Printable View
Hi all,
A friend of mine is planning to buy a long lens for large mammals and birds : a 400/2.8 or a 500/4. I've never used either of these two glasses, so I don't know what to say. But some people told him that a 400/2.8+TCx1.4 could produce better image quality than a bare 500/4 ! What do you think of this statement ?
I'll really appreciate inputs from people who have used these two lenses...
this will be interesting to see what people think, all i can say is a 400mm f2.8 nikon is £7300 in the uk + a 1.4x tc at £280, giving you a 580mm f4 at £7580, compared to a nikon 500mm f4 £6449, is the extra 80mm worth it and will the image quality be better, cant see it.
I would get the 500 plus 1.4x TC. I've never used a 400/2.8 but have a hard time imagining that the image quality of 400/TC would be better than the bare 500/4. AF speed is another consideration, with TC AF acquisition is noticeably slower, at least on the 500.
Here is another vote for the 500 f4.. I have one and it is extremely sharp. With my 40D and a 1.4 TC, I have a 1120mm f5.6 IS.. You will be very happy..
Dave
I use the 500 F4 non VR & 1.4. For less $ you'd get a 500 F4 VR, 1.4 & 1.7. Other issues being weight. Look at the specs. The 500 is nice and portable. All the top glass have superb IQ so don't expect any ground being made there and the one stop isn't worth it when you have a D3, D3s etc. Sport is different with a 400 2.8 being more "useable", but we aren't talking sport.
Sidetracking here, but for large mammals I'd consider the 200-400 plus TC's. The versatility is awesome, but not the preferred choice for birds. Do-able though. just an option. :)
I think many are attracted by the f2.8 of the 400mm. I personally think the 500 is more practical and it can give you a reach that the 400 never can. If we are talking about the 400f2.8 VR, and if I have the money, I'd rather pay a bit more to get the 600 f4 VR. I understand though that f2.8 to some people is hard to resist :)
500/4 without a doubt. Those bulky 2.8 lenses are not needed with today's high ISO capabilities.
The speed advantage you have with the 2.8 you will loose with the teleconverter.
I use a 400 f2.8 IS. It is heavier and costlier than a 500mm. It is costly due to the f2.8 aperture. I have used it often with the 2x as well as the 1.4x TC. It is sharp with both the TCs.
If you want to photograph birds, a longer focal length is often required. With the 2x TC attached you will get 800mm at f5.6 and you would still be able to AF with any camera. You will get much closer shots than a 500mm + 1.4x combo. A 500mm + 2x combo wont autofocus with any camera other than a 1 series. No idea about Nikon though. The downside of using a converter is the loss of AF speed. You have to give the AF a helping hand my manual adjustments.
With large mammals is a different ball game. You can use the native focal length of the 400mm better.
With a 1.4x you get 560mm at f4. When light goes down, I remove the TCs and shoot even at f2.8 . If you intend to shoot mostly in lowlight then this is the lens. However, very few people sell such a lens second hand, where as a 500mm can be found second hand. Also, due to the weight, trekking is tough with a 400 f2.8.
In wildlife photography light is never enough when you get good action. Recently, I was photographing an amazing action of Sambars counter attacking dholes (mistakenly called as wild dogs) and the light was going down fast. Till date, I have neither read about such a behaviour observed earlier, nor have seen any film or image of such an happening. Even with 400mm and f2.8, after sometime I had to stop. During the starting of the sequence 1D Mark IV would have helped as I could have shot at ISO 6400. But after a point even that was not possible. So even a 400 f2.8 or a camera with high ISO ability is not always the solution. :D At least there is no solution for some situations.
The best is for your friend to think how often he/she will be photographing in low or extreme low light situations and then decide.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
500 f/4 with no doubt, adding a TC will slow down AF and degrade IQ a little bit both Nikon and Canon. 400 f/2.8 is a nighttime and indoors sports' lens, not a birding lens.
Another vote for the 500 f4. Also think that's lighter and easier on the field.
As far as IQ is concerned, I don't notice any drop in IQ in the field with the 400 f2.8 IS and TC combo. May be one can find a difference in the lab. You can check the images I have posted in BPN. They are rarely sharpened more than the default in lightroom.
I agree with Pedro that the 500mm is lighter and can be handheld for a long time. I have handheld the 400mm f2.8 IS + 2x combo (partly inspired by the heroics of Doug Brown and others with their 600mm). It is tough to handheld with the 2x combo for a long time. A couple of months back I was on a business trip and had just carried my gear without the tripod. I saw vulture mating (first record in India of gyps indicus). If I would have had the tripod then I would have recorded the full sequence. However, I handheld and just clicked intermittently. It is tough to handheld it beyond a few seconds. May be someone like the Hon'ble Governor of California (Arnold Schwarzenegger) can do it for a longer period of time. :D
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
The new 500 f/4 is 5.5 pounds lighter than the 400 f/2.8. I have an old 500 f/4 AFS and it works very well with the 1.7 TC and both my D300 and D700.
Thanks everyone for your valuable inputs. I can clearly see that the 500/4 is the way to go for birding ! :cool:
