I recently moved back to Canon and, while looking into getting a long lens, I had the chance to acquire a like new 800/5.6 at a crazy price, which I believe was originally bought in the US. So, without thinking too much I jumped on it. The lens of course is fantastic but I am facing some constraints, as I mainly shoot from permanent hides with not much light available. Often the 800mm is too much lens and even with the tubes the minimum focus distance is not enough. The other day I was sharing the hide with a photographer who was using a 400/2.8 and, given the circumstances, he was getting extremely well served by the lens. While given the circumstances two more stops of light were quite useful, with the 1.4x and 2x TC he was getting respectively a 560/4~ and a 800/5.6, so quite flexible. I know that a main counter-argument for the 400/2.8 is the weight, but I am not hand-holding any of these long lenses anyway because of problems with my back. I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter...
The 400 is know for its sharp IQ. The trade-off with the 800 is just that, it is a long-lens. Of course, when you put a 1.4 on the 800 it starts to really distinguish itself from the 400MM.
That is why I stay with my 500 and the TC's - the 800 issue is interesting and a nice problem to have IMO.
I like its weight and length, nice footprint given its FL.
In "The original The Art of Bird Photography" I wrote something like this: the 400 f/2.8 lenses are not ideal for bird photography except for folks working at feeders at extremely close range."
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
400/2.8 for hide photography
Reply With Quote
