400mm IS L 2.8 lens

[BBones]

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

[patch29]

from Canon

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

[pathfinder]

from Canon

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.

[BBones]

Recommendations on a mono/tri pod for this set up then?

[ashby]

The Wimberly Sidekick (http://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm) 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.

[pathfinder]

The Wimberly Sidekick (http://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm) 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 :thumb

[BBones]

UGH, $465 for that. This is just supposed to be a rental for a weekend.

Since you asked on the rental though, $80/day

[SteveF]

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.

[BBones]

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.

[Michiel de Brieder]

wow, I've seen some samples but that lens is a BRUTE!!!! Also it would take me at least a year to save up for it :rolleyes

I think I'll stick with the F/5.6 :dunno (as soon as I can afford it :rofl)