400 f2.8 or 100-400 What would you do?

[Noel_Carboni]

I think I'd go for the more versatile (but less light sensitive) 100-400 instead, since it sounds like most of your shooting is outdoors in daylight. It will give you better opportunities to do creative framing of the animals.

-Noel

[JohnTriebe]

You might want to check whether the 400 is a Type I or Type II. I understand the II is considerably sharper than the Type I, and might represent a more attractive item at $3200 than the Type I. I have the 2.8IS, which I understand is comparable to the Type II in sharpness and it is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I paid $5,400 used in mint condition 18 months ago. It weighs a ton, but when you need f2.8 for speed or DOF, nothing else can compare.

John Triebe

[Dan_Barthel]

Are you fully aware of the size of the 400F2.8? You will need to get a Gitzo 1548 @ $750 and a Wimberly head @ $565 to mount the thing. Nothing less will hold the weight stabley. So add $1300 to the price of the lens from the getgo. If you're doing wildlife and birds the 400 is not long enough. At a minimum you need a 500 + a 1.4x extender. You can learn alot about wildlife and large bird shooting with the 100-400, which when used properly is very sharp, and watch the used market for a 500f4.5 to appear. The only good use for the 400F2.8 is sports.

Hope that this helps.

Dan

[Nick_Doan]

The Gitzo and Bogen Carbon Fiber monpods will hold it stably without any head at all...
And I don't think either of them are more than $200.

Be that as it may, it really depends on what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot. I love shallow DoF, and I shoot mainly sports. The 400/2.8 would be great for me. Even if I were shooting Zoo Animals, I would probably still want to do it the same way I shoot football players. If you like having more DoF though, go for the 100-400 lens. It's not a bad lens, and it's cheaper, and you can cover the rest of your bases.

One thing to remember though, only the new IS lenses have the weather sealing. If you plan on being outdoors a lot, you might want to think about that. The older Super-Telephotos from Canon seem to have a little play on my 10D and 1D lens mounts. The new IS lenses fit tight.

[Dan_Barthel]

Fat chance without IS. Long lenses with the 1.6 crop factor are demanding. Spend the money on support. The prior post indicates no idea of how heavy this lens is. Been there, done it. You need solid support or you will be very disapointed with your results.

Dan

[Nick_Doan]

The 400/2.8 IS is 11.8 pounds. With my 1D attached that makes it about 14 pounds, with my 10D call it 13 and 1/2 pounds. On a solid monopod to support the weight, I am still shooting at ISO200 at around 1/2000 for a daylight football game. I have yet to see any shot suffer due to camera shake or lack of support. Of course, your mileage may vary...

Demanding? Maybe, but very doable.

I have no problem with people spending money...but just because a single method works for you, don't assume that it is the *only* truth.

[Hitoshi_Doi]

[ QUOTE ]
The only good use for the 400F2.8 is sports.

[/ QUOTE ]
And idol concerts (for us boys in Japan [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])