[paul_j_c2000]

Hi i am looking for a l series lens for my 10d iam torn between the 500 f4 is and a 400 f2.8 is, my main use being bird and wildlife, although the 500 will give me the distance,iam thinking the 400 being a faster lens will give me more choice of acceptable shots and if i needed that bit extra i could add a 1.4 or 2 x converter .would this setup be as good optically as the 500 f4 i dont no much about converters do you lose sharpness and quality,can you use both at the same time do all features work with the 10d ,af , is ,etc any help please paul

[Al Downie]

Originally Posted by paul_j_c2000

Hi i am looking for a l series lens for my 10d iam torn between the 500 f4 is and a 400 f2.8 is, my main use being bird and wildlife,l

Both of these are monsters! If you're absoultely sure that you'll be going somewhere, sitting down and waiting for nature to come to you, then either of the beasts on your list will be a great thing to have - I think you'd probably get better results from the 400/2.8; the longer the lens the more difficult to use and less versatile it is.

If on the other hand, you plan to go out and find things to photograph, I don't expect you'll get much further than a mile from the car before you get completely arsed-off with the giant bazooka on your back.

I've just spent a week mulling over all of the above; I looked at the 300/2.8, and even that is just too big to be properly portable for a day out (I want to carry my scope & bins too), so I've ended up buying the 300/4 and a 1.4x TC, simply because I know I'll use it. It's less than half the weight, the hood is built-in, and it's narrow enough to fit in the bag along with all the rest of my kit. BUT.. it's still an L-series lens. Oh.. yes... AND (as if it mattered) it's £2,500 cheaper!

If you're dead set on one of the bigger lenses, there's a couple of 400/2.8's (non-IS) on ebay at the moment. Interesting to see how much they want for postage & packing (insurance extra) - that should give you an idea of what kind of monster it really is!

Al

[Adey Baker]

Weights according to Canon's spec:

500mm F4 IS = 3.87kg

400mm F2.8 IS = 5.37kg

300mm F4 IS = 1.19kg

Whilst on this thread, Paul has mentioned teleconverters with the bigger lenses. Has anyone any comments on the 300mm F4 IS lens + 1.4x teleconverter vis-a-vis the 400mm F5.6L (non-IS) lens?

Adey

[Steve G]

I debated this issue for a while before committing myself to a 500mm IS. The 400mm IS f2.8 lens is a monster to carry around. Using the 10D & A 2X convertor it becomes a f5.6 800mm IS lens which will autofocus sharply. The 500 IS f4 lens on the 10D will only support autofocus with a 1.4x convertor @ 5.6 ..>700mm effective lens. The difference in weight was however a big factor. I luckily came into a bit of money at that time & got a deal on a Canon 1Ds which will autofocus @ f8 so I went for the 500 lens with that camera. As a result I am (just!!) able to carry the kit reasonable distances which I suspect might not be the case with the heavier 400 lens. This becomes critical if you go foreign birding as you need to carry the gear as hand luggage -one 400 f2.8 lens will exceed your hand luggage allowance on most package-style holidays. The 10D is a cracking camera & with the battery pack to balance you will probably find you can get handheld flight shots with a 500 lens but not with the heavier 400 lens. The 10D + 500 LENS + 1.4X CONVERTOR>> 1.6X10/1.4=>a massive 22.4x magnification allowing for the cameras 1.6x lens effective lens multiplication effect. Ok with the 400 lens + 2x convertor this becomes a very massive 25.6x @5.6 but the combined unit is then very heavy & unwieldy. If you plan foreign trips & lots of flight shots go for the 500, if you are more sedentary & plan to use the kit at estuaries & from fixed hides, etc go for the 400. Whatever you pick I'm sure you'll not be unhappy.

[George McCarthy]

Hi Paul
It's a "no-brainer". With bird photography you always want a longer lens ALWAYS! Buy the 500mm. If you have the strength to carry the 400 2.8 then forget it and get the 600 F4.
George

[George McCarthy]

Paul
I forgot to say that although your 10D does make a 400mm effectively about 640mm and thats great right now. What happens in the future when your next digital body has a full frame sensor? You are back to 400mm and playing catch-up with converters!
George

[Al Downie]

Originally Posted by George McCarthy

Hi Paul
It's a "no-brainer". With bird photography you always want a longer lens ALWAYS!

Hah. Just buy the 1200mm then, and be done with it. And stack three 2x converters on it. Better still, slip someone in NASA a fiver and get them to point the Hubble telescope at Titchwell for a few minutes.

Me, I'd go for versatility every time. Size isn't everything.

Al

[spiderwood]

I'd go with George's suggestion...the 500/4. Having carried the brute around for a bit it is heavy enough. The 400 and the 600 are a lot heavier to pack!

The 500/4 AF's on a D60 with the 1.4x, but not the 2x. Optical quality is not degraded visibly with the 1.4x, and only slightly with the 2x. You can stack 1.4x and 2x and get good results...but you'll find the viewfinder image is dark and that makes it difficult to manually focus.

One other point to bear in mind...if you're going to do any shooting from a car window, the 500/4 is just small enough to manage manouvering it around inside the car. The 600/4 is bigger, heavier and not so easy to move from the front seat :) I'd guess the 400/2.8, being a similar weight, will be as difficult to use inside a car.

[paul_j_c2000]

thanks for all your input paul

[Paulyoly]

Originally Posted by Adey Baker

Weights according to Canon's spec:

500mm F4 IS = 3.87kg

400mm F2.8 IS = 5.37kg

300mm F4 IS = 1.19kg

Whilst on this thread, Paul has mentioned teleconverters with the bigger lenses. Has anyone any comments on the 300mm F4 IS lens + 1.4x teleconverter vis-a-vis the 400mm F5.6L (non-IS) lens?

Adey

I use the 400 f5.6L and have heard many times that it is sharper than the 300mm f4 IS+1.4x, i can't really say because i've never used the 300mm, but i wouldn't use a teleconverter as a substitute for a longer lens. The 400 5.6L works great for inflight shots, i do wish it had IS for those non flight shots.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23845126

not to mention it weighs practically nothing compared to the faster lenses.

[paul_j_c2000]

Originally Posted by Paulyoly

I use the 400 f5.6L and have heard many times that it is sharper than the 300mm f4 IS+1.4x, i can't really say because i've never used the 300mm, but i wouldn't use a teleconverter as a substitute for a longer lens. The 400 5.6L works great for inflight shots, i do wish it had IS for those non flight shots.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23845126

not to mention it weighs practically nothing compared to the faster lenses.

Hi i have a 300 f4is +1.4con and i think its a great match the pics are sharp and its great for hand holding with the is,i found the focusing was fast and accurate,have a look at my postings in the gallery the later ones are taken with this set up i havent had the lens long and am still learning but im wellhappy with the results paul

[revduncan]

Hi folks - interesting and informative comments.

I'm looking for a long lens at the bottom end of the budget to use with my EOS 20D. I was looking at the Canon 400 f5.6L, but it seems that it is incompatible with the Extender 1.4. Is that just an autofocus issue or is there something else?

Has anyone tried a Sigma 300 f4 and, if it has been chipped, whether it will work with a Canon or Sigma extender?

I would appreciate your views.

[Robert_Scanlon]

Revduncan:

The 1.4 will work with the 400 f5.6 and still produce acceptable results. You won't be able to autofocus on your 20D (unless you resort to slightly unreliable pin-taping trickery)

paul_j_c2000:

I agree with a previous poster who recommends the 600 f4. If you have the strength to lug the 400 2.8 around, go for the 600 unless you really need the speed and you are not going to be doing much small bird photography.

I find my 600 with a 1.4 tc PLUS the 1.3 crop factor on the camera STILL leaves me wanting a lot of the time where small birds are concerned.

[jimtfoto]

Paul:
Is your mind set on prime lenses? Have you considered either the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500? My wife uses the Canon (now and then utilizing a 2X converter if light is good) and I use the 50-500 (again, occasionally with a 2X converter).
Recently while with a friend, who uses a 500 prime, we were all at the same spot shooting a particular species of duck. Our lenses were both full out at 500 mm (OK, mine was full out). The duck then came right towards us at a rather quick pace. End result? I just adjusted the zoom and stayed put. My friend kept backing up trying to keep all the duck in the frame. He ended up about 20 feet behind me.
Just something to consider....
cheers,
jim

[Marise]

Interesting thread
- does anyone know anything about the 400 DO F4. It seems to be more manageable weight and length and I assume AF would work with converter? I can't find much practical info on it ( other than sales blurb - which is usually complimentary ) anyone used one?

[robski]

Originally Posted by Marise

Interesting thread
- does anyone know anything about the 400 DO F4. It seems to be more manageable weight and length and I assume AF would work with converter? I can't find much practical info on it ( other than sales blurb - which is usually complimentary ) anyone used one?

I saw this some time ago on bobatkins.com it is not the lens in question but is about DO optics it concerned me enough not to take that path. Seems to be if there are no reviews the lens is not up to much.

"Now for the 70-300DO IS. Well, first the good part. AF is excellent and the IS system is very effective. The use of the DO (diffractive optic) element is very effective in suppressing chromatic aberration - in fact I haven't yet detected any in any of the DO lens shots I've seen. The disappointing part of the optical performance is also due to the use of diffractive optics though. When used wide open, bright objects may appear to be surrounded by a soft white "halo". Though this effect is greatly diminished by stopping down, it's not a fast lens to start with. Also, it's very prone to flare when used wide open and without a lens hood - much more so than other of these lenses. Again this is due to the use of a diffractive optical element. The DO makes it possible for the lens to be very short and to suppress chromatic aberration, but it does tend to make flare worse under some circumstances. Another undesirable DO effect is that there can be some "structure" in out of focus bright spots. This is similar to the "donut" shaped highlights you get with a mirror lens, though significantly less objectionable."

Robert

[Marise]

Thanks Robert for taking the time to reply.
Doesn't sound brilliant does it. I thought perhaps because it was considerably shorter and lighter ( only 1.9kg ) that it would have some major advantages and it could still be hand held - maybe even with a 1.4tc. Its not cheap but still less than either the 400 F2.8 and £1600 cheaper than the 500mm and half the weight - its not easy is it!
Marise

[Adey Baker]

Originally Posted by Marise

Thanks Robert for taking the time to reply.
Doesn't sound brilliant does it. I thought perhaps because it was considerably shorter and lighter ( only 1.9kg ) that it would have some major advantages and it could still be hand held - maybe even with a 1.4tc. Its not cheap but still less than either the 400 F2.8 and £1600 cheaper than the 500mm and half the weight - its not easy is it!
Marise

The 400mm F4 got a very high rating in 'Amateur Photographer' magazine's report when the lens came out - no real criticisms at all. You can't really compare it with a zoom lens costing about a quarter of its price.

I've handled the lens very briefly, but it was mounted to a 1Ds body at the time and the combination was heavy - not the kind of thing you'd want to lug around all day. The IS will help to prevent camera-shake, but if you use it hand-held, it won' stop your arms from aching!

Having said that, it's much more portable than the 500 and 600 or the 400 F2.8 and coupled to the 1.4 or 2x converters it does give the possibility of a longer reach at a reasonable size without having too slow a maximum aperture

[Marise]

Thanks Adey,

Thats interesting, I probably wouldn't lug it around all day but I rarely use a tripod either and this seemed a good compromise - light enough to hold for maybe short periods - I'm suprised that no-one seems to use it at all 'cause Canon appear to have introduced it for wildlife photography 'on the hoof.' It's just that sometimes I would like a longer lens - but not very keen on a converter if it means manual focus as with my 100-400. Plus my 20d is considerbly lighter than the 1Ds. Thanks heaps for the info - i certainly won't dismiss it then.

[Adey Baker]

Marise

I use a Sigma 400mm F5.6 on a 20D 'on the hoof' and although it's not too heavy on my shoulder to carry, holding it in the shooting position for any length of time does start to tire my left arm (and I'm left-handed, as well) because you have to hold it out somewhat. The right arm, holding the camera body to the eye, is tucked-in to my body so isn't affected as much.

The Sigma is about half way between the Canon 400mm F5.6 and the F4 DO lens in weight terms so the F4 would benefit from some sort of harness support to help out when you're 'staking-out' a bird and have to have the camera in position, ready.

However, the Canon is shorter than the Sigma, thanks to those DO elements, so it may be possible to hold it with the left arm tucked in more comfortably - I suppose you'd have to find a dealer with one in stock to try out before buying.

(The Canon F4 is completely out of my price-range so I didn't have any 'expensive' decisions to make when I chose the Sigma!)

[Marise]

Thanks Adey - Yes I'm left handed as well and I know what you mean, I try as often as possible to rest it on something, but I am useless with a tripod, last time I tripped over one of the legs and went a......over t....! in the mud - not a pretty sight! By the time I'm set up any bird that may have been around has had time to find a mate, breed and migrate - plus I'm not very good at sitting for hours at a time in one spot-always think I'm missing something.! Yes it's way out of my price range as well really - but its heck only money and should last for ages. The car makes a good hide and I could always get one of those window supports or a bean bag. Anyway will check out your suggestion, thanks heaps again Adey. Marise

[Adey Baker]

I've just found the copy of 'AP' with the 400mm F4 DO lens test - Jan 12th 2002 (yeah, I know, I might not be able to afford it but I couldn't throw away the copy of the mag with its test!).

The overall score was 94%, which is very high in AP terms:Optical Quality 29/30, Handling 18/20, Performance 28/30, Build Quality 19/20.

The magazine's chief optics tester at the time, the late Dr. Stewart Bell wrote: '...The tests on defining power also produce remarkable results, showing very little loss over the entire field. The quality of image when the Test Target contrast is reduced to about the level of a knitted grey sweater is also remarkable. I foresee that the glimpses of newsmen we get in viewing the nightly TV reports will show the cameramen lined up wall-to-wall sporting this new Canon cannon.'

[robski]

On the 400mm F4 DO lens

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Not exactly a glowing report.

Robert

[Adey Baker]

Originally Posted by robski

On the 400mm F4 DO lens

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Not exactly a glowing report.

Robert

Interesting report, Robert. It's definitely worth checking a wide range of opinions when making such a hefty purchase.

Do you find a low-contrast or high-contrast lens is better on a digital SLR?

[Adey Baker]

One of the links at the bottom of the digital-picture page is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...s/400-do.shtml and gives a more positive review - I wonder how much variation there is in samples of this lens, or were certain examples sent out by Canon to those concerned?!

Edit: having now read some of the comments on the Fred Miranda website there obviously are (or were) variations between samples - definitely worth bearing in mind when purchasing this lens!