p.3 #2 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But Nikon would be f/8 and I'd never use a TC on the Sigma, so it's 700 f/8 vs 600 f/6.3. I suspect the Sigma would AF faster, even if IQ is similar.
Well if the D500 & 200-500 +TC focuses as well or better than the 7D2 + 100-400 Ii + TC, that would suit me.
p.3 #3 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
CanadaMark wrote:
Lots of BIF and head-on action shots with the 200-500 kicking around - maybe it was a camera setting causing it to focus slower than normal. It's not as fast as the exotics of course, but it's not slow either - that seems to be the consensus.
Out of how many shots you have to wonder. If it's not hitting ca. 50-75% then that's too low a keeper rate for me. I've being testing the 200-500 on an 800E, there is absolutely no doubt it is considerably slower than my 300/2.8 VRII even with the TC20EIII mounted. Versus a bare 300 you would expect that, with a TC on the 300 maybe not so, but it is.
I bought the 200-500 for overseas trips, for 700/8 and 1000mm MF when mounted on a tripod with the x2 (have yet to test this yet). For those purposes I believe it's more than fine. However for dedicated birds/wildlife where weight is not an issue I'll be adding a 500/4.
p.3 #5 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Beauty, Birdie. Obviously more versatile than the 300 f2.8, except for two more f-stops. Certainly lighter, more focal-length choices, no TC's to contend with, and a lot less expensive.
p.3 #6 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Imagemaster wrote:
Beauty, Birdie. Obviously more versatile than the 300 f2.8, except for two more f-stops. Certainly lighter, more focal-length choices, no TC's to contend with, and a lot less expensive.
Not so obvious. Boils down to what kind of versatility you want. No ability for F2.8 on the 200-500mm like you said so that can be a huge plus for some.
p.3 #7 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Hardcore wrote:
Not so obvious. Boils down to what kind of versatility you want. No ability for F2.8 on the 200-500mm like you said so that can be a huge plus for some.
Dang right. Of course this thread is about the Canon 100-400 II and Nikon 200-500, and has nothing to do with the 300 f2.8.
p.3 #12 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Hardcore wrote: , you must be getting some alzheimer's because you were the one who brought up the 300mm F2.8.
Really? Maybe try reading the whole thread and you might discover this post was just before mine:
Frogfish wrote:
I've being testing the 200-500 on an 800E, there is absolutely no doubt it is considerably slower than my 300/2.8 VRII even with the TC20EIII mounted. Versus a bare 300 you would expect that, with a TC on the 300 maybe not so, but it is.
p.3 #13 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Imagemaster wrote:
Really? Maybe try reading the whole thread and you might discover this post was just before mine:
Guess you just have a mild case of dementia.
Wow, I'm lost. So, what you're saying is it isn't just you and I talking about the 300mm F2.8 on this thread but also Kevin? That makes 3 people talking about the 300mm F2.8 on a thread that you say you can't talk about it on. I guess I'll have to go back to Zoolander school for kids who can't read and want to do other stuff good too and read the rules of this forum about what can and cannot be discussed.
p.3 #14 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Hardcore wrote:
Wow, I'm lost. So, what you're saying is it isn't just you and I talking about the 300mm F2.8 on this thread but also Kevin?
Well I guess there is some hope for you, since you figured that out all by yourself. Don't know why you could not figure out that Kevin brought up the subject of the 300 f2.8, not me.
That makes 3 people talking about the 300mm F2.8 on a thread that you say you can't talk about it on. I guess I'll have to go back to Zoolander school for kids who can't read and want to do other stuff good too and read the rules of this forum about what can and cannot be discussed.
Well you should go back to some sort of school, since I never said you could not talk about the 300 f2.8. You can talk about a 200 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, etc., if it makes you feel good.
I am sure people wanting a comparison between the Canon 100-400 II and the Nikon 200-500 are keen on hearing how they compare to Canon primes. Hey, you may as well throw in some Nikon primes too.
p.3 #15 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
What about Tamron/Sigma 150-600 here then?
Honestly speaking, for focus and sharpness i may think about Canon or Nikon for sure, but for reach i am so much thinking about this Tamron or Sigma long tele-zoom.
p.3 #16 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Tareq wrote:
What about Tamron/Sigma 150-600 here then?
Honestly speaking, for focus and sharpness i may think about Canon or Nikon for sure, but for reach i am so much thinking about this Tamron or Sigma long tele-zoom.
Both the Tamron and Sigma have been discussed on a number of other threads.
Sure the Tamron and Sigma have 100mm more reach, but I bet the Nikon 200-500 works better with a TC on it than either of the other two, and the IQ is probably close with the Nikon at 700mm, and I know the Canon 100-400 II with a TC (560mm) is as sharp as the bare Tamron or Sigma. IMO, of course, but I have owned and tried all of them.
p.3 #17 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
Imagemaster wrote:
Both the Tamron and Sigma have been discussed on a number of other threads.
Sure the Tamron and Sigma have 100mm more reach, but I bet the Nikon 200-500 works better with a TC on it than either of the other two, and the IQ is probably close with the Nikon at 700mm, and I know the Canon 100-400 II with a TC (560mm) is as sharp as the bare Tamron or Sigma. IMO, of course, but I have owned and tried all of them.
p.3 #19 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
A valid comparison would be between the Nikon 80-400mm VR II and the new Canon 100-400mm lens. Comparing the Canon to the 200-500mm makes no sense at all.
I have both the 80-400mm and the 200-500mm and the performance and image quality of the 80-400mm is definitely superior but it is also 400mm at most versus 500mm and it cost me $1000 more than the 200-500mm lens so it is not an apples to apples comparison.
p.3 #20 · Canon 100-400 II compared to Nikon 200-500
elkhornsun wrote:
A valid comparison would be between the Nikon 80-400mm VR II and the new Canon 100-400mm lens. Comparing the Canon to the 200-500mm makes no sense at all.
I have both the 80-400mm and the 200-500mm and the performance and image quality of the 80-400mm is definitely superior but it is also 400mm at most versus 500mm and it cost me $1000 more than the 200-500mm lens so it is not an apples to apples comparison.
So what if it makes no sense to you? Many others are interested in any comparisons between the Canon 100-400 II, Nikon 200-500, Tamron 150-600, and Sigma 150-600.
If you want to compare the Nikon 80-400 to the Canon 100-400 II, then do your own comparison testing and start your own thread.
, you must be getting some alzheimer's because you were the one who brought up the 300mm F2.8. 
