DSLRUsers.com

On Saturday I had a chance to play with Birddogs new 200-400mm VR lens. These are my initial impressions:
The first thing that strikes you about this lens is its sheer bulk and weight! It is a monster! This is not a lens you carry around as a matter of course in your Lowepro. This lens only comes out for events....such as sports, demonstrations, any other damn thing that you can't get close to.
I attached it to my D70 and was impressed with how quickly this thing locks focus. It is very fast! But difficult to hold for more then a few minutes. This lens will only be at home on a heavy tripod....Markins ballhead and gimbal type arrangement. But Oh! What a sweet hunk of glass! This lens is a Canon killer!
I snapped of a few quick shots of some of the members at the table...this being exactly what this lens is not designed for....and was blown away by the sharpness. No lens has the right to be this good.
Even though I only spent a very short time with it....I am convinced that it is a very special piece of glass. Then again...it is a very expensive piece of glass and you get what you pay for.
The 2 images are 30% crops from the originals
http://www.pbase.com/matt_k/image/37644031
http://www.pbase.com/matt_k/image/37644038

Wow... As soon as I saw how sharp and detailed those shots were, I thought, Look away! Look away! My bankcard's just healing from my last splurge... Sigh...

Geeeesss, the detail and clarity is terrific! Was there any sharpening or any other PP, or is this straight out of the camera?

Cheers,
Mudder

Amazing lens eh? I too was surprised how quickly it focuses, given that the focus ring rotates almost three quarters of a full revolution from minimum distance to infinity. It's VERY precise should you choose to manually focus, and incredibly fast with AF-S motor engaged. Win-win!

And the cause of some lively discussion back here with 'er in doors'.

Matt,

having played with this lens last week, I can only but agree - it's a sweet piece of glass.

I haven't looked that focussed in years!

THe photo of Gary reminds me of a newspaper shot of an angry union leader at a demonstration/strike demanding retribution

Phil looks quite esteemed and scholary.

Amazing what that lens can do

Killakoala
I find Gary to be very photogenic. The camera likes him. Some people are naturally photogenic and end up being film stars because of it. I, on the hand....oh, it doesn't matter.

Matt. K wrote:Some people are naturally photogenic and end up being film stars because of it. I, on the hand....oh, it doesn't matter.

You just gotta learn to smile. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you smile) Even winning the photo comp and accepting your prize you were all serious-faced!

You just gotta learn to smile. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you smile) Even winning the photo comp and accepting your prize you were all serious-faced

Matt's a pro, he doesnt' have time to smile. Too busy thinking about the next shot

I can tell you one thing, that lens will never make it in the field of modelling. Matt showed good judgment by not snapping any of the ladies present with it.

phillipb
With age comes wisdom.

phillipb wrote:I can tell you one thing, that lens will never make it in the field of modelling. Matt showed good judgment by not snapping any of the ladies present with it.

Perhaps this also answers the question of why pros use Canon (got plastic)?!

Very nice glass and, as stated, very sharp. But I suppose with a rrp of over $12,000 one would expect to be impressed.

Gary, you are certainly photogenic. . .

Chris

sirhc55
Steady on. He's spoken for.

Matt. K wrote:sirhc55
Steady on. He's spoken for.

Geez - I only said that coz I have a grey/white beard too . . .

Chris

You guys say the sweetest things.

In all seriousness, that's got to be one the best photos of me that I've seen in a hell of a long time. Thanx Matt.

gstark wrote:You guys say the sweetest things.

In all seriousness, that's got to be one the best photos of me that I've seen in a hell of a long time. Thanx Matt.

Matt,
We may have that pics printed on A3 and keep it for special occassion

Birddog114 wrote:

gstark wrote:You guys say the sweetest things.

In all seriousness, that's got to be one the best photos of me that I've seen in a hell of a long time. Thanx Matt.

Matt,
We may have that pics printed on A3 and keep it for special occassion

With concentric circles, numbers, and etc., no doubt.

sirhc55 wrote:Very nice glass and, as stated, very sharp. But I suppose with a rrp of over $12,000 one would expect to be impressed.

$12k for an f4 lens? I'd want f2.8 for that much.

You'd then need a 143cm diameter hole for f/2.8 at 400mm - I don't think even the EOS mount is six inches wide.

Onyx wrote:You'd then need a 143cm diameter hole for f/2.8 at 400mm - I don't think even the EOS mount is six inches wide.

That's for element size not rear, isn't it?

No, the element can be any size. 143cm is the minimum aperture requirement for f/2.8 opening. That's why it can't physically be done.

What are these then?

Canon 400f2.8IS

Nikon 400f2.8

^^ but, they're primes...

So?

I guess I'm just missing something fundamental here