| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
EF 400mm f/2.8 vs 600mm f/4
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
 |
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 1:50 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> I'm going to buy some new glass soon, but I think it's hard to decide between the EF 400 f/2.8 IS and 600 f/4 IS.
Anyone using both lenses regularly?
The lens will be used 99% for soccer.
Questions I have:
- 400 2.8 with 1.4 extender vs 600 f/4, how is the bokeh with those setups? Any examples? Does the 600mm have much better bokeh?
- 400 f/2.8 vs 600 f/4, how much faster is the autofocus on the 400? Everyone says the 400's autofocus is FAST. (I think the 300 f/4 has fast enough autofocus for my use.)
- 400 2.8 with 1.4 extender vs 600 f/4, how is the autofocus with those setups?
- Wich shutterspeeds does the 600mm require on a monopod?
- Weight and size doesn't matter that much since I only travel by car. The only weight/size "issue" is if the 400mm is a lot easier to handle when shooting?
- Price doesn't matter because it's "only" $900 difference between them.
If I buy the 400mm I will use it a lot with 1.4 extender since I don't think 400mm give me enough reach. Now I use 1.3 crop body, but maybe in a year or so the lens will be used on a fullframe body. Then my main issue is that I don't think the 400mm will be "long" enough. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:55 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> I faced having to decide between the 300 and 400 mm lenses this summer. In the end I decided that I could always stretch my reach with converters or crop modes (I'm a Nikon shooter) but that the reverse wasn't true. Had I gone with a 400 and found myself in a position of needing a little more elbow room I would have been SOL.
I ended up going with a new 300 VR and find that I have a 1.7 tc on it 80+ percent of the time. The quality of the lens with the TC has to be 99% as good as a 500 f4. The lens resolves the weave in a player's jersey perfectly with the converter on it AND when I need some breathing space I can drop back to 300mm.
So if I were to find myself in your shoes I would have no hesitation going with a 400 and tc's as needed. I'm fairly confident that the optical quality between a Nikon or Canon "big gun" are the same. I don't know about overseas but if you were a CPS member in the US I'd tell you to borrow an eval copy of each and have at it. Either way 400 or 600 it's a fair chunk of cash so it's fair to think that CPS would step up to help seal a deal. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 3:13 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> One thing not mentioned and I'm not sure it is an issue with a 400 2.8 (it is with the 600 f4) is the availability of AF with the TC's. The 600 (at least the older version I have) does not AF with the 2x.
Someone with experience with both lens lengths would know the answer to that. |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 3:53 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> I've only tried the 600mm indoor at convensions and I really, really liked the lens. But practical use outside in "the field" is something else, so it's difficult to compare.
My main concern is when/if I buy fullframe, then the 400mm won't be long enough. But then again, I guess it's easier to sell the 400mm if i change my mind. |
|
Baron Sekiya, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Keaau | HI | USA | Posted: 5:04 PM on 10.05.09 |
| ->> Join CPS, try each of the lenses out and make your decision. |
|
Michael Fullana, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 7:05 PM on 10.05.09 |
| ->> I have both the 400 2.8 and the 600 f4... after I went with Nikon fx I found that 400 was a little short.. picked up a 600 f4 and love it with the d700... |
|
Al Goldis, Photographer
|
East Lansing | MI | USA | Posted: 2:06 PM on 10.06.09 |
->> I think you answered the question yourself when you said "If I buy the 400mm I will use it a lot with 1.4 extender since I don't think 400mm give me enough reach."
The 600 will be sharper than the 400 with a teleconverter. Also, while not a significant difference, the 600 is slightly longer than the 400 with 1.4X which is 560mm. |
|
Patrick Murphy-Racey, Photographer
|
Powell | TN | USA | Posted: 7:00 PM on 10.06.09 |
->> look at the difference between a 200mm and 300mm lens. it's a totally different look in the viewfinder. Any change of 100mm's is huge in the telephoto range. when you jump 200mm increase from 400mm to 600mm, it's eye candy time. If you mostly shoot field-sports, you'll love the 600! Also, it's faster than the 400mm... how you say???
think about it. you take a 400mm f/2.8 and put a 1.4x on it to make it a 560mm f/4, right? Well you get 40 more mm's on the 600mm f/4.
If the new 7D is really as good as people say, your 600 will be a 960mm f/4 with the def of a real 600mm... AWESOME!!!
last, I have IS copies of both lenses and shoot football all the time. Every once in a while I go to an SEC school that is DARK like Auburn or Vanderbilt for a night game. I bring the 400 and hate shooting it every minute... Love that 600!!!
pat |
|
Tim Vizer, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Belleville | IL | USA | Posted: 11:22 AM on 10.07.09 |
->> If you had to pick just one lens, for overall sports photography (this is applicable to almost any sport), go with the 400. If you are doing specialized work on say goalkeepers, and you want a nice clean shot across much of the field, then the 600.
I just finished shooting the WPS soccer season in St. Louis, and the 400 would have to be my lens of choice for most of the field action. Sure, there were a couple times I would have loved to have a 600 at the games, but like I just said, "a couple times".
And, converters give flexibility and so does which camera body you're using as pointed out above. Again, my choice there would be the 400, plus converter = most flexibility in coverage. Good luck with your choices! |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 10:56 PM on 10.13.09 |
| ->> There are lots of times when 2.8 is just barely fast enough....you cant add a tc to that. For me the 2.8 wins hands down cause you can always go longer with a tc, but you cant go faster.....f4 is ok for daytime in good light...but even in waining light...you are pushing it limiting yourself to f4. |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 4:08 PM on 10.22.09 |
| ->> Thanks a lot for all the feedback. I've decided, ordered the 400 2.8 today. Hope I won't regret. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 6:03 PM on 10.22.09 |
->> I don't use converters on my Canon lenses. I quit using them several years ago. They have proven to be unreliable in terms of ever taking a sharp image.
My Nikon 1.7 extender is very crisp. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|