Re: [Leica] 400 help

["Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@istar.ca>]

David:

I went through the same decision a few months ago.  In this range, all the
makers lenses are about the same.  The Leica may be marginally better
followed by the Canon.  On my web page are picture taken at a Dragon boat
race with the leica 400 2.8.  I was impressed with how contrasty the slides
were and how well it worked with the converters.  I also shot the football
pictures with it, but my technique needs some work.  

http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/photography/dragonboat.htm

http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/photography/football.htm

As for auto focus, it is used very little in nature pictures as you want to
focus on the animals eye.  No autofocus can pick out the eye automatically.
 The auto focus lenses are not very smooth in manual focus compared to
their manual focus counter parts.  A freind who borrowed a Canon 400 2.8
found it had a bit of lash when focusing manually.  He tried my Leica lens
and said it was much easier to focus manually.

The other things people forget when they talk about 400 2.8 lenses is how
heavy they are.  Remember that you have to carry these into the woods with
you.  Even once you get into the nature area, 400mm will not get you close
enough to most subjects without a blind.  Once you do have a blind, a
slower lens could be used with the addition of a few flashes for lighting.
There is a Nature photographer in our Photo Guild who has won many
international competitions who upgrade from Canon F1n to EOS 1N.  He say he
almost never uses his 400 2.8, but actuall uses a the 70-200 2.8L zoom with
a 1.4 converter in his blind along with three or four ttl flashes.  If you
really want Leica, you could use the 70-180 with the APO 2x.  It would be
cheaper, and use more than just a 400 2.8. 

Even with sports, my 400 2.8 can be very heavy.  When I do football games,
I mount the lens and camera on the monopod and leave the case and rest of
the camera gear in my truck. That is all I take other than film and a micro
fibre cloth to wipe off any mist if it starts raining.  Any more would be
too much to carry and you would risk losing it if you put it down while
shooting.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you may be disappointed with the
400 2.8 no matter what brand it is when you get it and realize how heavy it
is, that you need a very heavy tripod for it, an expensive ball head, a
Lowe Pro Pro trecker to carry it in, an assistant to carry the other gear
you need, and a chiropracter to straighten your back out after hiking into
the woods with it.  My Pro Trecker with lens and body and a few acessories
weighs about fourty pounds. 

These are very impressive lenses, but do require a lot of committment to
use them as intended.  For most instances a slower 400 or a 300 2.8 with
matched converter is better.

If you do decide on Leica, I may be convinced to part with my 400 2.8.  Let
me know if you are interested. 

Regards,

Robert


At 11:15 AM 11/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>  I am planning on purchasing a 400 2.8 lense for nature/wildlife and
>would GREATLY appreciate any input on Leica vs Canon(autofocus).
>Bottom line - is the Leica 400 2.8 better than the Canon and if so
>please state why.
>
>    I am trully fighting this decision as very soon I am planning on
>purchasing a complete new system.  BUT, this system must have long focal
>lengths and I am trying to decide whether or not the autofocus
>capability of the Canon is worth investing in the entire Canon system.
>Although I believe that the shorter focal length lenses <300 do not
>necessarily need autofocus I believe that once you get into the 400-600
>range autofocus is an advantage.  I want to go full Leica but I am not
>sure of :
>
>        A:  Canon vs Leica lense quality
>        B:  Autofocus vs. Manual focus.
>
>    Thank you in advance.
>
>    David Whalen
>
>
>
>
>