Eagle Juvie shots from Buck's Lake

[mountaindew]

Hey all..

Just wanted you to know that I took the plunge last week and got new piece of glass for my 40D. Canon EF 400mm f2.8 IS USM! It just came in yesterday morning to my office! It was a hard decision! I'm glad I got it. I figured I'd get the big guns first before I get a full frame Canon camera. That way I'll have invested in them...they hold it's value VERY well.

The problem is that it's been so flat and gloomy out. That other Eagle shot I posted yesterday was also from those lens. It was about the only time the sun had come out for a measly 15 minutes..

It's VERY heavy! Just under 12 lbs. piece of glass! These juvie shots were hand held.

Had the camera settings on ISO 800, 1/2000 sec, Evaluative Metering, AF focus point at Center.

I still have a LONG ways to go learning how to use this beast!

This one here is full size, (no crop)

The rest of these pics are 100% crop. Remember...all of them were hand held. That was hard!

I'm looking at a wimberley head for the 400mm. I need it. Has anybody used this? Is this good for panning birds?

[Steve Foss]

MD, you lucky bugger!

The Wimberley head is the standard of the industry when it comes to either shooting perched birds or panning. It can lock down tight and strong or pan smooth as butter. It is the perfect company to keep for Canon's sharpest and fastest focusing supertelephoto prime lens.

You've got the best supertele prime lens Canon makes, IMO. I've now shot several times with the 400 f2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4, and when it came to sharpness, speed of autofocus and ability to hold focus on a moving target, the 400 won all categories.

And your 40D has added focus speed and functionality with f2.8 lenses when using the center focus point.

An all around excellent choice. A lot of avian shooters bypass the 400 altogether in favor of the reach of the 500 or 600, but I sure did like how well the 400 performed with the 1.4 TC.

You'll have a lot of fun getting used to the new beast. It will change your shooting style to some degree, because unlike the 100-400 it's not the type of thing you cup under your arm on a hike through the woods. You'll do less stalking and more work from a blind or other static positions like behind cover.

Unless you're going to do a lot of shooting off a beanbag, you'll almost always be using the tripod/Wimberley. I'd definitely recommend a tripod that's rock solid with 20 lbs of weight, and tripods that strong with the Wimberley will add several pounds all by themselves.

For that reason, I recommend you wrap the upper sections of your tripod in foam padding like the kind you buy to insulate copper water pipes. And develop a comfortable carrying style, too. The times I've hefted that combo around I DEFINITELY knew it!

If I recall, noted avian photographer Arthur Morris has had reconstructive surgery performed on both shoulders because of all the time he's spent hefting big glass and big tripods around.

I envy you, MD. You've got yourself a piece of top glass there, and you'll have a great time learning to get the best out of it.

Rather than worrying about upgrading to a full-frame body, you'll get the most effective pairing on that lens with a 1D mk2n or Mk3, which is a 1.3 crop sensor and the fastest camera/lens combination Canon makes. And if you go with the 1D Mk3 you'll have the best high iso DSLR performnance there is. I've seen iso3200 shots off that body that can make a person weep with envy.

When I shot the big Canon glass, it was always with the 1D Mk2n. Durn, that was FAST!

Have a blast, man!

[finnbay]

Whoa, MD! That is a serious piece of glass! Looks like you have a good start on it, though!

[MN Shutterbug]

Wow. I hope you work out. You're off to a good start. However, this is not a lens I would want to think about handholding. But then, I don't work out either.

[mountaindew]

Thanks guys!

No matter how many times I see it, I'm still amazed how big that thing is. (sigh).

I'll need to work on my shooting skills...I know I do. Sometimes when I review the shots I've taken..I could swear that the pics I've seen taken with the 400mm looked sharper than the pics I've taken.

It's too early to tell now. I mean...the lighting, (weather) has been flat, learning how to change the settings on the camera..etc. All that adds up. I need more time to work with it. Then I'll sit down and look it over and see if the pics have improved.

I know what you're saying about modifying some kind of padding for the tripod. I have an older tripod by BOGEN/MANFROTTO that was my father's. And he has given it to me. Darn thing weights 25 lbs! Think I'm going to try to see if there's a lighter tripod that would support with the wimberley head.

Here are the few pics of the 400 I took last night..

[Steve Foss]

Showoff!

Gitzo and Manfrotto, to name just a couple, make carbon fiber tripods that can easily support monster weights and weigh a lot less than your dad's tripod.

Search a couple online retailers and you'll find half a dozen or more models between the two brands that'll do you. Quite a bit more expensive than aluminum tripods, but of course much lighter, too.

And since you've already spent enough to finance the expansion of a Third World country to buy the lens what's another $1,000 for the Wimberley and tripod?

Seriously, though, you'll need that level of supplementary gear to allow you and the lens to perform at your best.

[mountaindew]

Steve, I've already dug deep for the the wimberley. I'm broke for a while...

I'll keep an eye out for a used aluminum tripod from hsolist/Canon Digital photography sites. Hopefully something will come up. Meanwhile I'll keep on having a good work out lunging that thing around!

Thanks guys!

[Steve Foss]

Broke is right, big guy! Broke but happy, I bet!

If it were me in your situation and I had the heavy tripod and the Wimberley coming, I'd go ahead and mate it all up and get to work so you become used to making the gear perform. While changing tripods in midstream may seem like it's a bit of work, it really won't be, because the magic's in the head, and really the major difference you'll see later in the tripod upgrade will be less weight, with pretty much everything else remaining the same.

And there's a steep learning curve with that 400 f2.8 on the tripod and head. A fun one, no doubt, but steep.

You also should look into a strong monopod down the road. There'll be times and places where you'll need to remain more mobile than the tripod/Wimberley will allow, and a strong monpod and IS make a deadly combination.

I know you'll have a blast, and new gear is always exciting. I'm assuming you'll keep showing us your work.

[mountaindew]

You can count on it. I'll need your help to walk me through this! Thanks Steve!

[Dbl]

Wow, congratulations MD! That is some serious glass you've purchased. I am curious if you considered the 400/f4 DO, sharp and a feather to hand hold or the 500/f4, 600/5.6? You currently own the 100-400 so usually the next step that most birders make is up in the focal range. I know the prime will accept the TC better but the adage of your glass never having enough reach is very true.

Was the f2.8 an important consideration for you? Most birders are working up in the 5.6 to f8 range in decent light to get their shots so even with a 1.4 you are in the f4 range and likely will be stopping down a bit more.

Please don't take this the wrong way I sure don't mean it that way at all! I am thrilled for you! I am just curious what elements went into your choice of lens. It could help some others on the board who might be looking at the same choices.

You will definitely being have fun with this for sure. Hope you get some decent weather to get out and give it a good going through.

[mountaindew]

Thanks Dan!

Yes, reason is that during the winter times, I photograph ALOT of indoor sports for the school, mostly wrestling, and basketball. Also will be taking up High School football sports too. Those are the main reason why I wanted the f2.8, I liked the flexibilities that I can be able to shoot outdoor wildlife/birding and low light conditions situations like indoor activities, or night time games under the field lights.

I really thought long and hard on this. Considered the 500/f4 and 600/5.6, but then it'd be too much for the indoor games..that's why I liked the feature having the f2.8 and if I wanted more range, add the EF 1.4 extender, it would be like having a 500/f4, only it'd be 560mm at f4. And the EF 2XII would become 800mm at f/5.6 would be great for birding/wildlife.

Without the extenders, at 400mm would be just about right for indoor games. Besides, I've got 70-200mm 2.8 if I wanted less range.

I just hope I'm DONE spending money! All I need is to really learn this thing!

[Dave S]

MD, I give you a couple months with that glass and NO ONE will want to arm wrestle you.

Nice pics of the juvie out at Buck's.

I noticed east of St. Peter on HWY 99 there was a large flock of Pelicans swimming around if you're interested in some scoopers, or as I like to call them, Minnesota Horn Bills.

They were in the pond between Hermie's and St Peter.

[Steve Foss]

Marc, I'd be surprised if you get many opportunities with 400mm for action shots of wrestling and basketball unless you have a lot of space to back up into. Those spaces tend to be pretty darn small for 400mm. I shot sports for four years indoors with the 100-400 (with high iso and some fill flash), and it was a rare moment I went out past 300mm.

To some degree your shooting style will dictate your lens. The 400mm, if you're able to follow the fast action, will deliver some very nice very tight shots indoors. You'll have more chances to use it if you are up in the stands, too.

For football, baseball, soccer and any other outdoor sport, where there's a lot of room to spread around and the playing fields are large, the 400 prime is a VERY sweet proposition. And if you need added muscle for daytime outdoor sports, that 1.4 will deliver all you'll need. Either the 400 alone or the 400/1.4 combo will be deadly from behind the end zone in football photography or shooting baseball outfield action.

Even with the sharpness of the 400 f2.8, however, adding the 2x TC will bring you up to the very edge of (and past, in my opinion) acceptable print quality except at very low iso in very rich light.

Now, there are a couple folk here who do more sports than I did (Dbl, finbay), and they may have different opinions.

And even if the 400 is a little too much muscle for some indoor sports, you've got that wonderful 70-200 f2.8L, which really is the standard indoor action sports lens, and that 400 is a phenomenal outdoor sports and nature lens you'll be really happy with.

Meanwhile, it's all pretty darn fun, isn't it?

[finnbay]

Yes, I use a 300 2.8 for my indoor tight shots, and I can stand behind the endline on one end of the gym and get some great shots under the opposite basket. Closer than midcourt and it's too close. That's where I'll switch to the other body with the 70-200. As Steve said, for football, baseball, soccer etc., that is an awesome lens! Many large publications require at least that lens for outdoor sports submissions.

By the way stfcatfish, nice avatar I suppose that's to be expected from a transplanted flat lander living in Minnesota!

[Steve Foss]

Thanks, Ken. My UND Sioux got the snot kicked out of them tonight in their quest for another NCAA Division 1 hockey championship, but we've been to the frozen four 4 times in the last 4 years, and that's not bad.

Speaking of hockey, Marc, that 400 makes a dandy indoor hockey and figure skating lens, especially in the larger venues. Most of those ice sheets are pretty big places.

[Dbl]

I agree with Ken and Steve the 400 is going to be too tight indoors, the 70-200 does about 95% of my work. The other thing is Ken and I shoot 1.3 crop cameras not 1.6 like your 40D. That will matter as well.

Now outdoors the 400 is the perfect lens for field sports. All the guys I know with the 400 put them away for the winter and drag them out in the summer. One of the reasons I bought a 300 when I purchased mine. I wanted something that never got put away!

Here is the other thing you will learn, outdoors at night even a 2.8 is not enough! Football will require you to most likely flash to get any good stop action shots without motion blur. I don't even use my 300/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 at night anymore, just am not satisfied with the results. The 400 is the best lens out there for daytime outdoor, field sports. Soccer, baseball, a bit long for softball, day football, etc.

Hockey will give you great results with the 70-200 and the 300 as well. I not sure I've heard of many hockey shooters with a 400.

Steve is right when he says you will be happy with the outdoor use of this lens, it is one of the best. Thanks for taking the time to give us some insight on your purchase. I think it might be helpful to others as well. Good luck and have fun with the lens!

Oh and Steve lets not talk about the Sioux

[Steve Foss]

Dan, I've seen a few 400 f2.8 lenses sprouting from the large sized hockey arenas, and the Olympics as well for figure skating.

[finnbay]

One thing I always forget to factor in when I'm shooting indoors, is that the places where I shoot allow me to be on the sidelines, next to the action. Parents don't usually have the opportunity to do that. I can walk anywhere I want on along the sidelines at football games, endzone to endzone. I can be anywhere in gyms except on the player's benches (though I do shoot from behind them at times). Saves me lens length when I want it to. Even at pro venues, the big time shooters usually are stuck at one place, either because they are assigned A spot, or their are so many other photographers they are elbow to elbow and can't move. If I was in a big venue in the nose bleed section, or if I wanted to get a higher angle, could possible see a bigger lens once in awhile.

[mountaindew]

Wow. You guys have great experiences with those big lens! I really value your opinions on different types of big prime lens. Explaining how you have used on the sports field. I really appreciate this information!

Looks like another gloomy day! (sigh) Did see about 50 Pelicans out at Buck's lake this morning on the way to work..but it's raining out and just miserable! No good!

Thanks again for the great information! Will keep you up to date with more pics later!

[mountaindew]

Thanks!

They're out at Bucks now..there's gotta be at least 50 of them out there!