Super Telephoto lenses

[MarkBarbieri]

If someone was going to give you a super telephoto, which would you want?

1. 400mm f/2.8, 13.7" long, 11.7 pounds
2. 400mm f/4, 9.3" long, 4.3 pounds
3. 500mm f/4, 15.2" long, 8.53 pounds
4. 600mm f/4, 18" long, 11.8 pounds
5. 800mm f/5.6, 18.1" long, 9.9 pounds

Why? What would you use it for? Remember, it's a gift, so it would be rude to sell it. Which lens would you want to actually use?

 

[Suburbanmom]

If someone was going to give you a super telephoto, which would you want?

1. 
   [*]400mm f/2.8, 13.7" long, 11.7 pounds
2. 400mm f/4, 9.3" long, 4.3 pounds
3. 500mm f/4, 15.2" long, 8.53 pounds
4. 600mm f/4, 18" long, 11.8 pounds
5. 800mm f/5.6, 18.1" long, 9.9 pounds

Why? What would you use it for? Remember, it's a gift, so it would be rude to sell it. Which lens would you want to actually use?

I'd go for the f/2.8 and use it for sports. My kids play football, run cross-country and wrestle, so I'd need the faster aperture. A lens that heavy though would make me dust off my monopod for sure.

 

[NLD]

Wow, nice gift!

I'm not a pro (not even close) and don't shoot sports so with a lens as heavy as those... the convenience factor would be way more important to me than wide aperture, so the 400mm f4.0

If I shot lowlight sports though, definitely a 2.8.

 

[mabas9395]

I'll probably end up with the 100-400 eventually, so as long as I'm past the hand holding point anyway, let's go 800mm and then sign up for a trip with Moose Peterson.

I'm interested in hearing Mark's answer.

 

[spinetnglr]

I'm with Amy.. I would probably go for the 400mm 2.8 and then double up on the workouts at the gym so I could tote that beast around. I'd also have to get used to using a tri- or monopod whenever I used it. Even with the faster aperatures not sure I would attempt to handhold it for anything. It would be fun to try though. I would love to use it at the local parks and sanctuaries I go to for some bird and wildlife shots.

 

[Chikabowa]

I need better friends in life. Especially friends who give me these types of gifts.

I'd want the 400mm f2.8. That would fit what I do and how I do it.

 

[Gdad]

The 400/2.8 seems like the logical choice but I would probably use the 400/4 a whole lot more. I can't see myself lugging around a 12lb lens much but that's just me.

 

[mabas9395]

Now that I've thought about it a little more, I'll take whichever lens you want to send me Mark. And thanks again for the generous gift.

 

[J3nn78]

I have always wanted the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 to shoot motocross with, but out of that list, the 400 F2.8 would be my choice for the same use: motocross.

It's pretty useless at a wedding and for vacation/kids in my range. Not to mention I'd have to get another rolling case just for that lens! hahah

I bet the 800 would be awesome for shooting the moon.

 

[Frantasmic]

I'd go middle of the road with the 500mm f/4, 15.2" long, 8.53 pounds lens.

It has distance, good aperture, not too heavy. It is something that would work well outside and probably decently under stadium lights. I haven't met a gym that needs that type of length. Miley won't let you bring any of these beasts to her concerts anyway. The 400 f/2.8 would be cool for indoor stuff, where it is allowed, but the only venue I do that would benefit is high school choir and who needs to see teen-age tonsils anyway.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

No one is giving me a super telephoto. I've always lusted after the 400mm f/2.8, but it has always been way of reach in terms of price (over $7,000). This year, several events have coincided to bring me a surpringly good year financially. This is probably the one time in my life that I could drop that kind of money on a lens and not feel really guilty about it.

Now that I can make the purchase, I'm torn. On one hand, if I don't buy it now, it's pretty certain that I never will. On the other hand, I just can't see myself using any of these lenses enough to justify that kind of expense. I'm not a pro and have no apsirations to sell my photos. Other than occasional participation in a non-competitive soccer league, my kids aren't into sports. I asked my question to see if anyone would write anything that would inspire me to buy the 400mm or any of the other super teles.

I just can't see it happening. The 100mm-400mm is equally as long. It's not nearly as fast, but it is about as capable in low light with my current camera as the 400 f/2.8 would have been with older cameras I've had. It isn't as sharp, but it's good enough for my needs. It doesn't have as much DOF control, but is that really worth that much weight and price? I don't think that it is to me.

I guess it is time for me to accept the fact that I'll probably never have a super telephoto lens. I won't get that super close-up sea otter shot in Monterey this spring. I won't get those stunning soccer shots with extremely creamy backgrounds. As cool as it all sounds, it just doesn't sound like $7,000 worth of cool to me.


On the other hand, I do have someone trying to give me a lens. I've got a friend/coworker getting married in May. He's insisting that I shoot the wedding for him and he's insisting on paying me. I've agreed to shoot the wedding but am refusing any compensation, offering the photography as my wedding gift. He's threatening to get a Canon 100-400mm, Canon 85 f/1.2, or Canon 24 TSE for me as compensation. It's a battle of wills right now.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Now that I've thought about it a little more, I'll take whichever lens you want to send me Mark. And thanks again for the generous gift.

If someone gives me two of any of them, I'll give you the extra one.

 

[jann1033]

I'd have to go with the 400 f4, husband would lay down and refuse to go another step farther if i added another 8+lbs to my pack that he carries
really i think the f4 would be ok for what i'd use it for and i think my teleconverter would work with it. the 500 would probably be a little better but just to heavy, 800 while it sounds so tempting, don't think i really need to see the nose hairs on a deer

 

[ssanders79]

400mm f/2.8, 13.7" long, 11.7 pounds
This would open a door into serious sports shooting. I could also use it for shooting birds in my backyard. I was originally torn between the 800mm as it would be awesome for wildlife, but I am sure in my life I will have more opportunity to shoot sporting events than wildlife.

I can use the 800 for both, but I would rather have speed over reach.

 

[Frantasmic]

Canon 85 f/1.2

I'd seriously take up your friend on this one. His bride may kiss you with the pictures you'd be able to take with it.

 

[Coach]

If someone was going to give me a Super telephoto this is what I would like...Are you reading this Santa?

It's Nikons' AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-200-400mm-f-4G-IF-ED/

 

[disneyboy2003]

On the other hand, I do have someone trying to give me a lens. I've got a friend/coworker getting married in May. He's insisting that I shoot the wedding for him and he's insisting on paying me. I've agreed to shoot the wedding but am refusing any compensation, offering the photography as my wedding gift. He's threatening to get a Canon 100-400mm, Canon 85 f/1.2, or Canon 24 TSE for me as compensation. It's a battle of wills right now.

Wow! Good luck on your wedding shoot! I've always been fascinated by wedding photography and I've always admired excellent wedding photos, but I'm not sure I'd have the guts (or the know-how) to take up the challenge.

You probably already have this lens, but the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is probably better for wedding photography, compared to the Canon 100-400mm. (actually, I just re-read what you wrote. I guess he'd be giving the lens to you as compensation, and not as the lens you'd use for the wedding. I guess you wouldn't be using that tilt-shift lens for the wedding, eh? )

That 100-400mm lens comes in handy if you're on an Alaskan cruise and do excursions that go whale watching or finding bears or eagles, where you're looking for something far away and during daylight hours. It's also a great lens for the zoo, too.

 

[Code]

I'm not really interested in wildlife or birding or being a paparazzi, but I have 3 boys that I'm sure will be playing sports someday. The 400/2.8 would be amazing if I ever had the chance to shoot sports seriously, but I'd feel strange taking a monstrous lens to a children's game (I'll probably feel strange even with my new 70-200/2.8) so I'd take the 400/4 as the most practical option.. still plenty of speed and DoF for me.

That is an amazing amount of cash to set down just to get really nice vacation wildlife photos and creamy soccer bokeh. I could see someone with a real passion for wildlife or birding being willing even if they weren't making money off it, but with no serious goal in mind that doesn't seem worth it.