Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 … 11 12 end

Archive 2018 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

kimknapp wrote:
Joshua,
Which of the two Canon's focuses better (faster, more accurate), the 400 DO with 1.4 TC or the 600?
How much sharper is the 600 over the 400 DO w/ TC?

Kim

Kim, I received both the 600mm lens just a few days ago. So far, I have played with the new setup just 3 days, one day more an extended dry run in my backyard and two days out in the field. When I used both the 400mm f/2.8 Mark II (some 90% of the time, including 2 trips to Costa Rica and 2 trips to Bosque del Apache plus numerous local outings) and 400mm f/4 DO Mark II (the remaining time), I prefer the responsiveness of the setup without any TC. But as I mentioned quite a few times, the bare 400mm is too short in many, many cases. Obviously Alex felt the same way as he also added two longer lenses, both the 600mm and 800mm to his lineup, so, those lenses can be used bare, without any TC.

To be honest with you, I haven’t touched my 400mm DO Mark II lens in the last few days. Although I don’t know the answer to your question for sure, but it is more than likely that the bare 600mm lens would AF faster, more responsively than the 400mm DO Mark II with a 1.4X TC.

Hope this helps,
Joshua

Nov 07, 2018 at 02:31 PM

k-h.a.w
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

mitesh wrote:
Joshua,

Wonderful examples and a very balanced, practical write up! I think you have made a very logical decision based on your requirements and experience. You have limited your downside financial risk by buying a used lens at an attractive price, while still giving yourself plenty of operational capability and time to see how Sony's future offerings pan out. Like you, I pre-ordered the Sony 400 GM lens, but after a lot of internal debate, I canceled. Over the course of dozens of PMs with a few other FMers, including @arbitrage@, I actually made some of the same arguments as you did in support of choosing a Canon 600/4 II. In the end, curiously enough, I changed my mind again and decided to go with the Sony 400 GM. Maybe I'm writing this post partly as therapy for myself, as I clearly need help

.

As background, I owned and shot with a Canon 300/2.8, 600/4, 200-400/4, and 800/5.6, as well as a Sigma 500/4. Looking back through my LR catalog from 2013 to 2016, nearly 90% of my wildlife images were shot between 400mm and 800mm. I enjoyed having the ability to reach out to 1120mm and 1600mm with extenders, but I think I only have a handful of shots at those FLs that I have even looked at twice. So, from a focal length perspective, I knew that 800mm was enough to cover my needs.

I never would have considered a 400/2.8 lens as my main lens, simply because I've always thought it is a relatively short focal length for wildlife photography. However, the ability of the Sony extenders working in conjunction with the latest bodies to maintain image quality and a high level of autofocus performance really changes the equation. The Sony 400 GM, when paired with extenders, offers a 560/4 and 800/5.6 with less degradation in image quality or AF performance than any other manufacturer's combos. That means I could get a lens built natively for the Sony FE MILC platform that 1) offers me the fastest available aperture at the focal lengths I use most, 2) weighs significantly less than any available 400/2.8, 600/4, or 800/5.6, and 3) would be much more compact than what I previously used:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-6hGCd2Q/0/O/i-6hGCd2Q.png

(the Sony combo above would be slightly longer than pictured, as a 2x extender would be needed to make it equivalent to the Canon combo).

Like many, I was reasonably satisfied with the performance of EF lenses adapted to the a9. Geoff and I shot with the Sigma 500/4 paired with the a9 quite a bit this past spring in Florida. The performance got even better with FW updates. I don't know how it could be quantified, but the native AF is generally going to outperform adapted AF. In bright light, I don't know that I could tell a difference just shooting stationary targets in my yard. In dim light and longer FLs, there is a definite difference, and that would probably be magnified with moving subjects. Not to mention that Sony's new telephoto lenses (100-400 GM and 400 GM) allow you to shoot the a9 at full 20 FPS, and also utilize the new dual XD linear motors, which are supposed to drive AF faster (could be very important maintaining continuous focus in between frames, which is more challenging when shooting 20 FPS).

The ease of transporting and handling the Sony 400 GM compared to a 600mm or 800mm lens can't be ignored. I still am amazed every time I pick up the a9 + 400 GM. I can fit it into a backpack, whereas I couldn't fit a 1DX + 800mm mounted into any backpack that I owned.

Given the options available today for hobbyists, I think we can all agree that the 400 GM represents the typical "paying thousands more for the last 5% of performance". For those who want a long, fast prime but don't want to deal with adapted lenses, it's either this lens or wait. I think this lens paired with the 100-400 GM is a superb combo for nature and wildlife photographers. Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind when the 500/600 GM are announced

....Show more →

Thanks Mitesh.
I am still waiting on my FE 400/2.8.

For non-action photography I recently got a Fuji GFX 50S with a few superlative lenses.
As measured by Jim Kasson, sensor readout time is ¼ s, that’s quite a bit slower than the 1/160 s of the A9.
As the 50S is useless for rapidly changing subjects, ir’s nevertheless a joy to use for city and landscapes, portraits and such.
For those areas it can deliver stunning IQ. Eye-AF seems to work well too.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1482923/2#14646270

K-H.

Nov 07, 2018 at 02:39 PM

kimknapp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

AGeoJO wrote:
Kim, I received both the 600mm lens just a few days ago. So far, I have played with the new setup just 3 days, one day more an extended dry run in my backyard and two days out in the field. When I used both the 400mm f/2.8 Mark II (some 90% of the time, including 2 trips to Costa Rica and 2 trips to Bosque del Apache plus numerous local outings) and 400mm f/4 DO Mark II (the remaining time), I prefer the responsiveness of the setup without any TC. But as I mentioned quite a few times, the...Show more →

Thanks Joshua. I suspect you are right. Please keep us up to date as you learn more.

Nov 07, 2018 at 04:40 PM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

kimknapp wrote:
Joshua,
Which of the two Canon's focuses better (faster, more accurate), the 400 DO with 1.4 TC or the 600?
How much sharper is the 600 over the 400 DO w/ TC?

Kim

The Canon 400DOII/1.4TC is probably a bit faster than the 600II bare just because it has smaller elements to move. The IQ of the bare 600 is better than the 400DOII/1.4TC but that is splitting hairs as they are both phenomenal.

I remember when I let Ron (surfnron) use my 400DOII for the day in Florida and I took his 500II that his immediate comment after a couple shots was he noticed faster focus with the DOII over the 500II....

Of course all of that info is on a Canon DSLR. Now in my experience on the A9, I would also say the 400DOII is more responsive even with 1.4TC on it. The 600II was always a little slower to move the big focus differences.

However, in the end they are so similar in AF and IQ that I'd only make the decision based on weight and the f/4 vs f/5.6 at (560/600)

Nov 07, 2018 at 06:46 PM

kimknapp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Ok. I was thinking the 400 was f/2.8. (and f4 with TC) My dumb. That would be nice, though!

Nevermind.

Nov 07, 2018 at 07:12 PM

MedicineMan404
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Joshua, heck of a write up on the mental decision process of where you were and how
you attived at present. Really kicked up some great conversation among some great
shooters.
I certainly don't have a big dog in this fight but I found it extremely interesting reading and
really enjoyed the contributions by Geoff and Mitesh.

Nov 08, 2018 at 05:52 AM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

kimknapp wrote:
Ok. I was thinking the 400 was f/2.8. (and f4 with TC) My dumb. That would be nice, though!

Nevermind.

There is a big difference between 400DOII and 600II....if the stop of light isn't critical it is hard to pass up on the super mobile 400DOII....

Both produce super image IQ....

A9 and Bare 600II

A9 and 400DOII with 2xTCIII

Nov 08, 2018 at 08:49 AM

kimknapp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

arbitrage wrote:
There is a big difference between 400DOII and 600II....if the stop of light isn't critical it is hard to pass up on the super mobile 400DOII....

Both produce super image IQ....
Your last question raised another question, is the 400 DO with a 2xTC at f8 (right?) any better than the Sony 100-400 w 1.4xTC on the A7Riii, also f8?
The 600 range at f4 seems a more worthwhile upgrade to me. Except for weight!

Nov 08, 2018 at 09:38 AM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

kimknapp wrote:
Your last question raised another question, is the 400 DO with a 2xTC at f8 (right?) any better than the Sony 100-400 w 1.4xTC on the A7Riii, also f8?
The 600 range at f4 seems a more worthwhile upgrade to me. Except for weight!

Yes the 400DOII/2x is 800 f/8. The 100-400 is 560 f/8. So a lot difference in focal length. I'm not sure how well either work on the A7R3....they both work well on the A9 and I'd say there isn't much between them for IQ....but they are a big difference in focal length.

If you don't fancy the weight of the Canon 600 f/4 IS II then Canon has a solution for you in the Canon 600 f/4 IS III which weighs less than any current 500 f/4 lens....but you have to pay to play

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433722-REG/canon_ef_600mm_f_4l_is.html?sts=pi

Nov 08, 2018 at 09:45 AM

kimknapp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

I was thinking about the additional psuedo crop factor you have with the A7Riii. Not sure what it works out to be at 24MP, probably around 700 MM, but it is close enough that I wouldn't be interested in adding the 400 DO to my 100-400 w/ 1.4 TC (the 400GM is another story, though, but $$).

Also, I was thinking about whether the 400 DO & 2.0 TC adapted to the A9 may not be enough better AF-wise than the 100-400GM & 1.4 TC on the A7Riii to make it worth it. Even though the 400 DO & A9 combo also has the silent, blackout free mode, using the A7Riii in mechanical shutter mode with EFCS is really not that bad, blackout is pretty short and it is not difficult to follow most BIF even at the High continuous. I am still struggling with all of this, though, since, although the A7Riii locks on quickly and stays on the bird most times, the images are not tack sharp. Subject for a different thread, though (FYI: I just bought an A9 to play with).

Yes the 600 III would be nice. I think Joshua has the right idea, though. He now has something that will at least hold him over until Sony steps up the plate.

Nov 08, 2018 at 11:23 AM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

kimknapp wrote:
I was thinking about the additional psuedo crop factor you have with the A7Riii. Not sure what it works out to be at 24MP, probably around 700 MM, but it is close enough that I wouldn't be interested in adding the 400 DO to my 100-400 w/ 1.4 TC (the 400GM is another story, though, but $$).

Also, I was thinking about whether the 400 DO & 2.0 TC adapted to the A9 may not be enough better AF-wise than the 100-400GM & 1.4 TC on the A7Riii to make it worth it. Even though the 400 DO & A9 combo...Show more →

I would think AF with the 100-400GM/1.4 on the A7R3 would be better than the 400DO/2x on the A9. I only used the A7R3 for a short while, mostly with the Sigma 500/4 and a little with the 100-400GM+/-TC....

I think the A7R3 vs A9 is essentially a 1.33x factor so yeah it would make things pretty similar...744mm vs 800mm both f/8

Nov 08, 2018 at 12:00 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

arbitrage wrote:
The Canon 400DOII/1.4TC is probably a bit faster than the 600II bare just because it has smaller elements to move. The IQ of the bare 600 is better than the 400DOII/1.4TC but that is splitting hairs as they are both phenomenal.

I remember when I let Ron (surfnron) use my 400DOII for the day in Florida and I took his 500II that his immediate comment after a couple shots was he noticed faster focus with the DOII over the 500II....

Of course all of that info is on a Canon DSLR. Now in my experience on the A9, I would also say...Show more →

I just did a comparison between the 600mm Mark II and 400mm DO Mark II in my backyard. Since I was using only a single A9 and I do not have any way of recording the viewfinder using an external recorder, I admit that this is a subjective comparison. And as such, I really couldn't tell the difference in the speed of AF acquisition between the two lenses. I added a 1.4X TC with each; first the Canon and later on the Sigma. I came to the same conclusion; no difference in the AF speed.

I see Geoff's point of the 600mm being a larger lens the it would lag behind the smaller 400mm DO lens. But my understanding is, the focusing group of both is what actually controls/drives the AF and that the difference of the focusing group in each lens is not as large as the difference in the physical dimension between the two lenses.

If, then this evaluation reinforced my position, the AF speed is remarkable with the setup. There was a situation where I noticed that the Canon TC using the 600mm hesitated. I tried to mimic the situation using the Sigma TC and it did AF without any issues. But again, as I mentioned a few times here and to a few FMers via PMs, I am still not 100% convinced that the Sigma TC-1401 is for sure better than the Canon 1.4X TC Mark III but there are a few cases that indicated to be that way. I cannot tell you under what circumstances or why that to be the case, however.

I am planning of going out in the afternoon early evening to evaluate this combo further, targeting smaller and swifter birds. I will report my findings either this evening or tomorrow morning.

Nov 08, 2018 at 01:27 PM

kimknapp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Since you have both TCs, it would be interesting to see the difference in IQ, too.

Nov 08, 2018 at 02:13 PM

bvphotos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

arbitrage wrote:
Yes the 400DOII/2x is 800 f/8. The 100-400 is 560 f/8. So a lot difference in focal length. I'm not sure how well either work on the A7R3....they both work well on the A9 and I'd say there isn't much between them for IQ....but they are a big difference in focal length.

I've tried the 400 DO II bare and with the 1.4TC III on my A6500 & A7RII via a MB IV adapter. It does hunt. With the 2x III TC, its pretty bad. I realize the A9 is supposed to be much faster, but in this situation, isn't the issue mostly due to the adapter? Are you using MB or Sigma? And is it useable on the A9 with the 2x for BIF?

Nov 08, 2018 at 07:37 PM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

bvphotos wrote:
I've tried the 400 DO II bare and with the 1.4TC III on my A6500 & A7RII via a MB IV adapter. It does hunt. With the 2x III TC, its pretty bad. I realize the A9 is supposed to be much faster, but in this situation, isn't the issue mostly due to the adapter? Are you using MB or Sigma? And is it useable on the A9 with the 2x for BIF?

I'm using the Sigma on the A9. The 400DOII/2xTC can do some BIF but it isn't my choice of lens to do that with. Consistency drops a lot and if you lose the subject and the AF starts to hunt it is a done deal. Also if you don't get on the bird when it is further away it will never jump to the bird as it is getting very close. I would say for BIF the 100-400/1.4TC and even with 2xTC is better at AF on the A9 but I still don't know about on the A7R3 and whether the 100-400/1.4TC would be better than the 400DOII/2x on the A9??

Nov 08, 2018 at 07:58 PM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Thanks Joshua. I’m pondering exchanging my 500/4 II for a 600/4 II because of the attractive used prices of the latter. Based on your experience, how close does the A9 plus 600/4 come to the performance of that lens on a 1DX?

Nov 08, 2018 at 08:47 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

bvphotos wrote:
I've tried the 400 DO II bare and with the 1.4TC III on my A6500 & A7RII via a MB IV adapter. It does hunt. With the 2x III TC, its pretty bad. I realize the A9 is supposed to be much faster, but in this situation, isn't the issue mostly due to the adapter? Are you using MB or Sigma? And is it useable on the A9 with the 2x for BIF?

The 2X TC, regardless of the brand, robs quite a bit of the AF performance of the adapted lens. The 1.4X is quite a bit better in that aspect, especially the Sigma TC in my limited experience. That was one of the reasons I went for the 600mm lens and therefore I could only use the 1.4X TC to get my desired focal length. I am reserving the 2X TC only for perched bird as mentioned in on of my posts above. Plus, I am being honest, tracking a fast flying bird at 1200mm is a pain in the you know where

and your success rate is pretty low, at least mine.

I used my A7r III to capture the Mandarin ducks above. In some cases, I did use a 2X TC; I do have images using that setup but I didn’t include that in this thread. The duck moved sideways and back and forth and my setup at 1200mm didn’t have any issues with following focus even with the 2X TC. I used a Large Selectiable Mode for that and kept that on the head of the duck. Of course, a slow swimming duck is speed-wise far cry easier to capture and follow than an erratically flying and small bird. IMHO, under those circumstances, I would rely on the A9 more so than on the A7r IIII to do the job.

Nov 08, 2018 at 09:35 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

johnvanr wrote:
Thanks Joshua. I’m pondering exchanging my 500/4 II for a 600/4 II because of the attractive used prices of the latter. Based on your experience, how close does the A9 plus 600/4 come to the performance of that lens on a 1DX?

John, thank you for dropping by. Yes, the declining price makes the 600mm lens attractive for sure. Another reason or one of the reasons for me to go with the 600mm is to keep the usage of the 2X at the minimum and to use the 2X TC more for perched birds. While the 1.4X TC performs really well with the lens, whether it is 400mm f/4 DO Mark II or 400mm f/2.8 Mark II or 500mm f/4 Mark II or 600mm f/4 Mark II, the degradation of the AF performance using the 2X TC is more prevalent.

My last Canon body was the 5D Mark III and the professional caliber body was the 1D Mark IV. And as such, I don’t know the answer to your question how it would compare to the AF performance of the 1Dx. But based on my memory, using my 400mm f/2.8 Mark II that I used frequently, the AF performance of the A9 in combination with the Sigma MC-11 with the latest FW is faster and easier to achieve than on the Canon 5D Mark III. A part of the advantage is facilitated by using either the Zone AF mode or Wide AF mode. Those two modes make following BIF easier than using the 5D III from what I could remember.

Hope this answers your question somewhat although not fully,
Joshua

Nov 08, 2018 at 10:04 PM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

For those that shoot a variety of wildlife handheld, I can see a number of reasons why the Sony 400 f2.8 would be far more advantageous than any 500 f4 or 600 f4 lens.

Nov 08, 2018 at 10:11 PM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

johnvanr wrote:
Thanks Joshua. I’m pondering exchanging my 500/4 II for a 600/4 II because of the attractive used prices of the latter. Based on your experience, how close does the A9 plus 600/4 come to the performance of that lens on a 1DX?

I think that if you are in the zone and don't need to make radical focus shifts from far to near or near to far that the actual tracking performance in a mode like Wide or Zone on the A9 is better than the 1DX and 1DX2.

However, the actual speed of the AF is surely faster on the 1DX. In fact I would say that nothing I've used from Nikon or Sony even with native glass has the speed of AF as the Canon 1 series cameras do. Even the A9 with bare 100-400GM doesn't have the point to point AF speed of a 1DX and 100-400II (or big prime).

That said, the consistency of the results is noticeably better with the A9 even with the adapted glass when you are tracking erratic, fast subjects....but this is really down to the use of the "auto" type modes like Wide and Zone where as the Canon system just isn't as good at this type of AF and requires the end user to do more of the work. This is the same thing on Nikon where their Auto AF mode is what set their system apart from a 1 series.

Final thoughts....for any type of perched, floating bird the adapted 600II will get an increase in focused shots in a burst because of the lack of micro-focus shifts that plague DSLR systems. IF you can get on your subject early enough in the flight sequence that the Wide or Zone AF takes over on the A9/600 then you will get more keepers than tracking that same bird with 1DX/600 in Zone or Expansion AF modes.

However, there will be times where the A9/600 just totally fails at a certain AF acquisition and it is very hard to "bump" the focus back on the subject. With a native 1DX/600 this is much easier to do because of that super fast AF speed I mentioned earlier.

Nov 08, 2018 at 11:14 PM

1 2 3 4 … 11 12 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 … 11 12 end

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