September 22, 2014, 06:47:09 PM

Author Topic: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I  (Read 9203 times)

charlesa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I shoot with my eye!
    • View Profile
    • 16 stops to Heaven
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2012, 04:21:30 PM »
Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass  ;D

Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!
Most monopods from the high quality manufacturers will cope with a large white. Gitzo tend to be very expensive and their tripods look the part, but I don't think their monopods can command the same superiority, because there are a few decent ones around. I've started steering away form Manfrotto tripods, but their 680B or (681B?) will cope and appears to be better made than their tripods. Also have a look at Giottos, as their tripods are better build quality than Manrotto, so I would expect their monopods to be at teh same level, although I haven't looked at them closely, the Giottos MTL 8261B tripod I have more than copes with my 300 f/2.8 and was much more reasonable than the Gitzo equivalent.

I have a Giotto CF tripod which I am very satisfied with, but a 400 mm needs a monopod, or else a gimbal head on a tripod? Although unsure what gimbal to go for, except Wimberley have a good rep with the version II of their head, although have no idea what brackets would be needed for a 400 mm

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2012, 04:21:30 PM »

Bombsight

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2012, 04:34:20 PM »
As a poster above said, what if the IS or AF motor does go out on the Mark I?  How much pain in the butt would it be to get it fixed by Canon?  Either the AF or IS?  I've never had that happen in a lens, so I was just curious.
Cant answer that question ... but want to say thats a good reason to buy the non-IS version if you can find one. Ideally, the newest version of the 400 f/2.8 is best, ... if you can afford it. But when buying only what one can afford and it being older, I think it's best to eliminate the 3-$4000 total loss of a failed IS motor.

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2012, 04:49:45 PM »
Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass  ;D

Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!
Most monopods from the high quality manufacturers will cope with a large white. Gitzo tend to be very expensive and their tripods look the part, but I don't think their monopods can command the same superiority, because there are a few decent ones around. I've started steering away form Manfrotto tripods, but their 680B or (681B?) will cope and appears to be better made than their tripods. Also have a look at Giottos, as their tripods are better build quality than Manrotto, so I would expect their monopods to be at teh same level, although I haven't looked at them closely, the Giottos MTL 8261B tripod I have more than copes with my 300 f/2.8 and was much more reasonable than the Gitzo equivalent.

I have a Giotto CF tripod which I am very satisfied with, but a 400 mm needs a monopod, or else a gimbal head on a tripod? Although unsure what gimbal to go for, except Wimberley have a good rep with the version II of their head, although have no idea what brackets would be needed for a 400 mm

You're right: a 400 needs either a gimbal or a monopod.

The gimbal balances everything around a pivot point such that you can easily, smoothly, and quickly position the rig in any direction with just a single finger -- and it stays pointed in that position without you having to do anything (like tighten a knob) until you push it again.

But a gimbal only works from a fixed position. Moving means you've got to pick up the whole mess and re-level the tripod head at the new position.

A monopod isn't quite as steady as a gimbal, but it's as portable as you could ask for.

And, yes. The Manfrotto monopods work great with a Big White. I use mine with a RSS monopod head (and their replacement foot on the lens).

b&

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2576
    • View Profile
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2012, 05:26:34 PM »
As a poster above said, what if the IS or AF motor does go out on the Mark I?  How much pain in the butt would it be to get it fixed by Canon?  Either the AF or IS?  I've never had that happen in a lens, so I was just curious.
Cant answer that question ... but want to say thats a good reason to buy the non-IS version if you can find one. Ideally, the newest version of the 400 f/2.8 is best, ... if you can afford it. But when buying only what one can afford and it being older, I think it's best to eliminate the 3-$4000 total loss of a failed IS motor.

After looking through 10-12 of these lenses now, hardly any difference in price between IS and non-IS.  It's frustrating to have to buy IS because at 400mm I don't need it since I'm on a tripod or monopod with that big tank  ::)
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2012, 05:26:55 PM »
I use a Manfrotto 055PROB and Manfrotto 383 Gimbal - reasonably priced and good.

charlesa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I shoot with my eye!
    • View Profile
    • 16 stops to Heaven
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2012, 07:05:09 PM »
Would it be doable to actually put a Wimberley on a monopod? Sounds strange to me but the thought arose.

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2012, 06:01:41 AM »
Proud owner of 400 mm of prime glass  ;D

Can anyone suggest a suitably sturdy monopod.. no way anyone can hand hold such a beast and get half decent shots!
Most monopods from the high quality manufacturers will cope with a large white. Gitzo tend to be very expensive and their tripods look the part, but I don't think their monopods can command the same superiority, because there are a few decent ones around. I've started steering away form Manfrotto tripods, but their 680B or (681B?) will cope and appears to be better made than their tripods. Also have a look at Giottos, as their tripods are better build quality than Manrotto, so I would expect their monopods to be at teh same level, although I haven't looked at them closely, the Giottos MTL 8261B tripod I have more than copes with my 300 f/2.8 and was much more reasonable than the Gitzo equivalent.

I have a Giotto CF tripod which I am very satisfied with, but a 400 mm needs a monopod, or else a gimbal head on a tripod? Although unsure what gimbal to go for, except Wimberley have a good rep with the version II of their head, although have no idea what brackets would be needed for a 400 mm
I wasn't suggesting a tripod, I was using it as an example of quality. However, it does depend on what you're shooting, as to whether a tripod would work with a 400.  A pro wildlife photographer I know has a Gitzo trpiod, without a gimbal head and uses a 200-400 with it, he also used a 600 in the past (obviously Nikon). He doesn't tend to shoot birds in flight to any great degree though, mostly being used for land or coastal based wildlife. There are also other heads that could be used instead of a gimbal. A monopod is cheaper than a tripod though and is more flexible in some ways, they are a bit of a pain for birds in flight though.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2012, 06:01:41 AM »

charlesa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I shoot with my eye!
    • View Profile
    • 16 stops to Heaven
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2012, 02:45:35 PM »
Actually considering a Gitzo monopod with a RRS MH01 head, but as I asked, is it actually possible to put a Wimberley on a monopod?

TexPhoto

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 923
    • View Profile
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2012, 07:17:05 PM »
I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod.  The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight.  You twist the camera to vertical in the  tripod collar.

IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong.  Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod.  If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2576
    • View Profile
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2012, 07:56:55 PM »
I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod.  The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight.  You twist the camera to vertical in the  tripod collar.

IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong.  Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod.  If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.

Yes it has turned out to be a great lens.  I know I don't need IS when it's on a tripod because I shut it off.  No problems.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Michael_pfh

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2012, 01:24:17 AM »
I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod.  The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight.  You twist the camera to vertical in the  tripod collar.

IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong.  Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod.  If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.

I do not use a head when using my 400 2.8L on a monopod, either. Since the lens weighs 6.1kg I prefer to use it on a tripod using a Manfrotto 393. The lens does not wobble on my tripod (Manfrotto cx055pro4).

Of course it would be nice to have IS so that I could use it handheld like my 300 2.8L II but considering the weight I wouldn't do that often anyway...
1DX | 14 2.8L II | 16-35 2.8L II | 24 1.4L II | 24-70 2.8L II | ZE 35 2.0 | ZE 50 2.0 | 85 1.2L II | 100 2.8L IS | 135 2.0L | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 200 F2.0L IS | 300 2.8L IS II | 400 2.8L IS II | 500 4.0L IS

gary samples

  • Guest
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2012, 01:42:05 AM »
Wimberley version II  if you have the money is the only way to go. I love it ! so glad I didn't cheap out .

charlesa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I shoot with my eye!
    • View Profile
    • 16 stops to Heaven
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #42 on: March 11, 2013, 11:35:56 AM »
I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #42 on: March 11, 2013, 11:35:56 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14463
    • View Profile
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2013, 11:44:18 AM »
I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?

Given the choice between a vaporware lens and the 400 II, I'd pick the latter.  Unless you require the flexibility of the zoom for framing, the prime will almost certainly offer better IQ and it will be a stop faster, plus you can use a 2x TC if necessary.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

charlesa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I shoot with my eye!
    • View Profile
    • 16 stops to Heaven
Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2013, 12:40:59 PM »
I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?

Given the choice between a vaporware lens and the 400 II, I'd pick the latter.  Unless you require the flexibility of the zoom for framing, the prime will almost certainly offer better IQ and it will be a stop faster, plus you can use a 2x TC if necessary.

Thank you neuro, could possibly wait a bit more and see if that 200-400 mm surfaces any time soon, but last I heard photogs at the Olympics had access and the lenses looked close to a final version... but Olympics are now 8 months old and no news of the lens. It would help with the framing as you say, but in the end, a prime is a prime.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2013, 12:40:59 PM »