400mm 2.8L IS

[gymell]

I'm curious as to why you'd want the 400 f/2.8 over the 500 f/4 if what you shoot is mostly birds. Obviously the 400 is a great lens, but for birding the 500 is really the ultimate in terms of focal length, size, and cost. I have a Wimberley Sidekick (works fine with the 500, wouldn't support the 400) but am seriously considering the full Wimberley head.

And I see nothing wrong with being a lens enthusiast! We can love the activity of photography and also enjoy gear that it involves. There's no rule saying you can't do both. You people who are worried about phraseology need to get over it - maybe you should be out shooting pictures instead of spending time with us "enthusiasts" on the forums!

[leejungil]

Have you ever considered the Canon EF 400 F/4 DO IS USM...? Its a wonderful piece of technology to use. The only bashing you get about it is by those whom could never afford to buy it anyways..! Its light weight and can be easily handheld all day long..

[sheila]

And you can take fantastic images such as this one of Jerry's

[djwixx]

And you can take fantastic images such as this one of Jerry's

Do you mean the Jerry with pockets so deep he can keep his lenses in them once he's removed all his money?

[dougj]

And you can take fantastic images such as this one of Jerry's

An interesting photo. The camera can naturally be setup to produce high noise and over exposure of highlights. However, I was not aware the 400 DO had a 'soft focus' mode, such as that in the 135/2.8. I believe this is the first time I've seen these 3 techniques combined.

[dougj]

Charlie, as Gymell posted, will 400mm be enough? This doesn't give you a lot more than the 280mm you shooting with today. TCs can be added, but if you end up always using a TC, you might be better of with a longer focal length lens to begin with. How much do you crop your bird photos now, and are there shots in which you need 400mm maximum?

[lightrae]

At the risk of assuming too much about Toosnvetts' circumstances, the f/2.8 sounds the best choice if cost and weight are acceptable. I'm trying to decide that question for myself right now and I'm interested in the same type of shooting.
The point that often seems to be missed when dealing with wildlife is the fact that THEY MOVE and light's often poor. That means keeping shutter speeds up, no matter what other conditions exist. To do that, ISO and/or aperture have to take the hit. IS lets you dial down the shutter speed and compensate for photographer movement, but it doesn't help in the other direction.
In my opinion. lens speed trumps magnification if other factors are similiar.
My one reservation about the 400mm IS (over the 300mm IS) is weight. The 400mm + body+ grip = 16 to 19 pounds. Compare that with 8 to 10 pounds for the same rig using a 300mm.
For myself, it's come down to either the f/2.8, 300mm IS or the f/2.8, 400 mm IS. The final decision hinges on whether I can find an acceptable bipod.
I've tried both lenses on a monopod and the 400mm is just too much for me on the single stick. Carrying a tripod isn't an option, either. For me, it looks like a 400+ bipod or a 300mm+ monopod.

[toosnvetts]

Gymell, and others have just about convinced me to go the 500mm route, however, I am really not in a hurry right now! I went to my local shop for a discussion and they were having a "tax free" weekend for anything "in the store". I now own a Canon 1D Mark III.

Looks like the 70-200 with TC will have to serve for awhile. I am still very anxious to hear all the pros and cons as I will eventually purchase. Right now I am on a new learning curve with this camera. In all honesty, I think I bit off more camera than I can chew. The only advantage that I am finding immediately obvious is the 10 fps. This is nice for action tracking!