| 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
Canon 400 2.8 no-is VS. IS
Kay in t Veen, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Rotterdam | ZH | Netherlands | Posted: 8:30 AM on 07.14.10 |
->> Hi all,
since im planning to photograph more soccer and field sports i need to buy myself a decent lens.
the thing is currently i use
1D Mark III
7D
16-35 2.8 and
70-200 2.8 IS II
but not sure what i should get
does anyone tested one of the non-is 400mm lenses against the IS version.
i know the non-is is not supported anymore. and the non-is are a bit more heavy.
anyone got more info on them? |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 8:58 AM on 07.14.10 |
| ->> Well both version 1 and 11 non is do not work as well with tele extenders, both for sharpness and autofocus speed. |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 9:02 AM on 07.14.10 |
->> Hi--that topic has been discussed many times here on the message board. Someone will probably post a bunch of links to the many previous threads on the topic, but I don't feel like looking them up right now so here's the short version:
400 2.8 I: Heavy! There are sharp performers out there but overall this one's optically the weakest.
400 2.8 II: Still heavy but a whole lot sharper (I owned all three versions at some point during my Canon years and I think this one was the sharpest.)
400 2.8 IS: Nice & sharp, most have poorly-balanced tripod collars.
If you want more detailed info than that just use the message board 'search' function. |
|
Michael Ip, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 8:27 PM on 07.14.10 |
->> The ver I is REALLY heavy. I partially handheld for a concert I shot and my left shoulder was sore for next two days.
That being said, I've never used the other two version, but I'm happy enough with the performance of the Ver I to not care to upgrade. |
|
John Pyle, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | Ca | USA | Posted: 8:39 PM on 07.14.10 |
| ->> I would not get the MK 1 version, I had one and it was kind of soft/slow focus and did not take T.C.'s very well. I sold it and got the MK II non I.S. I did'nt need the I.S. so it was quite a bit chaeper. It is equally as sharp as the I.S. and you will save alot of money. |
|
David G. McIntyre, Photographer
|
Beijing | . | CHINA | Posted: 3:22 AM on 07.16.10 |
| ->> I have the non IS version, and it is fine. If you have a good monopod for low light, you will be ok. If you hand hold (which I may only do in a severe situation), get the IS version. But now Canon Mark IV is great at high ASA speeds, that a non-IS version would still be fine. |
|
Matthew Hinton, Photographer, Assistant
 |
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 7:00 AM on 07.16.10 |
| ->> The IS isn't going to come into play unless you are shooting at lower than 1/250. It's not going to affect the motion of the subject that can still blur on its own, just the motion of the lens. If you are shooting video with it then maybe IS is worthwhile but a 400 is not a great hand held video lens so in most applications it's not going to come into play. The only application really would be an indoor far away podium or static singer shot but again the subject has to relatively still. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|