the 1DII with about 384mm, and the same 384mm with the 5D and a crop to match the 8MP of the 30D. (A Nikon D200 with 300/2.8 matches 410mm after cropping to equal pixel counts, but the OP has ruled out that option.)
-
The 400 DO IS seems to have inspired controversy ever since its introduction; folks seem to love it or hate it, but are rarely neutral about it.
Anyone else heard the rumours about an 800mm version of the DO? Given my current love affair with the 400, that would certainly be a lens to lust after
Paul Flackett
http://www.photosofwildlife.co.uk (http://www.photosofwildlife.co.uk)
-
Anyone else heard the rumours about an 800mm version of the DO? Given my current love affair with the 400, that would certainly be a lens to lust after
That rumour is certainly new; I didn't know of anyone claiming that Canon integrated the 2x TC into an existing design.
But perhaps what you're thinking of is the rumour of a completely new lens with DO, the EF 800mm f/5.6 DO IS USM. That is largely considereda fake.
If you want to keep track of all the more or less ludicrous rumours that have appeared during the past years, check this site out:
Northlight Images - New Canon EF Lenses (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html)
This is of course a page that wouldn't exist without the Canon 1DS Mk3 rumours page (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html).
But they're just that -- rumours.
-
I have been shooting with a 400mm DO for several years. It is a great best bird flight lens for hand held shooting. For me, my best 400mm DO images seem to be taken against open sky with no distracting backgounds. The lens has a rather strange boken pattern which can be very distracting. It also does not treat bright specular highlights very well. I have had to use Gausssian Blur to clean-up some backgrounds - lots of extra Photoshop time!!
Despite the shortcomings , I continue to shoot the 400mm DO because of the combination of relatively light weight and BALANCE. The lens is not front heavy as is the 300mm f/2.8 which is probably the main reason that it is so easy to hand hold. In comparison, the 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x is rather front heavy and not much fun to hand hold.
I would not recommend the 400mm DO to you without knowing your application. It is a specialized lens with definite limitations. Based upon my tests, the lens is about as sharp as the 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.4 extender. The 300mm is sharper when used without the extender. The 400mm DO works just O:K with a 1.4X - not acceptable to me with a 2X.
If you can live without IS and f/4 - the little 400mm f/5.6 lens would be a good candidate. Try it - you can always find a buyer if you don't like it!
Phil Lindsay