Options

400mm Cannon f4 DO?

ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
edited April 21, 2004 in Cameras
Anyone have one of these? Do you use the 2x extender with it? Do you get good results?

Can anyone compare with Sigma long glass?
If not now, when?
«1

Comments

  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,700 moderator
    edited April 12, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    Anyone have one of these? Do you use the 2x extender with it? Do you get good results?

    Can anyone compare with Sigma long glass?
    The picture of the snow geese with the bloody wing was shot with a 400mm DO and a 1.4x, and demonstrates how sharp that combination can be. I own and use a 2x as well, but I actually have not used the 2x with the 400 because I have not felt the need. You will definitely need a good heavy tripod and something like a Wimberly head to use the equivalent of a 1280 lens on a 10D. 400x2x1.6=1280mm I have no experience with the Sigma teles.

    I would also be concerned that autofocus will not work on a 10D with a 2x exetender as your aperature is 2 stops smaller than the prime f4 or f8. And if I remember correctly the 10D requires f5.6 for autofocus to function. There is a kludge to disable autofocus being turned off - a piece of tape over 3 contacts on the lens/body electrical connection- but I decided not to go there. I think that information can be found in the forums at dpreview or Luminous Landscape.
    Although the 10D requires f5.6, I suspect the 1DMkll only requires f8.o - just a thought. But it would only be the equivalent 400x2x1.3=1040

    Those long telephotos are like Cylla and Charibdis - they call to us and make us lust for them - but without a specific need - birds, wildlife - they really aren't used as much as a 28-75 zoom which I use a great deal. But for birds - you can't hardly do without them either. Bring your Visa card or what ever you useLaughing.gif
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2004
    Kinda tough for me to justify a $5K lens, but it sure would be fun to mess around with.
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,700 moderator
    edited April 12, 2004
    fish wrote:
    Kinda tough for me to justify a $5K lens, but it sure would be fun to mess around with.
    It was for me too, Fish and it is even worse that without a specific need for long glass - like bird or wildlife photgraphy - the long lenses are not really used that much - In addition to expense, they also are large, heavy, and usually require a large heavy tripod. Good tripods for teles are not cheap either. But think of all the money we save by not buying film...Hah!!!

    I knew I was going to be doing some bird photography and I did not want to settle for less than the very best. Good tools always cost more than you think they should, but years later when you are still using them you are usually very happy to have really good tools. Just like Snap-On. I wrestled with this question for quite while and realized people spend more for a good shotgun ( You? Fish? ) or good golf clubs. You just have to decide where your priorities lie. I drive a 6 year old car and decided I could drive it some more and that I did not need a new road motorcycle either - Both which I was considering. Both of my children are out of college and self supporting too.

    So...my rationale is that good glass will last the rest of my life, and I am at a time in my life when I won't get any younger and I can afford it - some older people buy motorhomes - I buy L glass and motorcycles.Laughing.gif
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    patch29patch29 Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 2,928 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2004
    fish wrote:
    Kinda tough for me to justify a $5K lens, but it sure would be fun to mess around with.

    Don't forget about rentals. In CA you should have no problem finding a place. Calumet Photo is a large national professional photo rental/sales company. If you check their CA stores you should find one close to you. They have a store in SF, not sure if any others are closer. Be forewarned if you go to their stores they have tons of toys for pro photographers and can get pricey.


    There are a lot of US and international rental houses listed here. Check under their directory and you will find a rental option.
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2004
    patch29 wrote:
    Don't forget about rentals. In CA you should have no problem finding a place. Calumet Photo is a large national professional photo rental/sales company. If you check their CA stores you should find one close to you. They have a store in SF, not sure if any others are closer. Be forewarned if you go to their stores they have tons of toys for pro photographers and can get pricey.


    There are a lot of US and international rental houses listed here. Check under their directory and you will find a rental option.
    OK, so does anyone have a 100-400 f5.6 IS L? Comparisons?
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2004
    fish wrote:
    Kinda tough for me to justify a $5K lens, but it sure would be fun to mess around with.
    :yikes so the DSLR camera is the cheap part ???
  • Options
    cletuscletus Registered Users Posts: 1,930 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    :yikes so the DSLR camera is the cheap part ???
    If you're worried about that you could still go out and drop us$8,000 on an EOS-1Ds :D
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2004
    Like giving strawberrys to a pig mate.
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,700 moderator
    edited April 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    :yikes so the DSLR camera is the cheap part ???
    You Bet, Humongous - you got the picture straight away, mate! The addiction just starts with the dslr .
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited April 12, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    Anyone have one of these? Do you use the 2x extender with it? Do you get good results?

    Can anyone compare with Sigma long glass?
    I have no experience, but I've done my share of reading up on inexpensive long glass. That Sigma 170-500 keeps coming up on top of my list for "bang for the buck". Also, from the quality of the $60 Sigma 28-80 that I own, I maintain that Sigma makes better consumer grade lenses than both Nikon and Canon. Haven't heard anything bad about that particular lens except for that its slow. But what 500mm lens under several thousand $ isn't??? Saw one on Rob Galbraiths trade forum for $400 last week.

    If you get one, can I rent it from you??? :D Maybe in exchange for some good 'ol slave labor?
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]


  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,700 moderator
    edited April 12, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    OK, so does anyone have a 100-400 f5.6 IS L? Comparisons?
    The 100-400 is a different animal than the 400DO. It is a ZOOM - 100 mm is not that long - it can be used in a crowd or the street or indoors with flash, it can be handheld, it is lighter than the DO and 1/4th the price. The lens hood is much smaller. Takes a front filter as opposed to a drop in filter. It is much easier to handhold than the 400DO or the 400f2.8 L The lens hood for the 400DO feels like it is the size a basketball drop net.

    The 100-400 gets a bad rap by some posters as not a sharp as the primes. But ya know - almost all outdoors landscape and wildlife photgs own and use a 100-400 because it is so convenient to crop in the viewfinder - and if you stop it down 1 stop from maximum it is a pretty darn sharp lens, just not in the category of Canon's primes. But it does not accept telextenders very well - I think the 1.4Ex fits and may work at the short end, but not so well at the long end. I doubt the 2x will work at all.

    SO both lenses 100-400 and 400DO have their niches. Just bring your Visa card as I said....Laughing.gif
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    jimfjimf Registered Users Posts: 338 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    :yikes so the DSLR camera is the cheap part ???

    Yea. Scary, isn't it?
    jim frost
    jimf@frostbytes.com
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2004
    I will buy a DSLR (its the only calimine to sooth the itch aint it ?) but i go onto forums that specialize in the c-5050 & look at what they can do with a pro-sumer & think about how far i have to go with this camera.

    On the subject...anyone noticed the 'lower' quality stuff in national geographic lately ? Their stuff is usually outstanding. Not to say i could ever do better but it has changed somewhat over the past year.

    My one claim to fame is that i got my photo in it about 10 years back....i always kept that copy.
  • Options
    cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2004
    jimf wrote:
    Yea. Scary, isn't it?
    This from the guy who spent more on lenses and accessories than on the dslr even before the camera arrived Laughing.gif
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • Options
    jimfjimf Registered Users Posts: 338 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2004
    cmr164 wrote:
    This from the guy who spent more on lenses and accessories than on the dslr even before the camera arrived

    I blame that on you, you know.

    (I ought to be compensated by Canon for the number of Rebels I've sold for them by showing people mine.)
    jim frost
    jimf@frostbytes.com
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,700 moderator
    edited April 13, 2004
    cmr164 wrote:
    This from the guy who spent more on lenses and accessories than on the dslr even before the camera arrivLaughing.gifed

    Laughing.gif

    Laughing.gif

    Laughing.gif
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2004
    jimf wrote:
    I blame that on you, you know.
    Heheh... Guilty
    (I ought to be compensated by Canon for the number of Rebels I've sold for them by showing people mine.)
    Like they aren't selling their entire output anyway icon10.gif
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,700 moderator
    edited April 13, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    I will buy a DSLR (its the only calimine to sooth the itch aint it ?) but i go onto forums that specialize in the c-5050 & look at what they can do with a pro-sumer & think about how far i have to go with this camera.

    On the subject...anyone noticed the 'lower' quality stuff in national geographic lately ? Their stuff is usually outstanding. Not to say i could ever do better but it has changed somewhat over the past year.

    My one claim to fame is that i got my photo in it about 10 years back....i always kept that copy.
    Have you posted that image yet? If not, why not. Show it to us -please - You should be very proud to be a published photgrapher unlike most of the rest of us.Laughing.gif
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    On the subject...anyone noticed the 'lower' quality stuff in national geographic lately ? Their stuff is usually outstanding. Not to say i could ever do better but it has changed somewhat over the past year.
    Yes, I have noticed. I read somewhere that all their photogs went to c-5050s. :D
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • Options
    DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited April 13, 2004
    I was just reading Natl Geo about 5 minutes ago - article about elephants - thinking to myself "hmm, these photos don't seem that amazing." Sure they were of elephants, but I'm not afraid to venture that I could easily have gotten shots that good if I was there, even with my equipment. Maybe as technology has evolved, maybe thats the point, its the far off places and subjects that are the amazing part of the photos.

    Then again, that same issue has some photos of frogs that were in the PoYi awards...

    ne_nau.gif
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]


  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2004
    pathfinder wrote:
    Have you posted that image yet? If not, why not. Show it to us -please - You should be very proud to be a published photgrapher unlike most of the rest of us.Laughing.gif
    You are all going to laugh at me....its pretty small..im standing in a crowd of people looking at the Vickers Vimmy aeroplane that landed at one of our smaller airports in brisbane here about 10-12 years back.

    The photographer was obviously on a rooftop at the time. I remember getting the issue & thinking..i was in a crowd like that rolleyes1.gif

    I will scan it tonight & post it but i know fish will tease me about it.
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2004
    The sun this morning (few fires about)

    I really need that DSLR & 2 foot lens

    3472491-M.jpg
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2004
    DoctorIt wrote:
    I was just reading Natl Geo about 5 minutes ago - article about elephants - thinking to myself "hmm, these photos don't seem that amazing." Sure they were of elephants, but I'm not afraid to venture that I could easily have gotten shots that good if I was there, even with my equipment. Maybe as technology has evolved, maybe thats the point, its the far off places and subjects that are the amazing part of the photos.

    Then again, that same issue has some photos of frogs that were in the PoYi awards...

    ne_nau.gif
    On the other hand, did anyone see the Tornados article from last month. We had the clouds thread and lots of great shots, but you can can't beat an effort like that.
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited April 14, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    On the other hand, did anyone see the Tornados article from last month. We had the clouds thread and lots of great shots, but you can can't beat an effort like that.
    I'm a slow reader... just finishing the Harp Seals issue. Something about too many journal articles to read not leaving much time for leisure reading.
    umph.gif
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]


  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2004
    If anyone can tell me how the goat on page 112 gets down i would be much appreciated. I know what you mean with the elephant shots. Is the tornado article in april ? I get it a bit later here.
  • Options
    DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited April 14, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    If anyone can tell me how the goat on page 112 gets down i would be much appreciated. I know what you mean with the elephant shots. Is the tornado article in april ? I get it a bit later here.
    Right?!?!! For those of you who don't get Nat'l Geo, I've taken the liberty of scanning it:

    goat.jpg

    National Geographic, March 2004, pg112
    Photograph by Sarah Leen


    Sorry bout the thread hijack, but I bet you'd need the 400mm DO for that shot.
    :D
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]


  • Options
    wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    :yikes so the DSLR camera is the cheap part ???
    Yowsa, that's what I've been discovering. I'm buying almost all second hand stuff.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Options
    wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    Is the tornado article in april ? I get it a bit later here.
    Yes, and it's a great story.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,700 moderator
    edited April 18, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    Anyone have one of these? Do you use the 2x extender with it? Do you get good results?
    I found this URL tonight - Has a number of straight forward answers about telephoto lenses in the Canon system by a working bird photgrapher.

    http://www.birdsasart.com/faq.html
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Options
    gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited April 21, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Yes, and it's a great story.
    Just got it...wow that tornado stuff is great. I expect as you are entering your storm season i will see some good shots from you blokes on the east coast.
Sign In or Register to comment.