First outing with 400 2.8

Tobers

Tobers

Messages
3,435
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I had my first footie game of the season today seeing Reading play Scunthorpe (1-2) and use my new old Canon 400 2.8 for the first time. It's a non-IS version and cost £2600 from Aperture in London - the most my meagre budget could stretch to after selling my 300 2.8.

I thought the 300 was a big beast, but the 400 is in a different league. Very heavy, obviously a fair bit larger, and tricky to carry about. I've ended cutting a load of foam padding for my topbox on the motorbike to take it around for now as I need a new, bigger rucksack otherwise. I'd like to get a Pelican case and find a way of fixing it onto the back of the bike.

Anyway, the image quality is just stonking. There's such a difference in background separation compared to the 300, with the players popping out much more with an almost 3D effect. Unfortunately I cant post any pics, but I'm well happy with it. Even with a 1.4 extender on (560mm) it is sharp as a sharp thing, and it was much easier to get in close on the managers at halfway whilst I was at the end of the pitch. Also, getting shots of the goals at the far end is obviously easier too.

So, overall I'm delighted. Now I just need to get some sales to recoup the outlay.
 
Tobers said:
I had my first footie game of the season today seeing Reading play Scunthorpe (1-2) and use my new old Canon 400 2.8 for the first time. It's a non-IS version and cost £2600 from Aperture in London - the most my meagre budget could stretch to after selling my 300 2.8.

I thought the 300 was a big beast, but the 400 is in a different league. Very heavy, obviously a fair bit larger, and tricky to carry about. I've ended cutting a load of foam padding for my topbox on the motorbike to take it around for now as I need a new, bigger rucksack otherwise. I'd like to get a Pelican case and find a way of fixing it onto the back of the bike.

Anyway, the image quality is just stonking. There's such a difference in background separation compared to the 300, with the players popping out much more with an almost 3D effect. Unfortunately I cant post any pics, but I'm well happy with it. Even with a 1.4 extender on (560mm) it is sharp as a sharp thing, and it was much easier to get in close on the managers at halfway whilst I was at the end of the pitch. Also, getting shots of the goals at the far end is obviously easier too.

So, overall I'm delighted. Now I just need to get some sales to recoup the outlay.
Click to expand...


Do you really need the 1.4 on the 400 though? (unless you mean for manager shots)

Glad you like it, for sure its a beast :)
 
Yep - just for the manager shots to get in decently close to see the spittle flying. I stuck it on towards the end of the game as the tension was rising.

Previously I thought I'd be fine with the 300, but the 400 makes a real difference to the pictures.
 
I think I saw the one you bought on their website a few weeks ago, it's got sold next to it now so I presume that's it. Looks heavy :eek:
 
The non IS you have is heavier than the newer ones.. I ahve recently started using 400 and theres a few big differnces for me.. With the 300 I almost always shot in f4 .. but with the 400 its f2.8 all the way at footy now.. and yes massive difference with seperation.. even the crowd close behind the manager

I used to prefer sitting as close to half way as I could.. get both goal areas perfect with a 300... the 400 you cant turn from one end to the other without lifting the whole thing so its behind goals only... I only did that when forced at certain grounds..


I use the 1.4 for cricket and its stunning.. not tried it for footy..

Unless a fair way from car to ground.. I dont bother packing the 400 away.. Esp at cricket.. I just keep it setup on back seat of car and carry in as-is

I get a lot more kids asking me "is this going to be on TV" :)
 
Kipax, when you had the 300 in f4, was that with a 1.4 on or did you use f4 by choice?
 
by choice.. 2.8 was just too thin for me on the 300.. too many pics with one player in focus and the tackling player too far out of focus.. f4 kept them both in.... doesnt seem to be a probem with 400
 
KIPAX said:
by choice.. 2.8 was just too thin for me on the 300.. too many pics with one player in focus and the tackling player too far out of focus.. f4 kept them both in.... doesnt seem to be a probem with 400
Click to expand...
im a bit lost here, 400 @2.8 will have a lot less DOF than 300 @ f2.8
 
malla1962 said:
im a bit lost here, 400 @2.8 will have a lot less DOF than 300 @ f2.8
Click to expand...

wierd innit.. math wise your right.. it should be even thinner. But I have done a few matches with it now and lots of two player action at 2.8 and both players in focus.. I dont know what to say ... 90% of 400 users have it at 2.8 all the time.
 
KIPAX said:
by choice.. 2.8 was just too thin for me on the 300.. too many pics with one player in focus and the tackling player too far out of focus.. f4 kept them both in.... doesnt seem to be a probem with 400
Click to expand...

thats something im going to try, ive been using the 300 wide open at 2.8 and sometimes part of an images is out
 
photobeef said:
thats something im going to try, ive been using the 300 wide open at 2.8 and sometimes part of an images is out
Click to expand...

Once you get a decent lens with 2.8 and you pay all that money for 2.8 .. too many people feel they have to use 2.8 .. I only used it when the light faded.. I was prepared to use f4 with 400 but gave 2.8 a chance and brilliant :)
 
Nice buy. I got my 400 2.8 IS just after last season finished so my first game with it will be QPR V Port Vale this week. Again I used to shoot with the 300 F2.8 IS L and the difference is great ;) Its a different mindset to shooting did to its size.

I stick mine in the Thinktank Airport International V2, can get 2 bodies, 70-200 and lappy on there aswell plus TC's.
 
Tobers said:
I need a new, bigger rucksack otherwise. I'd like to get a Pelican case and find a way of fixing it onto the back of the bike.
Click to expand...

I always carry mine in a Peli Case (1560).....not sure about fixing it to a bike though :)
 
I know what you mean about the depth of field on the 300 - it is very narrow and for polo I'd use it at f/4 to get the horse's head and the rider in focus. I haven't done any polo with the 400 yet but it'll be cool to have the extra reach.

On the portability front, it's the diameter of the front element and hood that are so much larger than the 300 which makes sticking it in a bag tricky.

I did compare an old and new 400 2.8 and the weight difference wasn't that great - they are both big beasts for sure.
 
I'm curious, as the game moves up and down the pitch, obviously the players will get a lot closer to you. Isn't having a fixed 400mm too restrictive or do you have a second body with a shorter lens for quick changes when the action gets too close?
 
2nd body with a 70-200 attached for the close stuff. Or just get a nice tight shot with the 400 (though massively difficult with the speed the players move).
 
I believe it's the heaviest lens Canon make. Did you take up the free gym membership that goes with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top