Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

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

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · Supertelephoto Question

  
 
bvogel
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Supertelephoto Question


I am an amateur enthusiast who has decided to spend some money on some Canon super telephoto lenses, and I was hoping for some advice.

My purposes for the lenses are to take photos of high school football and bird and wildlife photography. I know the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 are great for outdoor sports, while the 500 and 600 lenses are fantastic for birds and wildlife.

Is it better to buy the newest version of one of the lenses or two of the older generation? For example, I could buy a 400 2.8 IS II and use it natively for outdoor sports and with an extender for bird and wildlife photography. For roughly the same price, I could buy a used 400 2.8 IS I and a 500 or 600 IS I.

Buying one copy of the latest version: 400 2.8 IS II probably best option because can add extenders and 500 or 600 too long for sports.

Advantages: Lighter lens and better image quality versus version I of the same lens, 1 Year warranty,
Disadvantages: Loose the extra 100 or 200 for wildlife photography.

Buy a used 400 2.8 IS I and used 500 or 600 IS I
Advantages: Right focal length for both sports and wildlife.
Disadvantages: Heavier lenses (particularly 400 and 600), Will Canon continue to support IS I versions of the lenses until they put out a version III?

Am I missing something? Any suggestions?


My current Canon gear: 1DIV, 5DII, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 24-70 II, 100 2.8 Macro, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, Tokina AT-X Pro FX 16-28mm f/2.8, 1.4x II, 2.0 x III



Jun 29, 2014 at 06:41 PM
Shutterbug2006
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Supertelephoto Question


For an amateur enthusiast you sure have built up a nice system. Welcome to the FM forums.

If you have the money, buy the latest greatest and you won't regret it.

If you are just an 'enthusiast' you might be better opting for the older versions. Only you know how much your hobby is worth to you.



Jun 29, 2014 at 08:50 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Supertelephoto Question


No clear answer and it'll come down to how much you have to spend, and if you intend to do more of sports shooting with a bit of wildlife, or a bit of sports shooting with a lot of wildlife or you do a lot of both.

A few scenarios I can think of:You have the 1D IV which has a decently high pixel density and 1.3x crop:

1) You do both types of shooting regularly. Get a 300 f/2.8 for the high school sport and if light is not too bad, and you need reach for field sports use a 1.4x. This combo should cover most sports other than say cricket. For wildlife consider a 500 f/4 mk I and use a 1.4x when needed. Mk IV does really well with these two lenses even with 1.4x TC and cost wise similar to a 400 f/2.8L IS II

2) You do mostly sports, get the 400 f/2.8L IS II. Superb IQ even with 1.4x TC attached, and still very good with 2x TC attached. Covers wildlife and birding situation pretty well and AF with 1.4x is still good, so BIF won't be an issue. Nice set up as long as you are always FL limited or trying to shoot skittish/small birds. 400 IS mk I is just too damn heavy and not fun for BIF, mostly used on monopod or tripod with gimbal. 1D IV combined even with 560mm FL is great reach for a lot of situations.

3) Consider a 200-400 f/4L IS for sports and wildlife. 200-400 has prime IQ, brilliant built-in T 1.4x TC and will do for most wildlife and birds unless they are skittish, small. You can still add another TC, but might be better off with an 600/800 for birding.

4) I've got money to burn, get 300/400 f/2.8L IS II and 600 f/4L IS mk II and 1D X. Your in heaven.




Jun 29, 2014 at 10:36 PM
dmahar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Supertelephoto Question


Have you thought about the 200-400 L? It gets you 200-560 at very high quality and "modest" weight.


Jun 29, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Supertelephoto Question


The older 600 and 400 are heavy lenses that are not well suited to hand-held. It seems that most bird-in-flight photographers prefer hand-held over using a tripod, and so on that basis you would be better off with the lighter 500 or one of the current models.

The older models were and still are excellent, so if the new models are really worth their extra cost then they must be miraculously good. I haven't used one and I'm not likely to.

My 600 is very much under-utilised and that makes it a pretty expensive paper weight. You'll love the big lenses if you can use them enough to feel that they are justified and if you can carry them and any associated support equipment such as monopod, tripod, wimberley gimbal head (or equivalent), etc. Even then you will want another camera and lens with you for when the action or birds get closer, and so it all gets bulky and heavy.

The 600 is not just heavy - it has more of its weight further away from your body. That's what makes it so hard to use hand-held.

The lighter 300 f/2.8L is a wonderful lens and works pretty well with an extender - even a 2x. It would make a cheaper option than buying a 600 and is generally more versatile. If you then find yourself using the 600 focal length a lot you can get the bigger lens confident that you will actually use it. The 300 is pretty much at its best even wide open and is much easier to carry and to use hand-held than any of the bigger lenses. It also has a very quick AF.

Size and weight aside, the fact that 600 is 20% longer than 500 means your subject will appear 44% bigger in area on the camera sensor. That's not to be sneezed at when shooting birds but it can be too big for some sports. My problem is that I am rarely where the birds are flying by in the right light and at the right height. When they're in trees there are too many leaves and branches and sticks in the way, and sneaking up on them with a tripod and a 600mm lens is not easy and usually doesn't provide a good viewpoint anyway. In general I've been better off with a 300-400mm focal length without a tripod. However, your situation may be very different.

These lenses are all expensive and I recommend that you insure them if you can. It's a lot of money to lose if you drop one into the creek, because they are not *that* water resistant.

So, bottom line: Buy a 300 f/2.8L and use it with and without your extenders to see how much you will use the longer focal lengths. Then get a bigger lens if the actual usage meets your expectation.

- Alan




Jun 29, 2014 at 10:44 PM
bvogel
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Supertelephoto Question


Is the 200-400 image quality and focus speed comparable to the 300 2.8 and 400?


Jun 29, 2014 at 10:53 PM
bvogel
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Supertelephoto Question


Pixel Perfect wrote:
4) I've got money to burn, get 300/400 f/2.8L IS II and 600 f/4L IS mk II and 1D X. Your in heaven.



That is the ideal situation, but I am not sure if my wife would talk to me if I spent that much.



Jun 29, 2014 at 10:55 PM
mine1
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Supertelephoto Question


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

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-200-400mm-4-1p4x

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/canon-200-400mm-f4-is-quick-comparison

all 3 of these trusted reviewers say this lens is outstanding (the 200-400) if you can live with the f4 this seem's like a no brainer.



Jun 29, 2014 at 11:21 PM
dmahar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Supertelephoto Question


bvogel wrote:
Is the 200-400 image quality and focus speed comparable to the 300 2.8 and 400?


I sold my 300 2.8 is v1 soon after getting a 200-400L. I observed no difference in image quality or focus performance. Can't comment directly on the vii lenses but it is difficult to imagine better images than the 200-400 ones.



Jun 30, 2014 at 12:27 AM
onesickpuppy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Supertelephoto Question


bvogel....I can say we share some common interests!!! sports and wildlife......

I have been using the 400 2.8 for over ten years now...and in the middle of many conversations about how I should have got the 500 or 600 from the wild life side....and no complaints from anyone related to sports

But here is my feedback and suggestions:

With the 400 2.8.....I also have a 560 F4 and a 800 F5.6 with just the TC additions (see samples below)
I started with an original non IS version up until about 3 months ago (very heavy..but tack sharp) and now have
a version 1 unit with IS (someday the version II)...love the weight savings and better all around performance.

The 400 2.8 IS vs 1 works awesome on the MKIV!!! You'll love it

I would also agree strongly as advised by someone else....pick up the 300 2.8 IS INSTEAD of a 600 unit!!

If your doing football...it will do more for you at times than the 400 (not by much..but some) and then at times it
will be really an asset for wildlife on both bodies (some times they get TOO close for a long lens)!

In a few years I have proven the flexibility of the 400 over my friends having the 500/600 setups. Several have sold and now shoot with 400 2.8's.

First and foremost....a team of the 300/400 2.8's will give you an awesome setup for both your bodies and tremendous image quality without busting the bank for just one "big new version". I"m looking forward to place a
300 in my lineup as I feel that the short one on the full frame, the 400 on the MKIV will give me awesome low
light handling...and for wildlife to boot.

Here are a couple of samples (old 400 non IS) just to show how well they handle the TC additions related to
quality

More than glad to discuss off forum if you wish...good luck on your choice.



© onesickpuppy 2014

In the Turn





© onesickpuppy 2014

Last Light





© onesickpuppy 2014


Soaring





© onesickpuppy 2014


In the turn



Edited on Jun 30, 2014 at 01:26 AM · View previous versions



Jun 30, 2014 at 01:19 AM
robinlee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Supertelephoto Question


To sum up, all Canon supertelephotos are very good and you can't go wrong with any of them (ops EF mount ). It is your bank/missus who is the governor of your next purchase, good luck.


Jun 30, 2014 at 01:24 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Supertelephoto Question


I bought a new 500/4L IS in 2010 because I thought it was the best compromise between the 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm superteles. I still think so.


Jun 30, 2014 at 05:45 AM
Paul Tessier
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Supertelephoto Question


If you haven't extensively used a super tele I would suggest trying some. Convention tells you 3/400 for sport 5/600 for wildlife but I know many guys who do well with the opposite. The 800 is also something to consider. The vII lenses preform better then the older IS lenses but the difference may not be a real advantage to you. Also the non IS teles are really good as well. There are a ton of options in the canon system if you consider used as well as new equipment and it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain all the differences. I would start by trying a 500f4 is and see how you like it. You can go either way regarding focal length or aperture if is not for you or you can look at a VII if you like it but want what the new lens has to offer.


Jun 30, 2014 at 06:04 AM
Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Supertelephoto Question


For field sports the 400 f/2.8 is killer. I shoot 80% sports so I use a 400 f/2.8 and when I shoot BIF or wildlife I slap a 1.4x on it and it works great.







Jun 30, 2014 at 06:11 AM
ggOk
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Supertelephoto Question


I was in same situation as you last year. I mostly shoot sports photos but not birds.
I went from 300 2.8 to 400 2.8 because I wanted the reach but after using it for couple of months, I had to sell my 400 due it it's weight. it just wasn't fun shooting with 400 2.8 IS ver1. I went back to 300 2.8 IS and use extender as necessary. now with 1Dx, shooting it so much more fun combined with 300 2.8. my next toy will be 200-400.. I just have to save up some money.
bottom line, 400 2.8 ver1 is just too heavy to carry for anyone.

/r
Andy



Jun 30, 2014 at 09:31 AM
rcm123
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Supertelephoto Question


To handle both sports and wildlife, and stay within a reasonable budget, I would recommend you purchase a 100 - 400 mm lens for sports (or a used 300mm f/2.8) as I think you will find that a 400mm lens is too big for a large percentage of your shots ( I am assuming that you are doing high school/little league type sports events where you can place yourself fairly close to the action). As for wildlife, a 500mm MK I or a 600mm MK I would be great.


Jun 30, 2014 at 09:52 AM
bvogel
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Supertelephoto Question


onesickpuppy wrote:
bvogel....I can say we share some common interests!!! sports and wildlife......
?

More than glad to discuss off forum if you wish...good luck on your choice.


Thanks for posting the great images and the advice. Did you find the 400 vs 1 too heavy to handhold?



Jun 30, 2014 at 03:24 PM
bvogel
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Supertelephoto Question


mine1 wrote:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-200-400mm-4-1p4x

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/canon-200-400mm-f4-is-quick-comparison

all 3 of these trusted reviewers say this lens is outstanding (the 200-400) if you can live with the f4 this seem's like a no brainer.


Thanks. I have definitely spent a lot of time reading review's on Bryan's site.



Jun 30, 2014 at 03:36 PM
bvogel
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Supertelephoto Question


Pixel Perfect wrote:
1) You do both types of shooting regularly. Get a 300 f/2.8 for the high school sport and if light is not too bad, and you need reach for field sports use a 1.4x. This combo should cover most sports other than say cricket. For wildlife consider a 500 f/4 mk I and use a 1.4x when needed. Mk IV does really well with these two lenses even with 1.4x TC and cost wise similar to a 400 f/2.8L IS II

2) You do mostly sports, get the 400 f/2.8L IS II. Superb IQ even with 1.4x TC attached, and
...Show more

I was thinking of these two options. It seems like the weight savings in the new 300 and 500 is significantly less than for the 400 or 600 which makes buying the older version (of 300 or 500) a little more appealing.

Is it a safe bet that Canon will continue to service the IS v1 for a few years? I would hate to buy them and then a year later find out that Canon no longer supports them.



Jun 30, 2014 at 03:41 PM
SeattleBirdMan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Supertelephoto Question


Tricky question.

I shoot birds and other wildlife and love my 600 f4 II.

If I shot football and birds and had the choice you mention I would probably go with the 2 version 1 lenses. 400 plus either 500 or 600. 600 is a beast to handhold but it can be done by some. Depends on your style of bird/wildlife photography.

Another thing to consider is how many games you would use the 400mm for? If it is 10 or 12 games a year renting might be an option. In Seattle I can rent a v1 400 IS f4 for $80 or the vII for $100.

Doug




Jun 30, 2014 at 03:46 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.