I am in process of ruining myself for a new tele lens.
I am hesitating between Canon's 400 mm IS f2.8 lens and Canon's 500 mm f4.0 lens. The 400 mm is clearly more expensive and much more heavy than the 500 mm which is larger (difficult to store in medium sized rucksack) but lighter and cheaper. I like to travel a lot with all my gear and use it almost exclusively with a monopod for wildlife photography.
I guess very few of you had the chance to try both... and given the huge amount of money these lenses cost, any consideration would be welcome (I am also interested in experiences with Canon's 1.4x multiplicator used in combination with these lenses)
Thanks a lot for your attention
Gregoire
Posted by Steve Foss on January 26, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I've used both lenses with the 1.4.
With the excellent noise and IQ performance at high iso ratings of today's digital cameras, there aren't many situations for a wildlife photographer when the single stop of aperture between the 500 and 400 matters.
If you leave out weight/portability, the reach and the stop of aperture are really the only meaningful differences between them. Both are tack sharp, both take the 1.4 and still deliver excellent IQ, and more often than not a wildlife photographer needs that extra reach more than the extra stop if tight portraits are what they are after.
Cost aside, the 4 extra pounds of the 400 f2.8L will make a pretty big difference in your daily shooting. Likely you'll be on a tripod/monopod with either lens, but it takes a good bit more strength to horse around the 400 than the 500, and I can handhold the 500 OK in a pinch. Much harder to handhold the 400.
Even pixel peeping, I haven't been able to find a difference in IQ between the two. If you are using anything but a "1" series body, you may find that the 400 f2.8 is slightly faster and more precise in its focus because of that added effectiveness of using the center focus point on an f2.8 or faster lens. I couldn't see any difference myself in that situation, just going by what the manual says about Canon bodies and f2.8 lenses. I've shot both lenses with "1" series bodies, as well, and I couldn't detect any different in focus performance.
It completely depends on what your using it for, if you are mainly shooting birds I'd say get the 500mm f/4. If your shooting mainly medium to large sized wildlife I'd say go with the 400mm 2.8. I personally own and love the 400mm f/2.8, it can be hand held with some practice. The one downside is that it doesn't quite have the reach that the 500mm does.
I use mine for both birds and larger animals, about 50/50 actually. If am a shooting birds I almost always have a converter attached, and usually the 2.0x. It works wonderfully with the 1.4x and 2.0 teleconverters, I have shot wide open with the use of both of converters and noticed slight softness in the images, but if you stop down a bit it recovers.
The main reason I went with this lens is because of the 1-stop difference, it's worth it if you are shooting in shaded or low-light situations frequently. I got my 400mm four years ago and I still am very happy with it. I take it with on backpacking and camping trips, the extra weight is a pain, but you do get used to it. If I had to do it all over again I would still go with the 400mm.
But as Steve said, they are both great lenses. I have used both, and the 500 is significantly lighter and I couldn't tell a difference in quality between the lenses which Steve also said. If you don't need the wider aperture I'd say save some money and get the 500mm!
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. A last question maybe regarding the use of these lenses with a simple monopod: is this feasible or is a tripod unavoidable ? I guess a 400 mm 2.8 + tripod and you can forget any backpacking...
I use a monopod frequently with my 400mm, again it depends on the lighting situation. I find that in lower light situations I use my tripod more, it's a lot more sturdy and lens shake is less prevalent. But I'd say I either hand hold my 400 or use it on a monopod the most. I wouldn't say backpacking is out of the question, you just have to be selective about which other gear your going to bring along. But I have done as far a 12 miles in a day with my 400mm slung over my shoulder on my tripod. Given that, I only bring it on about half of my backpacking trips because of it's size and weight.
Posted by Steve Foss on January 28, 2009 at 6:43 PM
I prefer a monopod over a tripod whenever possible. I'm most often set up on the forest floor, however, and moving a lot from place to place, so the portability of a monopod (and ease of fast setup for off the cuff situations) means everything to me. The monopod also, like the tripod, allows my to sling the lens over my shoulder with lens pointing down, and that's the only way I've found to effectively carry heavy glass when hiking longer distances.
Whether you've got it mounted on a monopod or a tripod, walking several miles with big glass slung over your shoulder and more gear in a backpack will allow you to discover muscles you never knew you had before.
Posted by Andy Stunell on September 3, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I am pretty well built and with the 400 f/2.8 i cannot handhold it and get usable results. The extra weight is a killer. if your using a monopod or tripod its not a problem
Posted by Don Miller on September 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I've used both, and the only way I would purchase the 400 would be used at a bargain price. The 400 is best for field sports and as a newsroom telephoto.
In nature photography the situation is almost always being too short. If your considering the 400 new, I would suggest the 600/4. The 500 is almost always the correct first choice for NP.
I wonder how many people shooting with the 400 purchased it new? I generally find people shoot the 400 when they found a good deal on a used copy.
Discussion
7 repliesI am in process of ruining myself for a new tele lens.
I am hesitating between Canon's 400 mm IS f2.8 lens and Canon's 500 mm f4.0 lens. The 400 mm is clearly more expensive and much more heavy than the 500 mm which is larger (difficult to store in medium sized rucksack) but lighter and cheaper. I like to travel a lot with all my gear and use it almost exclusively with a monopod for wildlife photography.
I guess very few of you had the chance to try both... and given the huge amount of money these lenses cost, any consideration would be welcome (I am also interested in experiences with Canon's 1.4x multiplicator used in combination with these lenses)
Thanks a lot for your attention
Gregoire
With the excellent noise and IQ performance at high iso ratings of today's digital cameras, there aren't many situations for a wildlife photographer when the single stop of aperture between the 500 and 400 matters.
If you leave out weight/portability, the reach and the stop of aperture are really the only meaningful differences between them. Both are tack sharp, both take the 1.4 and still deliver excellent IQ, and more often than not a wildlife photographer needs that extra reach more than the extra stop if tight portraits are what they are after.
Cost aside, the 4 extra pounds of the 400 f2.8L will make a pretty big difference in your daily shooting. Likely you'll be on a tripod/monopod with either lens, but it takes a good bit more strength to horse around the 400 than the 500, and I can handhold the 500 OK in a pinch. Much harder to handhold the 400.
Even pixel peeping, I haven't been able to find a difference in IQ between the two. If you are using anything but a "1" series body, you may find that the 400 f2.8 is slightly faster and more precise in its focus because of that added effectiveness of using the center focus point on an f2.8 or faster lens. I couldn't see any difference myself in that situation, just going by what the manual says about Canon bodies and f2.8 lenses. I've shot both lenses with "1" series bodies, as well, and I couldn't detect any different in focus performance.
I use mine for both birds and larger animals, about 50/50 actually. If am a shooting birds I almost always have a converter attached, and usually the 2.0x. It works wonderfully with the 1.4x and 2.0 teleconverters, I have shot wide open with the use of both of converters and noticed slight softness in the images, but if you stop down a bit it recovers.
The main reason I went with this lens is because of the 1-stop difference, it's worth it if you are shooting in shaded or low-light situations frequently. I got my 400mm four years ago and I still am very happy with it. I take it with on backpacking and camping trips, the extra weight is a pain, but you do get used to it. If I had to do it all over again I would still go with the 400mm.
But as Steve said, they are both great lenses. I have used both, and the 500 is significantly lighter and I couldn't tell a difference in quality between the lenses which Steve also said. If you don't need the wider aperture I'd say save some money and get the 500mm!
I hope this helps!
Ben
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. A last question maybe regarding the use of these lenses with a simple monopod: is this feasible or is a tripod unavoidable ? I guess a 400 mm 2.8 + tripod and you can forget any backpacking...
Thanks again!
Gregoire
Whether you've got it mounted on a monopod or a tripod, walking several miles with big glass slung over your shoulder and more gear in a backpack will allow you to discover muscles you never knew you had before.
In nature photography the situation is almost always being too short. If your considering the 400 new, I would suggest the 600/4. The 500 is almost always the correct first choice for NP.
I wonder how many people shooting with the 400 purchased it new? I generally find people shoot the 400 when they found a good deal on a used copy.