Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2011 · Just one Super-Tele...
  
 
Hrow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Just one Super-Tele...


Here's the deal... if you were going on an extended journey across the U.S. and could get one super-tele for four legged critters, birds, compressed landscapes, and an occasional sporting event (surfing comes to mind) which would you choose and why.

Let's limit it to the 400 2.8 / 500 f4 / 600 f4 as the 800 is simply out of the realm of possibility from a cost perspective and the 300 f2.8 isn't long enough.



Nov 25, 2011 at 02:13 AM
hardlyboring
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Just one Super-Tele...


400 2.8
you can always get a 2x converter and get basically the same result as a 800mm.



Nov 25, 2011 at 02:18 AM
thedigitalbean
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Just one Super-Tele...


Without a doubt the 500 f/4. Its a useful focal length for all the stuff you mentioned and more importantly its size and weight doesn't prohibit handholding. You can get more reach with excellent IQ with the 1.4x TC as well.


Nov 25, 2011 at 02:34 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Just one Super-Tele...


I'd probably take 100-400.

Those heavy lenses you have mentioned do not zoom well, they are very expensive and a total pain to carry around and shoot with, lest you have a pod on you as well.



Nov 25, 2011 at 02:39 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Just one Super-Tele...


I assume you aren't talking mk II superteles since you've dismissed the 800 on price. So to me that rules out the 400 and 600 and leaves the 500 f/4. And you can afford to pair the 500 with a 100-400 for probably less than a 400 or 600 alone.


Nov 25, 2011 at 03:35 AM
Gary Irwin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Just one Super-Tele...


For general purpose wildlife the 500/4 would be my choice, but when you include compressed landscapes then I'd lean towards the 400/2.8 with the only limitation being you're going to be limited to a tripod.



Nov 25, 2011 at 04:09 AM
Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Just one Super-Tele...


I would have to say the 300 f/2.8 or the 500 f/4. The 300 is smaller & lighter for travel, and of course, the 500 has more reach. Depends on what's more important to you.

I would also bring a 1.4X TC and a monopod.



Nov 25, 2011 at 05:23 AM
ggreene
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Just one Super-Tele...


Given the specs on the new 300 f2.8 and the new TC's to go along with it, I would choose that for any sort of travel across the country. It's light weight, handholdable, and with the TC's still give you ~400/4 and 600/5.6.


Nov 25, 2011 at 05:47 AM
Dave C
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Just one Super-Tele...


If relative weight is not a problem, I would choose the 600. You mention birds in your post, and so having the greatest focal length might prove valuable. If you would appreciate having a lighter lens, then the 500 would be my choice.


Nov 25, 2011 at 05:55 AM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Just one Super-Tele...


Zoom lens: 100-400L IS

Prime lens: 300m f/2.8 L IS plus Canon 1.4x and 2x TCs.

600 and 400 are probably too big and heavy most of the time but the IQ is excellent. Not an ideal travel lens by any stretch of the imagination. 500 should be great but sometimes you'll want less than 500mm.

Factor in size and weight and cost of monopod and/or tripod + gimbal head if you opt for the big lenses. This makes the hand-holdable 300 even better value.

- Alan



Nov 25, 2011 at 06:11 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Just one Super-Tele...


ggreene wrote:
Given the specs on the new 300 f2.8 and the new TC's to go along with it, I would choose that for any sort of travel across the country. It's light weight, handholdable, and with the TC's still give you ~400/4 and 600/5.6.


Nah, get the mk I and use the $3K saved for a brilliant holiday. It already makes a great 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6. 300 mk II is an absurd price.

I've used my superteles for landscape but with heat shimmer a constant factor, I much prefer shorter teles like the 70-200 in general.



Nov 25, 2011 at 06:20 AM
Hrow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Just one Super-Tele...


Interesting range of answers. Due to economic and relationship issues I am contemplating a very extended journey in a smallish (24') RV across the US and the Canadian Rockies. Gotten to a WTF stage of life. Mostly the lens would be used for wildlife, including birds and a heavy duty tripod and gimbal are already on the need to upgrade list.


Nov 25, 2011 at 12:58 PM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Just one Super-Tele...


Well, for a WTF (Wireless Transmitter of Flash) type of a trip in an RV , perhaps you can have one heavy setup in addition to 100-400 (for those times when you might desire to have good strain-free mobility).

Then, 500 f/4 (including RRS or Kirk replacement foot) + 1.4xTC MkIII + "3" series Gitzo tripod + Wimberley II gimbal would be a good way to go.



Nov 25, 2011 at 01:33 PM
Hrow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Just one Super-Tele...


The 100-400 is a good idea. Had one in the past and wasn't too impressed but have seen others that have been stellar. Could use one tomorrow in fact, for a local college football game. I keep hoping that Canon will introduce an MkII with the latest IS but that hasn't happened yet, despite rumor #4521.


Nov 25, 2011 at 03:09 PM
Paul Tessier
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Just one Super-Tele...


500 I think is the best choice. The 400 2.8 and 600 f4 really are very big and heavy. It is not somthing to underestimate if you plan to hike to any locations. Its not just the lens but the tripod and head needed for those lens are bigger and heavier as well. The 300 is just to short for most wildllife situations (the 400 can also be fully dependant on extenders for wildlife). The 100-400 is a good lens but for wildlife I would use it to compliment any of the above choices.


Nov 25, 2011 at 03:34 PM
EB-1
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Just one Super-Tele...


With all the other lenses you have the 500/4 is the best fit. For wildlife I might substitute the 300/4 with the 100-400, but not for landscapes.

EBH



Nov 25, 2011 at 04:26 PM
AGeoJO
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Just one Super-Tele...


Henry,
It depends on the timing and your budget. The 400mm f/2.8 IS Mark II is available right now, although still rare, and that would be my choice, if I were you. Believe it or not, it is actually lighter than the current 500mm f/4.0 Mark I and with the new 4-stop IS and f/2.8 aperture, handheld shooting is possible in a pinch, even for folks in our age group . For an extended shooting time, a monopod will do just fine mainly to support the weight. Again, you can add a 1.4X TC Mark III and you will get the speed of the 500mm but a slightly longer reach. At $11,500, the main drawback is the cost.... . Just my thought, of course.



Nov 25, 2011 at 04:45 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Just one Super-Tele...


I'd take my 500/4L IS.


Nov 25, 2011 at 06:16 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Just one Super-Tele...


Hrow wrote:
Here's the deal... if you were going on an extended journey across the U.S. and could get one super-tele for four legged critters, birds, compressed landscapes, and an occasional sporting event (surfing comes to mind) which would you choose and why.

Let's limit it to the 400 2.8 / 500 f4 / 600 f4 as the 800 is simply out of the realm of possibility from a cost perspective and the 300 f2.8 isn't long enough.


hmm the 300 2.8 IS but you eliminated it

only one that is semi-comfortable to hand hold, 400 2.8 is a mega beast

the others can be a bit long at aps-c for sports at times and even on FF I think 300mm somewhat more often works better for compressed landscapes than the others

it takes 1.4x very well and 2x ok enough to use
so you get 300 2.8 IS and 420 4 IS and even a bit of a 600 f/5.6 IS

if it's all birds then i suppose max reach matters thoguh



Nov 25, 2011 at 06:40 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Just one Super-Tele...


Another vote for the 500mm IS. I use it handheld exclusively. Its heavy but manageable.
Another thought is the 400mm f4 DO. This lens takes a 1.4xTC well and is very portable and easy to use handheld.





Nov 25, 2011 at 07:09 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password