I was going to say the 300/2.8, but you say "RV", so I think "more room", so, 500 f/4. I would also recommend the 70-300 IS instead of the 100-400 IS, more of a change of pace from the long tele, lighter (for when you want/need to walk a lot) and a couple more stops of IS than the 100-400. I would especially recommend the 70-300 over the 100-400 if you are using a 1.6x crop camera, though I assume you are using full-frame.
PetKal wrote:
Gwapito, based on that diagram, it would seem that 200-400L will be similar in length to the 500, and probably as heavy, if not heavier.
Darn, if so, that will be one big and fairly heavy lens.
No thank you, 400 DO does it for me, or even 100-400 will do, not to mention a fairly decently performing combo 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC MkIII.
The integration of the 1.4x extender contributed to the length of the lens. As for the weight I expect it to weigh less than Nikon's equivalent even with the integrated extender.
I also expect it to cost more than the Nikon equivalent by a factor of $1000-2000.
If I was buying one long lens that would be it. It covers all the focal lengths one could possibly want. If you need a stop of light more buy the Version 2 primes.
PetKal wrote:
Gwapito, based on that diagram, it would seem that 200-400L will be similar in length to the 500, and probably as heavy, if not heavier.
Darn, if so, that will be one big and fairly heavy lens.
No thank you, 400 DO does it for me, or even 100-400 will do, not to mention a fairly decently performing combo 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC MkIII.
As the fine print usually says, diagram is for illustrative purposes only. It can't be accurate as the 800L is only a few mm longer than the 600L and the 600L has a larger front element. No specs have been released on the 200-400L whatsoever.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
As the fine print usually says, diagram is for illustrative purposes only. It can't be accurate as the 800L is only a few mm longer than the 600L and the 600L has a larger front element. No specs have been released on the 200-400L whatsoever.
As per the Canon USA site.
600 Version 1 is 0.1-inch longer than the 800mm
600 Version 2 is 0.4-inch shorter than the 800mm
Thanks for all of the ideas, they are much appreciated. Currently, my 300 f4 is spending a lot of time on the shelf as I have found it to be indistinguishable from the 70-200 MkII with a 1.4X TC on it from an IQ perspective. The zoom/TC combo focuses just as fast and has the obvious advantage of being a zoom. Might seem strange but I am continuously surprised just how good and how flexible that combo is out in real life settings.
I know that the 300 f2.8 will be a big step-up but not enough of one to justify the loss of FL compared to its longer brethren. I'm thinking the 500 is the way to go here if I end up going. Can always sell it for bread and shoes when the need arises.
Hrow wrote:
Thanks for all of the ideas, they are much appreciated. Currently, my 300 f4 is spending a lot of time on the shelf as I have found it to be indistinguishable from the 70-200 MkII with a 1.4X TC on it from an IQ perspective. The zoom/TC combo focuses just as fast and has the obvious advantage of being a zoom. Might seem strange but I am continuously surprised just how good and how flexible that combo is out in real life settings.
I know that the 300 f2.8 will be a big step-up but not enough of one to justify the loss of FL compared to its longer brethren. I'm thinking the 500 is the way to go here if I end up going. Can always sell it for bread and shoes when the need arises. ...Show more →
The 500/4 IS will not lose much value in the short term.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
No he don't basically get the same result as a 800mm
But but but Lars what do you mean? What's the difference? It has been hammered into our local skulls that the 400mm 2.8 + 2x is better than the 800mm prime.
Nov 26, 2011 at 02:09 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
dolina wrote:
But but but Lars what do you mean? What's the difference? It has been hammered into our local skulls that the 400mm 2.8 + 2x is better than the 800mm prime.
Yes sure
And the 200 + 2x is also better than the bare 400/2,8
And the 200 + 2x is also better than the bare 400/2,8
Lies! Lies! I was brainwashed into thinking the 400/2.8 + 2x is the king of all lenses! Even if it is a 90s technology & design and heaviest of that generation of lenses. It outdoes 00s technology & design and a lighter lens.
And the 200 + 2x is also better than the bare 400/2,8
Even bare 200 f/2 IS doesn't match the obsolete 400 f/2.8 IS MkI regarding IQ and AF performance, let alone when the 200 is coupled with TCs.
We get to read that kind of stuff quite often from all possible sources, from people new to photography to Canon`s own ``ambassadors or explorers of light ``.
However, the unfortunate situation is that if one wants to have the best performing 800mm FL option today, then one needs to spend $14,000 US on 800L. There are certainly cheaper ways to get to 800mm or thereabouts by using TCs on shorter lenses, yet those are not better nor equal options to 800L, even though they could be judged satisfactory or even excellent by some people.
However, IMO the only lens + 1.4xTC combo which has a potential of coming close to the 800L performance is based on 600 f4 MkII. Alas, the 600 II doesn`t exist yet, and thus it would be kind of irrational to be ``evaluating`` its performance against 800L, although that has been done already on different fora including this one.
Peter that is what I was told to think also. 400/2.8 Version 1 is the bestest evah!
Need a 600mm? The 400/2.8 is the way to go.
Need a 15mm Fisheye? Forget about that and go 400/2.8.
Need to Julienne a carrot? No fear the 400/2.8 is here!
PetKal wrote:
Even bare 200 f/2 IS doesn't match the obsolete 400 f/2.8 IS MkI regarding IQ and AF performance, let alone when the 200 is coupled with TCs.
We get to read that kind of stuff quite often from all possible sources, from people new to photography to Canon`s own ``ambassadors or explorers of light ``.
However, the unfortunate situation is that if one wants to have the best performing 800mm FL option today, then one needs to spend $14,000 US on 800L. There are certainly cheaper ways to get to 800mm or thereabouts by using TCs on shorter lenses, yet those are not better nor equal options to 800L, even though they could be judged satisfactory or even excellent by some people.
However, IMO the only lens + 1.4xTC combo which has a potential of coming close to the 800L performance is based on 600 f4 MkII. Alas, the 600 II doesn`t exist yet, and thus it would be kind of irrational to be ``evaluating`` its performance against 800L, although that has been done already on different fora including this one. ...Show more →
