Both lenses have IS. I'm leaning more toward the 400mm F2.8. What's the forum have to say & why. Regards Norm
Printable View
Both lenses have IS. I'm leaning more toward the 400mm F2.8. What's the forum have to say & why. Regards Norm
I was in the same predicament. I bought the 400 to give myself more options. I can use the 2.0tc, 1.7, or 1.4. I know the 2.0 is a bit soft, but I found the same thing with the 500 and 1.7. Also, when I need it I have the extra stop.
Now, I am a Nikon shooter. With a Canon, I have used the 2.0 tc on the 500 for stationary objects.
Norman
If you are intending to use the lans attached only to a tripod or some other steady support, then the 400mm would be a good choice. If you are intending to contemplate any handheld shots the 500mm is 4LBS lighter and that does make quite a difference.
John
Hi Norm,
The answer really depends on what you are going to photograph. For birds the 500/4 is the way to go.
I have borrowed the 400/2.8 a couple of times and it is sharp but too short and too heavy to make handholding comfortable.
Good to meet you the other day.
Robert
I used the 400 2.8 and it was remarkable. The AF was the fastest of any lens I've used and the IQ was excellent. However I prefer the 500mm f/4. The weight difference was a big factor. I just found that the 500 gave me more flexibility.
With the Nikon D2 cameras I wouldn't use anything but a 1.4 TC on the 500 due to the1.7's impact on the AF speed. That's not a major issue with the D3 and D300 and I'm using the 1.7 regularly now.
Another vote for the 500. With the 400 you would be using converters all the time and it will focus slower than the straight 500. That lens was popular with film since it had a large opening. Also for mammals you could get away with less focal length. The last drawback in the weight It is one heavy lens !!!!
No brainer except for folks who do big mammals in low light or work only at bird feeders with the MFD of the 400 f/2.8s come into play... All others should buy a 500mm f/4 or risk being labeled insane by yours truly. Just the facts ma'am.
later and love, artie
500 for birds and mammals when shooting from a boat or land. 400 when shooting large mammals like Mr. Morris said and outdoor sports such as football when mounted to a monopod. 300 for large approachable birds and animals and baseball. Just my opinion of course.
Thank you all for the feedback. Looks like I'll be investing into the 500mm F4. Lord knows I don't want to be label insane. But then again aren't we all to some degree. Regards Norm
Wow thank goodness for that! My Canon 500mm f4 should be arriving TODAY!! AND what's more I have retired -so who is a happy bunny then eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
Jon
Another vote for the 500 Norm.
I can't comment on the 400 f/2.8 because I don't own one. But I got my 500 f/4 a few weeks ago and all I can say is, that's one heck of a lens. You will be very happy with yours. Production date on mine was Feb. 2008.
Note- the 400 2.8 w/ 2x = 800mm @ f/5.6, meaning all AF points are selectable. This can prove a big advantage at times .
The 400 f/2.8 was my favorite lens for a long time, but I do not specialize in small birds. The lens is KILLER SHARP and will AF like a rocket. Many of my best head shots in flight were taken with this lens.
I have since sold the 400, now working with a 300 f/2.8, 500 and 600.
Best,
Chas
Dittos on the 500. It's a fabulous lens and can be handheld for brief periods (and works like a charm on the bushmaster for all-day BIF fun!). The 400 is one heavy lump to lug around. Dittos on the 'insane' comment by Arthur!
Bear in mind that with modern cameras ability to handle high iso, the endless quest for Aperture is much less important than it was (I use a 400 5.6 for a 'traveling light' lens and it's one sharp lens..and very usable in most lighting conditions expecially now that 1600 iso 'aint bad'....so if you must have a 400 consider it and a 500 f4 for the same money you'd drop on a 400 f2.8)
