400 f2.8

[Mervin]

saw this pic taken with a 400 f2.8 and my jaw drooped !!!!
:drool:


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/226134

[MountainMan]

very very sharp passport photos !

[ccplim]

saw this pic taken with a 400 f2.8 and my jaw drooped !!!!
:drool:


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/226134

That's bad :( I hope you have managed to fix back your jaw :D :blah:

[Mervin]

very very sharp passport photos !


buy me the lens and i take your passport photo lah.
:p

[Mervin]

That's bad :( I hope you have managed to fix back your jaw :D :blah:


hahahaha !!!
:kok:

[harlequin2902]

saw this pic taken with a 400 f2.8 and my jaw drooped !!!!
:drool:


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/226134You mean, like that >>> Sorry, this content is visible to registered members only.






:lol:

[Garion]

saw this pic taken with a 400 f2.8 and my jaw drooped !!!!
:drool:


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/226134Amazing stuff, especially the 400/2.8 sample. Crazy sharp lens. :drool: But the weight and the price tag...also enough to make your jaw drop too.

That's bad :( I hope you have managed to fix back your jaw :D :blah:Hhahahaha.....I think his jaw is still somewhere on the floor... :lol:

[hAwk]

Hi Folks,

Deciding between 400/f2.8 IS, 500/f4 IS and 600/f4 IS? You can only choose one, what would you choose? :drool:

Cheers!

[benny]

Probably the lighter one. Equipment too heavy makes the hobby a killjoy.

Cheers,

[nickmak]

Probably the lighter one. Equipment too heavy makes the hobby a killjoy.

Cheers,
A more direct answer from benny's riddle: EF 500mm f4L IS USM. :)

[hAwk]

Thanks! Is 400/f2.8 the lightest of the 3 and the most expensive of them all? :lol:

What are the weights of the 400, 500 and 600 like? :sweat:

500/f4 is the lightest?? Weight?

[nickmak]

Thanks! Is 400/f2.8 the lightest of the 3 and the most expensive of them all? :lol:

What are the weights of the 400, 500 and 600 like? :sweat:

500/f4 is the lightest?? Weight?
You might wanna read the reviews from www.the-digital-picture.com. Has the three lenses you are looking at. Helped me decide between the 500mm and the 600mm, of course also thanks to bro Garion for help too.

The 500mm is the lightest.

Here's the weight listing:

1) 400mm f2.8L IS USM = 5.37 kg
2) 500mm f4L IS USM = 3.87 kg
3) 600mm f4L IS USM = 5.36 kg

See? The 500mm is a feather weight compared to the other two. Trust me, the 500mm is heavy enough already. hehe... If you wanna take a look, I'll be down by Marina Bay shooting with USM at about 4pm. PM me if you wanna check the 500mm out.

Cheers,
Nick

[hAwk]

Thanks, nickmak! :) Does the trunk come with the lens when you buy? I have to start saving, man! No vit. M to get it yet so I shall not be tempted to see. :bangwall: :help: Hehe... thanks for the offer though.

What birds are you guys shooting at Marina Bay? :)

[Arthur]

Solid shot! If were to chose between the 3, I will go for the longest :D

Cheers

[hAwk]

Heavy siah!! 600mm = 5.36kg :wahpiang: Imagine + weight of flash + body + tripod + ... :sweat: :sweat: :sweat:

[joeyao]

Solid shot! If were to chose between the 3, I will go for the longest :D

CheersBut in reality, you will go for the 300 2.8 right?

[wkcheah76]

Solid shot! If were to chose between the 3, I will go for the longest :D

Cheers

Longest best bokeh... but need additional help, like porters and wheels... :cool:

[nickmak]

The trunk comes with the lens. THe trunk is so damn solid man... Got stopped by Thai customs when it went through the X-Ray machine at the airport, they thought it was a weapon! haha... Have you guys seen the lens through an X-Ray machine? Looks really cool!

Cheers,
Nick

[hAwk]

Heehee! :thumb:

[hAwk]

Can you carry it as a piece of hand luggage aboard the plane or do you have to check in as cargo? I won't check in a lens, man. No way! :)

[nickmak]

Can you carry it as a piece of hand luggage aboard the plane or do you have to check in as cargo? I won't check in a lens, man. No way! :)
Of the three you are looking at, only the 500mm can be considered hand luggage. The 400 and 600 are much larger so the trunk will be much larger. (I've seen it.) At anytime do not check in your lens, they will very likely be stolen, as has happened in a few cases in the US.

Another option of carrying the lens around, as most people would do, is to buy a lens case for the lens. Lowepro has a case to carry these specialty lenses. I'm gonna drop by at CP today to check if they have one. Need one to carry around, because the lens trunk is very very large.

Regards,
Nick

[hAwk]

Haha! Good advice! Thanks. I will plan for the future. :)

[benny]

See? The 500mm is a feather weight compared to the other two. Trust me, the 500mm is heavy enough already. hehe... If you wanna take a look, I'll be down by Marina Bay shooting with USM at about 4pm. PM me if you wanna check the 500mm out.

I want to go shoot too!! But don't know where at Marina Bay...

Another option of carrying the lens around, as most people would do, is to buy a lens case for the lens. Lowepro has a case to carry these specialty lenses. I'm gonna drop by at CP today to check if they have one. Need one to carry around, because the lens trunk is very very large.

The lens case 400 and 600 is too big for hand carry on most airlines. Especially for travelling in USA.

The lens trekker 600 AW is out of stock at Cathay Photo again as of this week. It's definitely much more easier to handle that than the supplied lens case, which is basically like a suit case.

Cheers,

[Mervin]

Marina Bay ???

where the ducks are ???

[Arthur]

But in reality, you will go for the 300 2.8 right?

Yes, 300mm f2.8 is still in my year end upgrading list, already fall in love with it ;) :biggrinlo If can find a girl girl to carry some of my gears, then the 600mm will be my destiny :D :sweat:

Cheers

[hAwk]

Wow, Arthur... Must be your Christmas gift. :drool: *envy*

Why not head straight for a 500mm/f4?

[Arthur]

Wow, Arthur... Must be your Christmas gift. :drool: *envy*

Why not head straight for a 500mm/f4?

Me also got serious back problem, so the weight of 300mm f2.8 is just nice...any weight above that will require a 'len carrier' :sweat:

Cheers

[hAwk]

Hmmm... Sorry, Arthur, didn't know about that. :o

Anyway, hope you get the 300/f2.8 soon.

As for me, I guess I would have to wait for a long while before I can accumulate enough Vit. M to get the 500/f4+accesories. *sigh*

Meanwhile, I have to make my money worth for the 300/f4 I got. Hehe...

[nickmak]

I want to go shoot too!! But don't know where at Marina Bay...



The lens case 400 and 600 is too big for hand carry on most airlines. Especially for travelling in USA.

The lens trekker 600 AW is out of stock at Cathay Photo again as of this week. It's definitely much more easier to handle that than the supplied lens case, which is basically like a suit case.

Cheers,
Its probably out of stock because I took the last one today! Haha...

Bro Arthur, don't worry, 500 f4L also can, when for the birds, nothing matters... *grins*

[benny]

Its probably out of stock because I took the last one today! Haha...

oh....so you are the one that took the other piece from this shipment. They had only 2 piece. I took one last week.

Cheers,

[hAwk]

Hey Guys,

How much does the 300/f2.8 IS USM cost? Lightest of all. Hmm...

Thanks.

[nickmak]

Hey Guys,

How much does the 300/f2.8 IS USM cost? Lightest of all. Hmm...

Thanks.
$7000+ I think... Not too sure...

[Garion]

Hey Guys,

How much does the 300/f2.8 IS USM cost? Lightest of all. Hmm...

Thanks.Locally (from CP I think) abt $7,800? Can ask joeyao, he did enquired at CP before.

Regarding choice of lens, its always best to 'try before buying'. Else you may end up with something which may not suit you. And the oft repeated maxim for bird photography, "Buy the longest lens you can afford".

[Garion]

Solid shot! If were to chose between the 3, I will go for the longest :D

CheersSame lar. But the weight and bulk of such lens is a big problem. Thus the next best thing is the 500mm f/4. :)

[nickmak]

Same lar. But the weight and bulk of such lens is a big problem. Thus the next best thing is the 500mm f/4. :)
ooooo bro Garion... do I hear a BUY BUY BUY in the very very very near future? :)

[hAwk]

Hi Guys,

If weight is not a concern. How is image quality of the following combo?

1. 400/f2.8+1.4xTC (effectively f3.92) compared with 500/f4

2. 400/f2.8+2xTC compared with 500/f4+1.4xTC (both effectively f5.6)

Thanks & Cheers!

:)

[Garion]

Hi Guys,

If weight is not a concern. How is image quality of the following combo?

1. 400/f2.8+1.4xTC (effectively f3.92) compared with 500/f4

2. 400/f2.8+2xTC compared with 500/f4+1.4xTC (both effectively f5.6)

Thanks & Cheers!

:)Anything that has a teleconverter added to it will have its image quality degraded, 2x moreso than a 1.4x. Hence for the 1st case, you are comparing a 400/2.8 w/ TC to a pure 500mm glass, the 500mm will win out of course. For 2nd case, definitely the 500/f4 and 1.4xTC wins, the 2x will degrade the quality of the 400mm by quite a bit.

The above is assuming you are using them wide open, and not stopped down. The lenses with TC will have better performance when stopped down from 1-2 stops from wide open (and maybe quite close in performance, esp in case no. 1. - assuming the 500mm f4 is still at wide open).

[benny]

To be honest, I really like the idea of getting a EF 400 F2.8 IS or the EF 600 F4 IS. But the weight simply makes handling impossible. As it is, I'm still struggling with the equipment and I must say that I admire some of you guys who haul your stuff around like it's weightless (almost).

In the end, I thought it was better to have a shorter lens and get some shots than a longer lens with no shots (and a back ache).

Besides, you can always add teleconverters or crop down these days.

Cheers,

[hAwk]

Thanks, Garion. That being the case... I think going for the 500/f4 is definitely a better choice. Follow nickmak's footsteps... :lol: 500 is lighter too.

I am saving and waiting, man!!! This process is painful... like cold turkey treatment! :sweat: Project 2007 hehe...

Cheers!

[Garion]

Thanks, Garion. That being the case... I think going for the 500/f4 is definitely a better choice. Follow nickmak's footsteps... :lol: 500 is lighter too.Good choice! The 500mm f/4 is almost the standard lens for serious bird photographers both locally and overseas as well. What won me over abt it is its balance of weight and reach, not too heavy (not too light either but thats expected for such a super telephoto), ability to reach 700mm or 1000mm with either teleconverters, and its stunning image quality.

I am saving and waiting, man!!! This process is painful... like cold turkey treatment! :sweat: Project 2007 hehe...

Cheers!Tell me about it man....the wait alone is very siong...let alone the 'roti diet'! For me, perhaps by early next year...*cross fingers*

[wkcheah76]

Hi Guys,

If weight is not a concern. How is image quality of the following combo?

1. 400/f2.8+1.4xTC (effectively f3.92) compared with 500/f4

2. 400/f2.8+2xTC compared with 500/f4+1.4xTC (both effectively f5.6)

Thanks & Cheers!

:)

2 x 1.4142 ~ 2.8
2.828428 x 1.4142 = 4

Oh try not to use a 2X TC unless really really needed. 400 f/2.8 is a sport glass. 500mm f/4 is a birding glass. Not strictly speaking. TCs still degrade images.

[hAwk]

2 x 1.4142 ~ 2.8
2.828428 x 1.4142 = 4


Sorry, wkcheah76 :confused: ... dun get what u trying to say. Do u mean stacking two 1.4xTCs is better than one single 2xTC? :sweatsmil

Cheers!

[wkcheah76]

Sorry, wkcheah76 :confused: ... dun get what u trying to say. Do u mean stacking two 1.4xTCs is better than one single 2xTC? :sweatsmil

Cheers!

400 f/2.8 + 1.4TC is f4, because the 1.4 is actually a square root of 2. And I think cannot stack 2 1.4TCs. TCs degrade image. Primes used by themselves gives the best results.

[benny]

I'm also lost here with the numbers....

Cheers,

[Garion]

I'm also lost here with the numbers....

Cheers,What wkcheah76 meant is that (in layman's terms) each stop of light is equal to the f-stop no. multiplied by square root of 2 (i.e. 1.4142), so assuming f1.0 is the widest aperture setting for a lens, each decreasing stop of light would be in multiples of 1.4142, i.e. f1.0 x 1.4142 ~ f1.4, f1.4 x 1.4142 ~ f2.0, f2.0 x 1.4142 ~ f2.8, f2.8 x 1.4142 ~f4, etc. etc. (the rest would be f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22, f32).

[hAwk]

What wkcheah76 meant is that (in layman's terms) each stop of light is equal to the f-stop no. multiplied by square root of 2 (i.e. 1.4142), so assuming f1.0 is the widest aperture setting for a lens, each decreasing stop of light would be in multiples of 1.4142, i.e. f1.0 x 1.4142 ~ f1.4, f1.4 x 1.4142 ~ f2.0, f2.0 x 1.4142 ~ f2.8, f2.8 x 1.4142 ~f4, etc. etc. (the rest would be f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22, f32).

Sorry... still a little bit confused, Garion. Does it mean that if you have a 300/f2.8 lens shot wide open, the effective aperture is still f2.8. But if you stopped down, the next stop would be f4 because f2.8 x 1.4142 = f4. Hiaks!!!! Bingo... Did I get it? :sweat: :sweat:

Linking this to the addition of TCs?? Hehe... Add one 1.4XTC, it would be physically "stopped down" to f3.92, right? :( If add one 2xTC, it would be two stops down...?? ie. 2.8x1.4142x1.4142

Hehe... chimmmology :wahpiang:


Cheers....

[Garion]

Sorry... still a little bit confused, Garion. Does it mean that if you have a 300/f2.8 lens shot wide open, the effective aperture is still f2.8. But if you stopped down, the next stop would be f4 because f2.8 x 1.4142 = f4. Hiaks!!!! Bingo... Did I get it? :sweat: :sweat:

Linking this to the addition of TCs?? Hehe... Add one 1.4XTC, it would be physically "stopped down" to f3.92, right? :( If add one 2xTC, it would be two stops down...?? ie. 2.8x1.4142x1.4142

Hehe... chimmmology :wahpiang:


Cheers....For the first part, that is right. One stop of light represents the halving or doubling of the amount of light that enters the lens. If you stop down one stop from f2.8 (i.e. "close" down the aperture one stop), you are halving the amount of light entering, so f2.8 x 1.4142 ~ f4 There is no f3.92, if you use calculator, root 2 multiply by f2.8 would result in f3.95979... rounded off to 4. Thus u get f4.

Thus the recognized f-stops are as follows (to make it easier to remember rather than a figure like f3.92): f1.0, f1.4, f2.0, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22, f32. Each f-stop represents the halving or doubling of the amount of light from the value that precedes it. Higher f-stop numbers means smaller amount of light entering the hole. Smaller f-stop means more amount of light entering.

So for Teleconverters, it is calculated in such a way that when you add 1.4x, you are losing one effective stop of light, while for 2x, its 2 stops. Thus for e.g, when you add a 1.4x TC to a 2.8 max aperture lens, the effective aperture now becomes f4. Add a 2x TC, the effective aperture becomes f5.6.

Hope the explanation works! :)

[Mervin]

the Champion has spoken !!!!

:thumb:

[hAwk]

Thanks, Garion :)