| 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 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!! |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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) |
|
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. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|