 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / June 2004focus speed
I had the opputunity to test the EF 400/2,8 the other day and it is impressive, but too big and heavy for me. So I'm thinking the 500/4,0 is the better choice, but how do their AF speed compare. The 400/2,8 was perfect, even with a 1,4 extender, is the 500/4,0 as fast and what happens when an extender is attached. If someone has tried both lenses I would be very greatfull for your experience on this point. ;o)-max- >From: ";o\)-max-" ma22x3@hotmail.com >I had the opputunity to test the EF 400/2,8 the other day >and it is impressive, but too big and heavy for me. So I'm >thinking the 500/4,0 is the better choice, but how do their >AF speed compare. The extra stop will help the 400 f/2.8 focus a bit faster than the 500 f/4, no doubt about that. >The 400/2,8 was perfect, even with >a 1,4 extender, is the 500/4,0 as fast An f/4 lens will AF faster than a f/2.8 lens with a 1.4x on it, no doubt about that either. So if you were happy with the 400 with a 1.4x then you'll be happy with the 500 f/4 w/o one. > ... and what happens when an extender is attached (to the 500 f/4). With the right gimbal head like the Wimberley you can AF with the 500 f/4 and a 1.4x on birds in flight, so long as they are bigger relatively slow moving birds like herons, cranes and egrets. Works best with a clear uncluttered sky behind the birds, a cluttered background will often cause the AF to 'hunt' though. The type of body you have is important too, the EOS-3 (which is my main film camera) will AF faster than the Elan or Rebel bodies for example, and we have both the 10D and 1Ds digital bodies and the 1Ds is quicker and more accurate at AF than the 10D. I'm trying to get the 1D Mark II, which is even better. I've tried shooting birds in flight with the 2x (1,000 mm, f/8) but with rare success. >If someone has tried both lenses I would be very greatfull for your >experience on this point. I haven't shot with the 400 f/2.8 but I've compared AF speed on f/2.8 lenses like the 70-200 with a 1.4x to f/4 lenses like the 300 f/4 L, and f/4's like the 300 with a 1.4x to a 400 f/5.6 L and there's no doubt that adding a t/c makes the lens slower than shooting at the same min aperture without a t/c (ie, a 300 f/4 w/ 1.4x => 420 f/5.6 is slower than the 400 f/5.6, etc). Roger Clark has several images of birds-in-flight shot with his 500 f/4 L and a digital body, check http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.nature-1/index.html The 500 f/4 L IS is a great lens, I doubt you'll be sorry you got it :) Bill "Bill Hilton" > >From: ";o)-max- > >I had the opputunity to test the EF 400/2,8 the other day > >and it is impressive, but too big and heavy for me. So I'm [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > accurate at AF than the 10D. I'm trying to get the 1D Mark II, which is even > better. The mark II is the reason I want the 500/4, I tested the 400/2,8 on mark II, I was impressed, very solid performance, but too heavy to carry around a full day, and impossible to hand hold, which I like to do quite often. > I've tried shooting birds in flight with the 2x (1,000 mm, f/8) but with rare > success. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > makes the lens slower than shooting at the same min aperture without a t/c (ie, > a 300 f/4 w/ 1.4x => 420 f/5.6 is slower than the 400 f/5.6, etc). Sounds like it depends more on the max. apature than the specific lens and focal lenth. I think Canon wrote that the 500/4 can autofocus with the 2x extender on some cameras, when using the center spot, do you know if this is the case on the markII. > Roger Clark has several images of birds-in-flight shot with his 500 f/4 L and a > digital body, check [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bill If it performs anything like the 400mm with extender, I'll be more than happy, thank you very much for your generous help.. ;o)-max- >From: ";o\)-max-" ma22x3@hotmail.com >Sounds like it depends more on the max. apature than the specific lens and >focal lenth. I think Canon wrote that the 500/4 can autofocus with the 2x >extender on some cameras, when using the center spot, do you know if >this is the case on the markII. Yes, the 1D, 1Ds and 1D Mark II digital bodies will all AF at f/8 min aperture as they are built off the 1V body (the 1V and the EOS-3 film cameras have this feature). The dRebel and 10D (built off an Elan body) lose AF with the Canon t/c's beyond f/5.6 (the off brand t/c's will let you try to AF and may or may not do it, depending on the contrast and light). >The mark II is the reason I want the 500/4 If you find the Mark II in stock please let me know as I want one badly before a trip to Alaska next month :) Bill > Yes, the 1D, 1Ds and 1D Mark II digital bodies will all AF at f/8 min aperture > as they are built off the 1V body (the 1V and the EOS-3 film cameras have this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > f/5.6 (the off brand t/c's will let you try to AF and may or may not do it, > depending on the contrast and light). Bill, My Kenko pro 300 2x TC tells the 10D camera enough info that the camera turns off AF at f/8. Roger |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.