Canon 200-400 f/4 Question

slookabill wrote:

Has anyone used the Canon 200-400 f/4 for airshow shooting? How did you support it for the show? Handheld, tripod w/Gimble head, monopod? something else?

I'm really thinking about renting this lens for the airshow at Maxwell AFB in 2 weeks, but after the last airshow I did last year and rented the Sigma 150-600 Sports, at 6.3 lbs, I'm a bit timid of the 200-400s 8lbs weight.

canon 200-400 f4.0 weighs almost the same as canon 600 f4.0 II (8.4 lbs), which i own one, and i can hold it only for a few second, unless i kneel down and brace my elbow on my knee! unless you are a body builder with stronger arms than an average person, i wouldn't attempt to hold the lens by hands in an air show and expecting to do a good job of shooting the show. i haven't been able to pick up my 600 lens and shoot birds, yet!

Birds in flight are similar to aircraft. The 200-400 is similar to my 500mm f4 and I would not try to hand hold either for long. If you get a 200-400, you will also need a sturdy tripod and a gimbal mount. I would not even try a monopod. While they are good for photographing things in front of you; they are too unsteady for overhead photography and think how tall a monopod would need to be for the camera to be at eye height. I concur that the 100-400 with or without an extender is the way to go unless you want to rent a lens, a tripod and a gimbal mount (and the quick release plates).

I rented the 200-400 twice for air show photography. At each show I was shooting aircraft in flight for several hours. About half way through the show my arms tired. No soreness or pain, just tired. I was always shooting hand held.

I think the weight and size of the lens made it a bit more difficult to pan aircraft. More effort had to go into panning. Also, it was hard to change the focal length while shooting. Many times I had to lower the lens and adjust the zoom, then raise the camera up to my eye and resume shooting.

Although it's a fantastic lens, it's not one I will be using for air shows.

Here's some aviation photos I took with the lens. On a few shots I used an external tc on the lens, making it go past 560mm.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31267310@N05/albums/72157645473732458

And a few more 200-400 photos...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31267310@N05/albums/72157652863727941

slookabill wrote:

BigBen08 wrote:

I rented the 200-400 twice for air show photography. At each show I was shooting aircraft in flight for several hours. About half way through the show my arms tired. No soreness or pain, just tired. I was always shooting hand held.

I think the weight and size of the lens made it a bit more difficult to pan aircraft. More effort had to go into panning. Also, it was hard to change the focal length while shooting. Many times I had to lower the lens and adjust the zoom, then raise the camera up to my eye and resume shooting.

Although it's a fantastic lens, it's not one I will be using for air shows.

Here's some aviation photos I took with the lens. On a few shots I used an external tc on the lens, making it go past 560mm.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31267310@N05/albums/72157645473732458

And a few more 200-400 photos...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31267310@N05/albums/72157652863727941

Thanks for the info... I'm just wanting more reach, esp for the Thunderbirds, and other GA acts, and hopefully better optics, than what my 100-400 mk I does.

To get past 400mm with Canon lenses, you either use the super expensive 500 f4 or 200-400, or stick an extender on another Canon lens. It would be great if Canon offered a 500 f5.6 lens that a hobbyist could afford.

I suggest you rent the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. It weighs about 2 lbs less than the Sport model you used. I have this lens and it works good for air shows. Going past 500mm results in slightly softer images, but still useable. Overall a very good lens.

Another option...the Canon 400 DO II with the 1.4xIII tc. It gets you out to 560mm and weighs much less than the Canon 500 f4. Smaller, too. I rented this lens and obtained excellent results with and without the 1.4xIII. My 400 DO II photos can be seen here...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31267310@N05/albums/72157652876389715

http://photography.atcontroller.com/ has all my galleries linked on it.

Looks great!

You definitely know what you're doing.

CameraCarl wrote:

Birds in flight are similar to aircraft.

Are they ? Which bird can fly so fast that it breaks the sound barrier ? Which bird has the size of a F22 ?

Paolo1957 wrote:

I have 200-400L, 500 f4 11 and 600 f4 11; have trouble hand holding any of them for any length of time. All great on monopod, but obvious difficulty using monopod for aircraft in flight.

500 f4.0 II may not be bad to handhold (i don't know what kind of physical shape you are in), but the other 2, forget it

dgumshu wrote:

ttbek wrote:

p5freak wrote:

CameraCarl wrote:

Birds in flight are similar to aircraft.

Are they ? Which bird can fly so fast that it breaks the sound barrier ? Which bird has the size of a F22 ?

You're right, the birds are much tougher.

Yes, birds are much tougher as they are more erratic and appear out of nowhere. Jets and props are much easier to shoot as you know where they are coming from and there is time to lock focus.

agreed, birds are much tougher to photograph than the fastest aircraft, as you noted! i think the answer is clear if one has photographed birds, especially small birds. big birds from distance are easier to photograph, they seem slower! small birds don't fly in a straight line, always unpredictable and never know where they might land (in most cases)! i always find BIF a lot more challenging than air shows.