Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Canon 400 F2.8 for the 400 f4.0 DO?
Michael Woods, Photographer
Lowell | AR | USA | Posted: 5:20 PM on 06.07.13
->> Hey gang. I need some feedback. Our pool 1st gen. Canon 400 f2.8 is broken and parts are no longer available so I'm shopping for a replacement. CPS loaned me one of the 400 f4 DO lenses to evaluate and it is an impressive lens. With the ability of the newer camera bodies to shoot at such high ISOs, it's not unreasonable to consider an f4.0 as a replacement for a f2.8. So I'm curious, has any swapped their 400 F2.8 for the 400 f4.0 DO? If so can you give me some feedback on why I should or shouldn't consider this option? Thanks!!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Malmberg, Photographer, Photo Editor
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 5:50 PM on 06.07.13
->> Well, i never owned a 400/2,8.
So i cant compare it that way.

But i do own a 400/4 DO.
That i bought used last year.
And i just love it.
Especially since it´s so light weight.
Together with 1D mkIV, and especially my 1Dx, it for sure works great to work with
even in low light.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Korduner, Photographer
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 11:31 PM on 06.07.13
->> What parts do you need? I have a first gen with a bad collar that's been sitting in my closet for a year.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Travis Haughton, Photographer
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 12:48 AM on 06.08.13
->> At my last daily we had a 400 f/4 in the pool. The weight was nice for golf, especially if you were walking. It was newspaper sharp with the 1.4x.

That said, I'd buy a lot of other things before owning a 400 f/4. The 200 f/2 with the new 2x is probably just as sharp and WAY more versatile. One lens gets you 200 @ f/2, 280 @ 2.8 and 400 f/4.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ting Shen, Student/Intern, Photographer
Chicago | IL | U.S. | Posted: 1:58 AM on 06.08.13
->> the 400F4DO is a GREAT newspaper lens, light and fast. AF is on par with most of the first generation ImageStabilized super telephotos. only sacrifice is the relatively low contrast(almost every photo shot with it has to be toned in post) and a bit soft on sharpness. Extreme cropping not recommended. It's bokeh rendering is a bit effy when you have a lot of texture going on in the background.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ting Shen, Student/Intern, Photographer
Chicago | IL | U.S. | Posted: 2:01 AM on 06.08.13
->> oh an it's also shorter than the 300F2.8LIS. very small logistic footprint, I can fit it in my pelican 1510 carry-on roller without the hood. Just kinnda wished that Canon refreshed it and gave it a 4 stop IS (maybe not, cause it would double up
the price)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dan Powers, Photographer
Appleton | WI | USA | Posted: 10:58 AM on 06.10.13
->> Along with a couple of 400 f/2.8's, we had the 400 f/4 DO as well. We decided to get rid of it years ago because, although the lightweight aspect was great, it just wasn't very sharp. It was ok in contrasty conditions with no converter. But other than that, the images were flat and not very sharp. Maybe their is a newer version that is better? Cheers...Dan.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Canon 400 F2.8 for the 400 f4.0 DO?
Thread Started By: Michael Woods
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
AMA SUPERBIKE AND MOTOGP PHOTOGRAPHY AT ITS BEST ITS NOT JUST ABOUT BIKES! ::..