Canon 400mm

skiking

skiking

Messages
699
Edit My Images
Yes
Just seen a tweet from MichealReagan (re-tweeted by Dickiepelham1 - Chief Sports tog with the Sun).....'Interesting observation from a colleague using the new Canon 400mm "It's just as terrible as the last one"...or words to that effect'

Warning to those thinking of buying it if the pro's don't like it!!
 
skiking said:
Just seen a tweet from MichealReagan (re-tweeted by Dickiepelham1 - Chief Sports tog with the Sun).....'Interesting observation from a colleague using the new Canon 400mm "It's just as terrible as the last one"...or words to that effect'

Warning to those thinking of buying it if the pro's don't like it!!
Click to expand...

......? I fail to see the point of this post.
 
I think the tweeter was saying the newer version of the 400mm Canon lens is just as bad as the original.

Don't shoot the messenger :gag: I've no idea if Canon have replaced the lens or not or whether its bad or not but these two guys tweeting are pro sports photographers so may know a thing or two.....I'll keep quiet in future :dummy:
 
I've used the mark 1 canon 400mm f/2.8L IS
It's a phenominal lens.

The mark 2 is a hair sharper, a lot lighter and improved IS and weather sealing.
And it's retail price is. . . cough. . . £11k. It's the best 400/2.8 on the market (and it should be, 400 f/2.8's are expensive lenses by definition, but £11k is high even for a lens like this).

I expect the tweet was sarcastic ;)
 
Last edited:
If its a sarcastic comments then its a bad comment for Canon.....not that many people would have seen the orig tweet .....i'm just a sad tweeter :nuts:
 
The best motor sports shots I've *ever* seen were taken on a Canon 400mm f/2.8 (the old one not the latest). I've never owned one, but I know what I see.

On the other hand I can't afford £11k for a lens either, and I'd probably need a sherpa to carry it around for me too, even if I could!
 
Could be talking about the 400mm f5.6 L ? :P highly unlikely, but just a thought :)
 
I've tweeted back...comment back was...."The new 2.8... is the same old rubbish"

Glad i started this now :lol:
 
A nikon shooter slags off a canon lens.
Stop the presses :D.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a link as I viewed the Twitter account on my phone. Just go into Twitter and search for the user MichealReagan (works for Getty). Not a lot said over what I posted here. He did say he was once a Canon man but moved to Nikon. I did read recently that Nikon were offering inducements to pro's to ditch Canon and go Nikon which may explain his switch ?
 
skiking said:
I did read recently that Nikon were offering inducements to pro's to ditch Canon and go Nikon which may explain his switch ?
Click to expand...

Late 2007 / early 2008 following the release of the D3.

Internet chatter reported focusing issues with the Canon 1D MkIII, Canon denied there was a problem, Canon users were not happy bunnies.

Nikon saw the opportunity and approached the Pro Cannon users with an offer too good to resist.

At the end of the day most Pro's just want a tool that works and gets the job done, very few of them get too hung up on who's badge is on it.
 
skiking said:
I don't have a link as I viewed the Twitter account on my phone. Just go into Twitter and search for the user MichealReagan (works for Getty). Not a lot said over what I posted here. He did say he was once a Canon man but moved to Nikon. I did read recently that Nikon were offering inducements to pro's to ditch Canon and go Nikon which may explain his switch ?
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
Terrible AF?

Well the mark 1 tracked flitty little birds in late evening and under shade light instantly and accurately on my 40D (which is decent but no where near the best in terms of AF performance) which, so I'm gonna go ahead and say that's just silly ;)

But whatever, anyone seriously considering this lens will know how good it is anyway so the anomalous comment of one person on twitter isn't really worth arguing about.
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
But whatever, anyone seriously considering this lens will know how good it is anyway so the anomalous comment of one person on twitter isn't really worth arguing about.
Click to expand...

I agree...But its the TP poster who made this thread as a warning to sports photographers that irks me :(
 
here are 2 examples.


Bristol Airport - New Canon 400 2.8 IS Mk2 by Brad_wakefield, on Flickr


Bristol Airport - New Canon 400 2.8 IS Mk2 by Brad_wakefield, on Flickr
I no these shots are boaring... but the autofocus even on my 5d at 800mm was amazing, the colours, contrast sharpenss is all 2nd to none, its so much lighter than the currrent 400 and i would be happy to say that i think its lighter than the 500 F4 IS the hard case it comes in is great with space for the converters which are very good. Overall great lens... but i guess it should be for £9k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top