I know there are some of us out there that have this lens, so lets get an image thread going!
Let me say this; in my opinion, this is the best and most versatile lens bird/wildlife lens I have ever used! Whats the competition, the 600 f/4 and 1200mm f/8?
Next up, the elephant in the room - Minimum focusing distance. As a wildlife/bird photographer, this is the most important thing, especially for birds that get close! I had super rare (to the united states) fan tailed warbler land 10 feet in front me of, I could not have gotten this photo with 600 or 1200 because of MFD, same with the Anna's hummingbird pic posted below. I would've have to move, and that risks making the bird fly away. I have met one person in the field with the 1200mm. Their sentiments are, they probably should've gotten the 800mm. I had the EF 600mm f/4 IS II, and was going to keep it for ten more years, but I was tired of these small birds landing in front of me and not being able to get the shot due to MFD.
One of my friends saw all of the fantastic images I was getting with this lens and asked me if I could help her get one. I called one of my contacts and got her a crazy deal!!!
Here is a pic of our dueling RF 800 f/5.6's in Yellowstone:
I've seen the digital picture and the results of their testing. I don't photograph pictures of charts. Here are real world pics. This barred owl was taken last night handheld 1/60 + f/6.3 + 8000 ISO
Here are some more images, these are a mix using bare lens and teleconverters. How does the 2x do on it? Ok. The keeper rate is prob about 70%.
Love this thread! I have the EF 800/5.6 and the weight and MFD are getting a bit old. The price difference to get me to an RF 800 is too much for me, but I'll keep an eye out for a bargain used 600 III. At any rate, love your images, guys. Keep them coming!
big country wrote:
I don't really consider the 400mm 2.8 a lens for wildlife/birds. how do you get to 1200mm on that lens?
While I agree that 400mm is on the short side for wildlife/birds, 800mm (400 + 2x TC) definitely is not and is usually more than enough. This is especially true when paired with a high mp ff that allows for wiggle room to later crop if needed.
I have rarely, if ever, shot wildlife anywhere near 1200mm. Atmospherics will almost always render such extreme distant shots useless, thus 1200mm to me personally is not practical in most cases.
lighthound wrote:
While I agree that 400mm is on the short side for wildlife/birds, 800mm (400 + 2x TC) definitely is not and is usually more than enough. This is especially true when paired with a high mp ff that allows for wiggle room to later crop if needed.
I have rarely, if ever, shot wildlife anywhere near 1200mm. Atmospherics will almost always render such extreme distant shots useless, thus 1200mm to me personally is not practical in most cases.
I see the "atmospherics" argument pop up a lot and have very rarely seen it in the real world.
I frequently shoot and see others shoot at 1200mm, 1680mm, 2240mm, etc. with stellar results.
While I agree the 400mm is usually on the short side for wildlife, I also feel like 1200mm+ is a very practical range.
Especially in places like Yellowstone where you're shooting a bear or wolf den from a quarter or half a mile away.
The atmospherics depend on the conditions, temps, and terrain you are shooting over. I've seen plenty of atmospheric distortion at 400mm on a pretty mild day and it gets much worse as gets hotter with longer FL's.
What I am trying to understand is what is the disadvantage of owning a 400 f/2.8 and slapping on a 2x TC to achieve the equivalent of the 800 f/5.6? Is there a significant optical penalty? They are the same optical formula, it's just that Canon affixed a 2x TC to make a 800 mm. I guess one can add an additional TC on the 800 for extra FL, though as others have observed, atmospherics can be challenging. Given that a 800 is a $19k lens vs. a 400 f/2.8 at $12k + tc and one has the added benefit of being able to use it for sports...
armd wrote:
What I am trying to understand is what is the disadvantage of owning a 400 f/2.8 and slapping on a 2x TC to achieve the equivalent of the 800 f/5.6? Is there a significant optical penalty? They are the same optical formula, it's just that Canon affixed a 2x TC to make a 800 mm. I guess one can add an additional TC on the 800 for extra FL, though as others have observed, atmospherics can be challenging. Given that a 800 is a $19k lens vs. a 400 f/2.8 at $12k + tc and one has the added benefit of being able to use it for sports......Show more →
I'd have to say it depends on what you need in terms of FL.
If 800 is the longest you need day to day, then the 400+TC makes more sense to me, because you get the shorter/faster options (400 bare and with 1.4x TC). There are some physical advantages to no TC, it's one less ingress point to seal, the camera/lens interface is marginally more robust and the optical design is completely optimized (even if 800mm is achieved via an additional TC group, it can be optimized for the specific optical design in question, vs a more generic one for the add-on TC).
If you regularly need longer than 800mm regularly, then the 800 makes more sense.
I'd say it's probably more a case of cropping in on smaller wildlife than absolute reach, as atmospheric limits will come into play if you are trying to shoot larger animals from further away (vs getting more pixels per sparrow)
All that said, I'm not a wildlife photographer myself, aside from occasional dabbling.
armd wrote:
What I am trying to understand is what is the disadvantage of owning a 400 f/2.8 and slapping on a 2x TC to achieve the equivalent of the 800 f/5.6? Is there a significant optical penalty? They are the same optical formula, it's just that Canon affixed a 2x TC to make a 800 mm. I guess one can add an additional TC on the 800 for extra FL, though as others have observed, atmospherics can be challenging. Given that a 800 is a $19k lens vs. a 400 f/2.8 at $12k + tc and one has the added benefit of being able to use it for sports......Show more →
While it certainly is not worth the $7k premium imo, the 800/5.6 shares the front formula with the 400/2.8 but it does not share the optical formula of the 2x TC. The “tc” in this case contains a UD element and sits in front of the drop in filter slot. As a result, there is not the typical degradation of quality that comes from a TC.
If only Canon would sell such a high quality standalone TC.
