Well, I can dream! Sure need to sell some serious images if that requires a business justification. But it is just fantastic. I’m in the C class! R7 with EF 100-400L ii , EF 500L F4 is, 1.4xiii and 0.71x Metabones. Very happy with that for a hobby. About $5000 all in.
@@GerhardBothaWFF Aloha Gerhard. Thanks for watching and for your comment. Cool gear setup. It’s all about using the gear and having fun, doing the best we can and enjoying the time we spend with nature. And yes, ROI needs to be considered for sure. But over the life of the lens I think it will give one many chances to get those images. Have a great weekend. Aloha, Lee
@@epsonc882009 I think you will really like the 400. It handles so similarly to the 300 but that extra 100mm is so nice. I arranged my camera bag today and can carry the R1 with 400 attached, and my Leica SL3 with 90-280 attached, Leica 35 APO and Canon 1.4 ext. so happy with my purchase. let me know how you like the 4. Thanks for your comment, Tommy. Happy Thanksgiving! Aloha, Lee
The Canon 300 F2.8 was my favorite lens. But it's a little too short for much of the wildlife in North America. The Canon RF 600 F4 made things possible, but it was a little too long in reach, and too big in size to be practical for my style of photography. Will the RF 400 F2.8 hit the sweet spot? Let's hope so? How's your experience been with the 400? What's your favorite lens? Which Big White (Canon, Sony) or Big Black (Nikon) would you get? What are your reasons? Let me know!
@@AndiusTeijgeler Aloha Andius. Thanks for watching and for your comment. Yes, I considered it. By all accounts it is an excellent lens. But I have the 90-280 with my Leica system so there is too much overlap to justify the purchase at this time. If I were to sell the Leicas then that would be the first lens I would purchase. As it is I have a loan request in with CPS so hopefully I can evaluate it with some wave photography sometime this winter. I’ve never used the 500. But have read that it’s the sharpest big white. Have you tried it? Or do you own it? Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai I own the EF 500 Type II. It is indeed sharp, but in some situations it's too long and in others too short. I have been thinking to trade it in for a RF 400 f2.8, but given the rumors about the RF 200-500 f4, I've postponed the decision.
@@AndiusTeijgeler I totally get it. There is no worse feeling than being too long! I experienced that quite a bit with the 600. I too have been anxiously waiting for the LONG rumored 200-500 F4. But I keep reading different things about it, most recently that it will be F5.6. I got tired of looking at Canon Rumors and just decided on the 400. But I am definitely interested in a 200-500 F4. I would like to see it without a built in TC. A 200-500 F4 may be the perfect safari lens.
I have had the RF800mm f/5.6L for two years and been wanting a telephoto lens of shorter focal length as a compliment. Torn between whether I should get RF400mm f/2.8L or RF100-300mm f/2.8L. Eventually went for RF100-300mm f/2.8L for its versatility.
@@stevenlui8105 Alos Steven. Thanks for watching and for your comment. I think if adding a lens to the quiver-- ie, adding a lens to the RF 800-- then you couldn't go wrong with either the 100-300 or 400. If you were only to have one of the three, then that's a different conversation. By the way, How are you liking the 100-300? I have a CPS loan request in place for mid March. I can't wait to try it out! Do you often have the 800 and 100-300 in the field together at the same time? Or is it a choose one or the other type proposition? Thanks again. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
To be honest I didn't think the images looked sharp, maybe they were too far away to show detail. The main problem is that unless you are a professional, imo it is ridiculous spending five figures on a lens. I am retired, from photography, and I don't have that sort of money anywhere. I bought my 400mm f2.8 in 1995, secondhand and rarely take it out, mainly because of the weight.
@@blisteringbooks2428 Aloha. Thanks for watching and for your comment. The images are sharp, at least on my computer screen. UA-cam compression may have squished them a bit, but that’s the nature of the platform. I agree that a Telephoto lens of the quality of the RF 400 2.8 is an investment and it may not be for everyone. For someone who still wants reach but not the cost , size or IQ of one of Canon’s Big Whites, perhaps the 100-500 is a lens to consider. Have a great weekend. Aloha, Lee
I am working as a fulltime photographer shooting portraiture/fashion/sports! for the kind of sports I am starting to shoot more & more now, the 400mm would fit in my lens arsenal, since even the long end of the 70-200(280mm with 1.4x converter) is wayyy to short!
@ That’s awesome Francesco. It is not easy making a living from photography but it is possible! Hard work and dedication to the craft that we love brings joy to us and others. As professionals we must consider the best gear possible because other pros are, too. Of course it’s not just about the gear, but the better gear with knowledge and experience make the work easier and more enjoyable. And our clients appreciate this, too, I believe. What sports do you shoot? Indoor the 100-300 looks fantastic. Outdoor, the 400 for sure. 👍
@@xinzheng8594 some people want a smaller lens hood because the OEM hood is rather long. So if you are shooting on the sidelines , at an event, or even in a safari vehicle with other passengers a smaller hood- one that still protects the front element without being obtrusive- is sometimes desired. Canon has a smaller hood, but it is outrageously expensive. I think Canon advertised it more with the EF mark III version of the 400 and 600. When I ordered the RF lens from Canon USA I actually looked for the smaller hood, but didn’t see it on their site. Thanks for your comment! Aloha, Lee
Aloha Steven! Thanks for watching and for your comment. That 95 mm hood looks awesome. Thanks for the recommendation. I might have to get one before Tanzania in February. Happy Thanksgiving! Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai I have Zemlin hoods and caps on all my long glass Canon RF600/4 and my Nikon Z600/4TV and 400/2.8TC Besides that they are smaller they are also a lot less expensive whereas the Canon and Nikon hoods cost a fortune to replace
Very well put! The perfect equipment will be different for everyone; the most important thing is to have gear that does what YOU need it to do.
@@adude394 Thank you. I appreciate it! Thanks for watching, too. Have a great weekend . Aloha, Lee
Well, I can dream! Sure need to sell some serious images if that requires a business justification. But it is just fantastic. I’m in the C class! R7 with EF 100-400L ii , EF 500L F4 is, 1.4xiii and 0.71x Metabones. Very happy with that for a hobby. About $5000 all in.
@@GerhardBothaWFF Aloha Gerhard. Thanks for watching and for your comment. Cool gear setup. It’s all about using the gear and having fun, doing the best we can and enjoying the time we spend with nature. And yes, ROI needs to be considered for sure. But over the life of the lens I think it will give one many chances to get those images. Have a great weekend. Aloha, Lee
I did the same, just sold my 300mm f2.8 II yesterday and going to get 400mm f2.8
@@epsonc882009 I think you will really like the 400. It handles so similarly to the 300 but that extra 100mm is so nice. I arranged my camera bag today and can carry the R1 with 400 attached, and my Leica SL3 with 90-280 attached, Leica 35 APO and Canon 1.4 ext. so happy with my purchase. let me know how you like the 4. Thanks for your comment, Tommy. Happy Thanksgiving! Aloha, Lee
sounds fantastic combo !!!!!....
@@alisonandguywildlifephotograph Thank you Allison and Guy! So far so good! Wishing you a wonderful Thanksgiving. Aloha, Lee
The Canon 300 F2.8 was my favorite lens. But it's a little too short for much of the wildlife in North America.
The Canon RF 600 F4 made things possible, but it was a little too long in reach, and too big in size to be practical for my style of photography.
Will the RF 400 F2.8 hit the sweet spot? Let's hope so?
How's your experience been with the 400?
What's your favorite lens?
Which Big White (Canon, Sony) or Big Black (Nikon) would you get? What are your reasons?
Let me know!
Have you considered the RF 100-300 f2.8 also? And any experience with the EF 500 f 4 Type II?
@@AndiusTeijgeler Aloha Andius. Thanks for watching and for your comment. Yes, I considered it. By all accounts it is an excellent lens. But I have the 90-280 with my Leica system so there is too much overlap to justify the purchase at this time. If I were to sell the Leicas then that would be the first lens I would purchase. As it is I have a loan request in with CPS so hopefully I can evaluate it with some wave photography sometime this winter.
I’ve never used the 500. But have read that it’s the sharpest big white. Have you tried it? Or do you own it? Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai I own the EF 500 Type II. It is indeed sharp, but in some situations it's too long and in others too short. I have been thinking to trade it in for a RF 400 f2.8, but given the rumors about the RF 200-500 f4, I've postponed the decision.
@@AndiusTeijgeler I totally get it. There is no worse feeling than being too long! I experienced that quite a bit with the 600. I too have been anxiously waiting for the LONG rumored 200-500 F4. But I keep reading different things about it, most recently that it will be F5.6. I got tired of looking at Canon Rumors and just decided on the 400. But I am definitely interested in a 200-500 F4. I would like to see it without a built in TC. A 200-500 F4 may be the perfect safari lens.
I have had the RF800mm f/5.6L for two years and been wanting a telephoto lens of shorter focal length as a compliment. Torn between whether I should get RF400mm f/2.8L or RF100-300mm f/2.8L. Eventually went for RF100-300mm f/2.8L for its versatility.
@@stevenlui8105 Alos Steven. Thanks for watching and for your comment. I think if adding a lens to the quiver-- ie, adding a lens to the RF 800-- then you couldn't go wrong with either the 100-300 or 400. If you were only to have one of the three, then that's a different conversation. By the way, How are you liking the 100-300? I have a CPS loan request in place for mid March. I can't wait to try it out! Do you often have the 800 and 100-300 in the field together at the same time? Or is it a choose one or the other type proposition? Thanks again. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
Do the JJ
@@DAVE_WHITE what’s the JJ?
To be honest I didn't think the images looked sharp, maybe they were too far away to show detail. The main problem is that unless you are a professional, imo it is ridiculous spending five figures on a lens. I am retired, from photography, and I don't have that sort of money anywhere. I bought my 400mm f2.8 in 1995, secondhand and rarely take it out, mainly because of the weight.
@@blisteringbooks2428 Aloha. Thanks for watching and for your comment. The images are sharp, at least on my computer screen. UA-cam compression may have squished them a bit, but that’s the nature of the platform. I agree that a Telephoto lens of the quality of the RF 400 2.8 is an investment and it may not be for everyone. For someone who still wants reach but not the cost , size or IQ of one of Canon’s Big Whites, perhaps the 100-500 is a lens to consider. Have a great weekend. Aloha, Lee
for some this lenses are neccesary to be competitiv as a professional! eg. for sports…
@ Aloha Francesco. Thanks for your comment. You are exactly right. Aloha, Lee
I am working as a fulltime photographer shooting portraiture/fashion/sports! for the kind of sports I am starting to shoot more & more now, the 400mm would fit in my lens arsenal, since even the long end of the 70-200(280mm with 1.4x converter) is wayyy to short!
@ That’s awesome Francesco. It is not easy making a living from photography but it is possible! Hard work and dedication to the craft that we love brings joy to us and others. As professionals we must consider the best gear possible because other pros are, too. Of course it’s not just about the gear, but the better gear with knowledge and experience make the work easier and more enjoyable. And our clients appreciate this, too, I believe. What sports do you shoot? Indoor the 100-300 looks fantastic. Outdoor, the 400 for sure. 👍
all you missing is the Zemlin hood and cap...
I understand the cap, but why would anyone need another lens hood?
@@xinzheng8594 some people want a smaller lens hood because the OEM hood is rather long. So if you are shooting on the sidelines , at an event, or even in a safari vehicle with other passengers a smaller hood- one that still protects the front element without being obtrusive- is sometimes desired. Canon has a smaller hood, but it is outrageously expensive. I think Canon advertised it more with the EF mark III version of the 400 and 600. When I ordered the RF lens from Canon USA I actually looked for the smaller hood, but didn’t see it on their site. Thanks for your comment! Aloha, Lee
Aloha Steven! Thanks for watching and for your comment. That 95 mm hood looks awesome. Thanks for the recommendation. I might have to get one before Tanzania in February. Happy Thanksgiving! Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai I have Zemlin hoods and caps on all my long glass Canon RF600/4 and my Nikon Z600/4TV and 400/2.8TC
Besides that they are smaller they are also a lot less expensive whereas the Canon and Nikon hoods cost a fortune to replace
that shorter lens hood looks great on 100-300 but weird on 400 or 600 lens 😀