How heavy is this thing? I rented one for the weekend to shoot racing, should I get a monopod? I am used to the weight of the 70-200 IS L 2.8 with 1.4x TC
11.7 pounds for the 400 f2.8 + almost 3 pounds for a 1DMkll will be close to 15 pounds. That is a beast to keep to your eye level. Even a 20D will add 1.5 pounds or so.
I suspect you will really appreciate a tripod with a Sidekick for the 400f2.8 It is heavier than a 500 f4!!. The 500 F4 ONLY weighs 8.5 pounds and it is a beast. And I hardly ever use it without a tripod.
I suspect even a monopod will get heavy before the day is over.
The Wimberly Sidekick fastened to a ball head will give you more range of motion than a panning tripod mount. I'm surprised that thing only weighs 11.5 pounds. It feels like 30. You might need a platform foot for the tripod bracket, too. When I put mine on a tripod, it nearly tipped it over.
The Wimberly Sidekick fastened to a ball head will give you more range of motion than a panning tripod mount. I'm surprised that thing only weighs 11.5 pounds. It feels like 30. You might need a platform foot for the tripod bracket, too. When I put mine on a tripod, it nearly tipped it over.
You really might want to consider a real-deal Wimberly head, rather than a Sidekick. I use a Sidekick for my 500+1.4EX and a 1series body and it is a full load on a Sidekick and an Arca-Swiss head. The 400f2.8 weighs 50% MORE than the 500 F4 or 4x the weight of the 70-200f2.8 and much bigger and longer too.. I know 11.7 pounds does not sound like it is that heavy to a strong fella, but trust me on this, you are not going to hold it up and steady all day long unless you are just monster strong.
I would not like using the 400f2.8 with a monopod, but a good, heavy tripod with a head designed for a heavy telephoto like the Sidekick, or better, the Wimberly head. Look up www.tripodhead.com for a purview.
These lenses are large and heavy and can cause a tripod to fall over if you are not paying attention to balance and foot placement.
What are they charging to rent your 400f2.8 for a weekend anyway?? Sounds like you will have a great time shooting. Try a 1.4ex or a 2x with it for some serious reach too
Depends if you are going to be moving around much or not.
I've rented one for a weekend (cost me $100) with a monopod and gone to the zoo. It's a beast of a lens, but carrying it around for the day and shooting on the monopod was an option.
If you are going to stay in relatively few locations then a tripod / gimbal will certainly give you sharper shots / smoother panning.
The 300 2.8 IS is the biggest lens I will take handheld. The 500/4 and 400/2.8 (IMHO) are just too big.
I primarily want to get myself into impact zones without the worry of being impacted into by a motorcycle. These would primarily be head on shots or 3/4 angle head on shots. I would switch to my 70-200 IS L 2.8 for the pans.
Comments
70-200 IS
3.4" x 7.8", 3.24 lbs. / 86.2mm x 197mm, 1470g
400/2.8 IS
6.4" x 13.7", 11.8 lbs. / 163.0 x 349.0mm, 5370g
You will be a lot happier with a monopod.
That is 11.8 lbs vs 3.24 lbs
11.7 pounds for the 400 f2.8 + almost 3 pounds for a 1DMkll will be close to 15 pounds. That is a beast to keep to your eye level. Even a 20D will add 1.5 pounds or so.
I suspect you will really appreciate a tripod with a Sidekick for the 400f2.8 It is heavier than a 500 f4!!. The 500 F4 ONLY weighs 8.5 pounds and it is a beast. And I hardly ever use it without a tripod.
I suspect even a monopod will get heavy before the day is over.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
You really might want to consider a real-deal Wimberly head, rather than a Sidekick. I use a Sidekick for my 500+1.4EX and a 1series body and it is a full load on a Sidekick and an Arca-Swiss head. The 400f2.8 weighs 50% MORE than the 500 F4 or 4x the weight of the 70-200f2.8 and much bigger and longer too.. I know 11.7 pounds does not sound like it is that heavy to a strong fella, but trust me on this, you are not going to hold it up and steady all day long unless you are just monster strong.
I would not like using the 400f2.8 with a monopod, but a good, heavy tripod with a head designed for a heavy telephoto like the Sidekick, or better, the Wimberly head. Look up www.tripodhead.com for a purview.
These lenses are large and heavy and can cause a tripod to fall over if you are not paying attention to balance and foot placement.
What are they charging to rent your 400f2.8 for a weekend anyway?? Sounds like you will have a great time shooting. Try a 1.4ex or a 2x with it for some serious reach too
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Since you asked on the rental though, $80/day
Hello,
Depends if you are going to be moving around much or not.
I've rented one for a weekend (cost me $100) with a monopod and gone to the zoo. It's a beast of a lens, but carrying it around for the day and shooting on the monopod was an option.
If you are going to stay in relatively few locations then a tripod / gimbal will certainly give you sharper shots / smoother panning.
The 300 2.8 IS is the biggest lens I will take handheld. The 500/4 and 400/2.8 (IMHO) are just too big.
www.finesart.com
I think I'll stick with the F/5.6
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl