Just one Super-Tele...

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

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 end

Archive 2011 · Just one Super-Tele...

Liquidstone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Just one Super-Tele...

Another vote for the 500 f4 IS + 100-400 IS.

Nov 25, 2011 at 10:09 PM

breenj
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Just one Super-Tele...

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.

John

Nov 25, 2011 at 10:57 PM

dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Just one Super-Tele...

If you are buying by late 2012 the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x Lens is all the lens you need.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx

It covers the range of 200mm at f/4 to 560mm at f/5.6.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Nov 25, 2011 at 10:59 PM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Just one Super-Tele...

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.

Nov 26, 2011 at 12:30 AM

dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Just one Super-Tele...

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.

Nov 26, 2011 at 12:53 AM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · Just one Super-Tele...

dolina wrote:
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.

Expectations often lead to disappointments, Gwapito.

My guess is that 200-400L weight will be similar to 200-400 VR2. And if it is not, then you can sue me.

Nov 26, 2011 at 01:04 AM

Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · Just one Super-Tele...

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.

Nov 26, 2011 at 08:59 AM

dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Just one Super-Tele...

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

Nov 26, 2011 at 09:48 AM

dudemanppl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Just one Super-Tele...

400 2.8 IS II, then sell it to buy other stuff!

EDIT: What an awkward post, just realized this thread strayed far from OP...

Nov 26, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · Just one Super-Tele...

dolina wrote:
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

USA site is wrong, 600L is shorter not longer but it's only a few mm shorter.

Nov 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Hrow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Just one Super-Tele...

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.

Nov 26, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Depp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Just one Super-Tele...

Good point...but hope it doesn't come to that...

Nov 26, 2011 at 03:30 PM

Lars Johnsson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Just one Super-Tele...

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

No he don't basically get the same result as a 800mm

Nov 26, 2011 at 04:35 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Just one Super-Tele...

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.

The 500/4 IS will not lose much value in the short term.

EBH

Nov 26, 2011 at 04:47 PM

dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Just one Super-Tele...

Lars Johnsson wrote:
hardlyboring wrote:
400 2.8
you can always get a 2x converter and get basically the same result as a 800mm.

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 07:09 PM

Lars Johnsson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Just one Super-Tele...

dolina wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
hardlyboring wrote:
400 2.8
you can always get a 2x converter and get basically the same result as a 800mm.

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.

Yes sure

And the 200 + 2x is also better than the bare 400/2,8

Nov 26, 2011 at 08:05 PM

dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Just one Super-Tele...

Lars Johnsson wrote:
dolina wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
hardlyboring wrote:
400 2.8
you can always get a 2x converter and get basically the same result as a 800mm.

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.

Yes sure

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.

Nov 26, 2011 at 08:22 PM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Just one Super-Tele...

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.

Nov 26, 2011 at 11:04 PM

dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Just one Super-Tele...

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:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
dolina wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
hardlyboring wrote:
400 2.8
you can always get a 2x converter and get basically the same result as a 800mm.

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.

Yes sure

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.

Nov 26, 2011 at 11:22 PM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · Just one Super-Tele...

dolina wrote:
Peter that is what I was told to think also. 400/2.8 Version 1 is the bestest evah!

Sure is, Pogito.....and 15 FE is a close second.
If you do not believe me, then talk to pogy Romy, perhaps you will take his word more seriously.

Nov 26, 2011 at 11:31 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end