Roland W Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
I have shot the Canon 200-400 quite a bit since it came out, including some hand holding for fast handling or when there is a lack of time to set up a gimbal head and tripod. I added the 600 f/4 II to my collection about 5 months ago, and have used it mostly on a gimbal or fluid head for long reach, often with extenders. I occasionally use it hand held, but it is a bit much for me to do that very often or very long. Besides the extra weight of the 600 II, the weight is a bit further forward, and that contributes to the difficulty of hand holding it.
Both lenses have excellent image stabilization, so if the shooting situation works for using it, that makes up for some of the issues of hand holding. Both lenses are very very nice in the image quality department. The obvious big difference is the zoom on one, and the reach with extenders on the other. For your mention of day long hiking and birding, and wanting to hand hold the lens for that, you likely should stay with the 200-400. If you also shoot a lot of distant stuff from a gimbal head, the 600 II might be worth getting, and then also using it for some hand holding also. Oh, and the 600 II has Mode 3 for image stabilization, which your current 600 does not. Some people find that very helpful, but I manage fine with Mode 1 most of the time.
I just ordered the 400 f/4 DO II, which when combined with the 1.4X and 2X version III extenders will be my hiking lens when I need reach. I will supplement the 400 DO with the 100-400 II for the closer subjects and for when I need zoom. One could argue that the weight of the 400 DO plus the 100-400 are about the same as the 200-400 or the 600, but in my case, I expect to hand hold the 400 DO much better than my 200-400. So, thought I would mention the 400 DO just to confuse you a bit and keep you on your toes. And remember, you can never own too much glass!
|