Prime Telephoto Recommendation

jdryan3 · October 5, 2007

I have a 5D that I need extra reach on. I got rid of a 75-300 USM and got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 1.4x extender. I used that combo recently at an airshow. But at times I wish I had extra reach. The 300 f/2.8 would get me up to 420 f/4. But I am seriously considering the 400 DO f/4. That would get me up to 560, but at f/5.6. Plus I have heard mixed reviews on the 400 DO.

Most of what I shoot is outdoors - some landscapes, people, sports. I like the flexibility of handholding, but if low enough light I carry a tripod (or monopod). The 400 f/2.8 is out mainly because of size & weight. I hike a lot, and bike around also. The size and weight of the 300 f/2.8 & the 400 DO are about the same. I realize I am giving up the f/2.8 but I will gain extra reach. In reality of course I want it all.

Moab next October would be a nice place to take whatever I buy!

Opinions? Does anyone out there have an opinion? :wink

swintonphoto · October 5, 2007

What's your budget like?

BBiggs · October 5, 2007

This is a tough one! It seems that you want more reach than what you have, so based on that I would get the 400mm DO.

LiquidAir · October 5, 2007

Here is something to consider:

40D body only: $1300
100-400/4.5-5.6L IS: $1400
400/4 DO: $5200

The 40D + 100-400 gives you the eqivalent of 640/5.6 on your 5D for $2500 less than the 400DO plus you get a back up body as a bonus.

ziggy53 · October 5, 2007

I'm thinking that the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS is probably a great match for the Canon 5D camera. It's probably the lightest FF long-range combination around.

Coupled with the 1.4x converter, you will probably need good light to get fast and accurate AF.

If you're going to all that trouble, I would also recommend getting a Canon 40D body for those times when even the 400mm+1.4x isn't enough.

I did find an older thread referencing the EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=1034

jdryan3 · October 6, 2007

swintonphoto wrote:

What's your budget like?

Well, I'd rather not spend the $6000+ for the 400 f/2.8 either, but $5K or so isn't a problem. Kinda why I didn't bring it up originally as a deciding factor, but I should have mentioned it.

I hadn't thought about the 40D as an alternative. I had a 300D when I had the 75-300, so I had 480 reach (yeah, I know it's a crop and not really the same thing). I had had that lens from my film days and wasn't real happy with it anyway. Of course my 5D should just what a piece of cr*p it was, so I got the 70-200.

The 300 f/2.8 is $3900 and the 400 DO f/4 is $5200. So the 40D and the 300 f/2.8 would be the same as the 400 DO. Hmmm. :uhoh Now I have 3 choices after finally narrowing it down to 2. Thanks guys! :giggle

pathfinder · October 9, 2007

The 300 f2.8 will pair with the 2X TC, but the 400 f4 DO is quite a bit lighter to carry and hold than the 300 f2.8.

You will really need a gimbel head of some sort to really see the quality these lenses are capable of capturing - I use a Wimberly Sidekick on a good ball head for mine.

I find the Tamron 200-500 gives me pretty decent shots at air shows also - on a 40D it really does have reach.

Prime Telephoto Recommendation

Comments