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 | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 end

One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

thedutt wrote:
I have the 400 2.8 RF, that is what I use a lot now vs the 500 F4, so I understand the appeal of better IQ of higher glass. With that said, if I could only have 100-500 or 400 f2.8, I would keep 100-500.

Why? Lack of bokeh doesn't make a picture boring. It really depends on what you are shooting. 100-500 gives you an option to shoot landscape with a wildlife subject better than any other lens, well, ethically at least. The large primes give you a great option to get superb portraits (and occasional outstanding environmental shots). End...Show more →

I'm of the exact opposite opinion of you and your shooting style preference but that's why it's great we have options. I would never choose a slow zoom over a fast prime unless I was forced to, like being on horseback. But that's just me and there is no right way. If I shoot the same subjects wide open with 300,400,500 primes and then the same with 100-500, nine times out of ten I see boring snapshots from the 100-500 compared to the wow factor from the fast primes. That's not to say you can't get exciting images from the 100-500 in certain scenes. But for field sports there's a night and day difference of isolating a player at 400 2.8 compared to the 100-500 soccer mom snapshot of a cluttered scene of players. Just my opinion and experience. YMMV

Aug 04, 2023 at 10:48 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

Scott Stoness wrote:
It's all about what you plan to do with the lens. On a monopod it's fantastic. And for 15 minutes it's great too. But if you are holding it for an hour, you have to be strong.

But primes like 300 (too short often), 400 (does not zoom back), and 600 (too long lots) are heavy too and have their downsides. And 100-500 is not as good in low light and has less reach.

That's why the perfect combination is 100-400 (which the op already has I think) and 200-400.

I think for what the op does (sports an...Show more →

Agreed, it's a great field sports lens. But the main reason I would use the 200-400 is to shoot it wide open in daylight. Meaning I would not use the 100-500 over the 200-400 just because you have sufficient light for the 100-500. It would be 200-400 @ f/4 or 560 @ f/5.6 all day long. That's why you spend the big bucks for faster lenses.

Aug 04, 2023 at 10:52 AM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

Out of mu price league.

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2/

Aug 04, 2023 at 11:40 AM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

Zenon Char wrote:
Out of mu price league.

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2/

Yeah for real. I made the comment on their forums that I can buy one 30 years from now when canon switches to another mount!

-Brian

Aug 04, 2023 at 11:47 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

Zenon Char wrote:
Out of mu price league.

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2/

Now they just need to release the flickable TC that's compatible with this and the 100-300

Aug 04, 2023 at 11:51 AM

marsguy
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

artsupreme wrote:
I'm of the exact opposite opinion of you and your shooting style preference but that's why it's great we have options. I would never choose a slow zoom over a fast prime unless I was forced to, like being on horseback. But that's just me and there is no right way. If I shoot the same subjects wide open with 300,400,500 primes and then the same with 100-500, nine times out of ten I see boring snapshots from the 100-500 compared to the wow factor from the fast primes. That's not to say you can't get exciting images from the...Show more →

I certainly respect your preferences and I think we can all agree that bokeh makes the subject pop, but, leaving price out of it, just the weight and size differences alone make the 100-500 an attractive choice if you are walking more than a mile with it or traveling with other gear where photography is not the sole mission of your trip (e.g. family vacation). It's also not a one trick pony like fast tele primes so you can get different perspectives and shoot many different subjects in what could be considered different styles of photography entirely. But yeah, if you're just concerned about a field of sports players or a bird on a branch, with nothing else interesting/worthwhile nearby, then chase that bokeh and isolate your subject - but it's all you can do with that big heavy lens. You can get more "wow factor" moments by taking more photos of different things which might be inherently more interesting, where you _don't_ want to blow out the background.

I say all this as someone who would love to have a bunch of fast lenses around, who would love the occasional subject pop, but would probably never carry them because they can be inflexible (at least at the long end) and more of a burden than a handful of slower zooms. Carry what lets you get out into the field... take away the reasons to say no! I also say all this as someone that doesn't do a lot of photography of wildlife or sports, so long distance thin DoF subject isolation isn't really something I need. I'd much prefer a lens that can do landscapes (most of my shooting), with the occasional environmental portrait when in a scenic location, and casual wildlife shooting if going for a hike closer to home. I think this versatility matters a lot more to the average telephoto user - otherwise, you probably know if you need long distance thin DoF subject isolation, because it's the primary type of photography that you do (it seems most shooters in this forum are pro/enthusiast wildlife/sports shooters). Now, shorter lenses with shallow DoF are a different story, and can provide a lot of "wow factor" for many different kinds of photography, but this discussion is primarily about long telephotos.

Aug 04, 2023 at 11:57 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

marsguy wrote:
I certainly respect your preferences and I think we can all agree that bokeh makes the subject pop, but, leaving price out of it, just the weight and size differences alone make the 100-500 an attractive choice if you are walking more than a mile with it or traveling with other gear where photography is not the sole mission of your trip (e.g. family vacation). It's also not a one trick pony like fast tele primes so you can get different perspectives and shoot many different subjects in what could be considered different styles of photography entirely. But yeah, if...Show more →

I hear you and agree the zoom has it's places for versatility. But I would say that primes are not as inflexible as you may think. If you force yourself to shoot with a prime, you still have plenty of options and I believe it generates more creativity than a zoom. For example, I would rather hike with a fast 35 and 135 f/2 than take my 100-500. I prefer to focus on isolating small details along the way or shoot environmental portraits at large apertures. If I feel like I need the reach for something specific, I will bring the zoom like my recent trip. But in the end, I'm rarely wow'd by my images from the 100-500 compared to something shot with my 135/2, 35 1.4, or other fast prime on an outdoor excursion. I'm not a bird shooter like the majority of this forum, but if I was obviously the 100-500 would make more sense to me.

Aug 04, 2023 at 12:16 PM

marsguy
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

artsupreme wrote:
I hear you and agree the zoom has it's places for versatility. But I would say that primes are not as inflexible as you may think. If you force yourself to shoot with a prime, you still have plenty of options and I believe it generates more creativity than a zoom. For example, I would rather hike with a fast 35 and 135 f/2 than take my 100-500. I prefer to focus on isolating small details along the way or shoot environmental portraits at large apertures. If I feel like I need the reach for something specific, I will bring...Show more →

Agreed on forced creativity with primes. Just talking about shorter primes like 35 or 50, for environmental portraits or street, I absolutely would prefer shallow DoF capability. When I'm hiking though, I don't like changing lenses if I can avoid it, which is why I totally need a 15-85/2.8L that only weighs 3lbs.

I also like making vignettes of little details, which is why I love telephotos for landscape - but I don't need fast aperture for those shots, so the versatility of the 100-500 is something that gets me pumped, especially knowing it'd make a great wildlife lens, just without the pop of a professional fast prime which I'll probably never buy unless I drastically change the things I take photos of.

Aug 04, 2023 at 12:32 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

marsguy wrote:
Agreed on forced creativity with primes. Just talking about shorter primes like 35 or 50, for environmental portraits or street, I absolutely would prefer shallow DoF capability. When I'm hiking though, I don't like changing lenses if I can avoid it, which is why I totally need a 15-85/2.8L that only weighs 3lbs.

I also like making vignettes of little details, which is why I love telephotos for landscape - but I don't need fast aperture for those shots, so the versatility of the 100-500 is something that gets me pumped, especially knowing it'd make a great wildlife lens,...Show more →

If you ever decide to buy one take a look at the 300II and get both extenders. Great bang for the buck as all three focal lengths are tack sharp on a ML body.

Aug 04, 2023 at 01:03 PM

rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

Zenon Char wrote:
Out of mu price league.

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2/

jedibrain wrote:
Yeah for real. I made the comment on their forums that I can buy one 30 years from now when canon switches to another mount!

-Brian

Congrats on the promotion and having an understanding wife.

Maybe right now is the right time to buy a lightly used 200-400 in the ~$4500 range? I'm sure the 200-500 will be great like the 100-300 and improve on the 200-400, but if $16K is the actual street price, I gotta wonder how much longer 200-400s will be selling for ~1/4 that price? Even at places like B&H it's selling for around 40% off retail, which is more than they usually discount currently available lenses.

I've owned and used the 200-400 since 2013 and agree it's a great, versatile field sports lens. Built-in TC is fast to use and great in bad weather because you don't have to split the camera and lens to install/remove one. But in some ways, it's only one step up from the 100-400. That said, even that one step (and stop of light), does make it an indoor contender, whereas the 100-400 is more borderline. And I've used mine for a lot of non-sports indoor uses, such as theater/concerts, corporate events, even at a wedding or two if I have someone to carry it for me. But if you were primarily doing indoor sports, then the 100-300 would be better, considering how well it appears to work with the TCs for outdoor reach-limited situations. Or a 300/2.8 IS v2.

I'd suggest evaluating where you'd use such a lens most, look at your 100-400 images and determine what focal lengths you used most. If a lot was wider than 400, then the 200-400 would be logical (or maybe even the 100-300 if you can stretch for it, or a 300/2.8 IS v2 if you can't). If a lot was at or near 400, then maybe consider a 400/2.8 instead because IMO the two-stop step from the 100-400 would be significant, whereas the one stop step to f/4 is not always as obvious. This option would be a much easier recommendation if you were already using the R5 (I believe you're using the R6?), where the higher sensor resolution would be useful for 'digital' TC (cropping) purposes when reach limited. For those times action comes closer, a second body with a 70-200 (here even the f/4 version would be great because it's so small/light). I know you'd like to avoid the two body configuration, but with the super light RF 70-200s, it's not that bad (in respect to weight).

I'd even say go for a 600/4, but it's a more niche sports lens, for sure. Too long for some field sports aspects and also more susceptible to atmospheric distortion and the resulting loss of image sharpness if photographing action on artificial turf fields on warm days. But for sure, when the stars align, it's magic.

However, pretty much forget about indoor use. Even if the light is OK, it will probably be way too long (swimming might be an exception, but the light...).

So, IMO, 200-400 is a safe and good choice. 400/2.8 would be more daring if you really want the long fast glass look, but has a narrower range of use in respect to subject distances (depending on your preferences for full length body or if you tolerate cropping, though less appealing for soccer if wanting to include the ball at foot level). The 400/2.8 would also more suit the 'what the hell' mid-life splurge mindset, because it's a bit riskier. However, if you didn't like the 400/2.8, swapping TCs, using a second body for closer/wider coverage, you could always sell it and get a 200-400.

Or... invest the money, put it towards the college fund, pay down the mortgage, etc. Not as exciting but might open some other opportunities down the road. Maybe you could afford the 200-500 AND an R1-series body once your grandkids start playing sports.

Aug 04, 2023 at 01:07 PM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

rscheffler wrote:
Congrats on the promotion and having an understanding wife.

Maybe right now is the right time to buy a lightly used 200-400 in the ~$4500 range? I'm sure the 200-500 will be great like the 100-300 and improve on the 200-400, but if $16K is the actual street price, I gotta wonder how much longer 200-400s will be selling for ~1/4 that price? Even at places like B&H it's selling for around 40% off retail, which is more than they usually discount currently available lenses.

I've owned and used the 200-400 since 2013 and agree it's a great, versatile field sports lens. Built-in TC is fast to use and great in bad weather because you don't have to split the camera and lens to install/remove one. But in some ways, it's only one step up from the 100-400. That said, even that one step (and stop of light), does make it an indoor contender, whereas the 100-400 is more borderline. And I've used mine for a lot of non-sports indoor uses, such as theater/concerts, corporate events, even at a wedding or two if I have someone to carry it for me. But if you were primarily doing indoor sports, then the 100-300 would be better, considering how well it appears to work with the TCs for outdoor reach-limited situations. Or a 300/2.8 IS v2.

I'd suggest evaluating where you'd use such a lens most, look at your 100-400 images and determine what focal lengths you used most. If a lot was wider than 400, then the 200-400 would be logical (or maybe even the 100-300 if you can stretch for it, or a 300/2.8 IS v2 if you can't). If a lot was at or near 400, then maybe consider a 400/2.8 instead. This option would be a much easier recommendation if you were already using the R5 (I believe you're using the R6?), where the higher sensor resolution would be useful for 'digital' TC (cropping) purposes when reach limited. For those times action comes closer, a second body with a 70-200 (here even the f/4 version would be great because it's so small/light). I know you'd like to avoid the two body configuration, but with the super light RF 70-200s, it's not that bad (in respect to weight).

I'd even say go for a 600/4, but it's a more niche sports lens, for sure. Too long for some field sports aspects and also more susceptible to atmospheric distortion and the resulting loss of image sharpness if photographing action on artificial turf fields on warm days. But for sure, when the stars align, it's magic.

...Show more →

all good thoughts to consider, thanks.

I think lens wise an 400 2.8 vII, 300 2.8vII or 200-400 could be possible. The 300 2.8 plus the 2x TC (I already have the 1.4x EF vIII) could allow me to also upgrade to an R5 (not II). Too many options to think through now....I may rent the 200-400 for the upcoming weekend tournament. If I like it and it fits my current bag OK, that could tell me a lot. I think I'd like the 300 2.8 vII. But may miss the zoom. I suspect I'd use it with the 1.4x TC most of the time for sports.

-Brian

Aug 04, 2023 at 01:19 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

jedibrain wrote:
all good thoughts to consider, thanks.

I think lens wise an 400 2.8 vII, 300 2.8vII or 200-400 could be possible. The 300 2.8 plus the 2x TC (I already have the 1.4x EF vIII) could allow me to also upgrade to an R5 (not II). Too many options to think through now....I may rent the 200-400 for the upcoming weekend tournament. If I like it and it fits my current bag OK, that could tell me a lot. I think I'd like the 300 2.8 vII. But may miss the zoom. I suspect I'd use it with the 1.4x...Show more →

I know you are itching for a new body but for field sports if you are shooting with a fast prime you shouldn't be cropping much at all which eliminates the need for an R5. When you are shooting properly with a fast prime you'll be nailing shots of athletes filling your frame and it should only require some very minor leveling/cropping adjustments. R6 is plenty for this. I personally wouldn't purposely use the extra resolution of the R5 to crop for far action, because that usually means less bokeh and that's not why you bought the fast glass. The filling the frame money shots will standout immediately among the other distant action that one might crop. There are exceptions, but generally speaking you want to fill your frame and avoid heavy cropping with fast glass.

Aug 04, 2023 at 01:30 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

@jedibrain@@@@, It sounds like you are interested in the 200 400, just reading your posts. So you should probably just focus on getting one of those, if you're buying.

You're not going to save much buying 300/2.8 II instead of 200 400, and you don't sound interested in the less expensive older ones I've recommended. Even the 400/2.8 IS v1 is about the same as 200 400. Easy to get talked into a more logical choice, or something else, like I've been trying to talk you into, even. Probably better off just getting 200 400 and go from there

Edited on Aug 04, 2023 at 01:43 PM · View previous versions

Aug 04, 2023 at 01:35 PM

rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

For what Brian wants to photograph, there is nothing from Canon in his price range more logical than the 200-400.

Renting would answer some questions. If you think you'd mostly use the 300 with a TC, then go for a 400/2.8 instead. The big question IMO is: how much can you tolerate not having wider coverage in your primary long lens?

So rent the 200-400, shoot a ton, then evaluate to determine the most used focal lengths.

The 200-400 is narrow in diameter like the 300/2.8 but a bit longer than the 400/2.8. The 400/2.8 is significantly larger in diameter, which could present packing challenges. I was able to pack one in the Pelican 1510 roller case, but with the hood it was a slightly tight fit to close (length wasn't a problem). In this respect the 200-400 is better due to its smaller diameter. But there are some decent options such as the Think Tank rollers, their glass taxi, or Gura Gear's bags. I'm sure there are more.

artsupreme wrote:
I know you are itching for a new body but for field sports if you are shooting with a fast prime you shouldn't be cropping much at all which eliminates the need for an R5. When you are shooting properly with a fast prime you'll be nailing shots of athletes filling your frame and it should only require some very minor leveling/cropping adjustments. R6 is plenty for this. I personally wouldn't purposely use the extra resolution of the R5 to crop for far action, because that usually means less bokeh and that's not why you bought the fast glass. The...Show more →

IMO that really depends on the sport and on expectations. Some sports you know where the action will usually be and you can position yourself appropriately. But with other sports, things happen at many different distances and can within a few seconds change from being 40-50 yards away to 15-20 yards, or less. Every lens has a sweet spot where things align and you get the unique and great "look" for which you bought it. And yes, more distant cropped action will never look as good as when it's in the sweet spot of the lens being used, but maybe you still need or want to get that shot, too. To me it sounds like Brian's previous experience with the 100-400 has been such that the versatility of a zoom is a significant capability he's reluctant to give up. And I don't blame him.

I shot multiple versions of the 400/2.8 for 20 years until 2013 and also had a couple versions of the 600/4 since the early 00s until that time. My primary sport was (and still is) football, and while there were reach limited situations, as you noted, those kinds of shots usually didn't look great - too close to the background, too little background separation. But what was really lacking for me was the gap between 200 and 400. And this is why I value the 200-400 so much - the ability to keep tracking a subject coming closer while zooming out and keeping them in that frame filling sweet spot range for so much longer than I could with the prime.

Aug 04, 2023 at 01:36 PM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

AmbientMike wrote:
@jedibrain@@@@@, It sounds like you are interested in the 200 400, just reading your posts. So you should probably just focus on getting one of those, if you're buying.

You're not going to save much buying 300/2.8 II instead of 200 400, and you don't sound interested in the less expensive older ones I've recommended. Even the 400/2.8 IS v1 is about the same as 200 400. Easy to get talked into a more logical choice, or something else, like I've been trying to talk you into, even. Probably better off just getting 200 400 and go from there

The V1 lenses have a pretty significant performance hit on the high speed R bodies. They don't focus as fast or hit the higher frame rates. Its noticeable, now that I'm spoiled by my R6. I'm not generally opposed to old glass. I still shoot almost all EF glass, including the 28-70 2.8L and the non-L 100mm macro. But for this application, the VII or newer lenses make a meaningful difference.

-Brian

Aug 04, 2023 at 02:26 PM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

artsupreme wrote:
I know you are itching for a new body but for field sports if you are shooting with a fast prime you shouldn't be cropping much at all which eliminates the need for an R5. When you are shooting properly with a fast prime you'll be nailing shots of athletes filling your frame and it should only require some very minor leveling/cropping adjustments. R6 is plenty for this. I personally wouldn't purposely use the extra resolution of the R5 to crop for far action, because that usually means less bokeh and that's not why you bought the fast glass. The...Show more →

Yeah I never complain about the resolution of my R6 for anything really, but particularly sports. R5 would be nice for landscapes and the occasional fauna shots, but not strictly necessary.

-Brian

Aug 04, 2023 at 02:29 PM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

jedibrain wrote:
Yeah I never complain about the resolution of my R6 for anything really, but particularly sports. R5 would be nice for landscapes and the occasional fauna shots, but not strictly necessary.

-Brian

I think you are in a great position to play the waiting game on a new body. The R5's can be had for what, $2500 now? They will only get cheaper and will probably take a nice hit when the R5II is released, which would be a great time to snatch one up. As for the glass you are considering, I don't see much financial downside to either option of the 300II or 200-400 in the long run. I think they have bottomed out for awhile and you could probably own both of them for a few years and maybe lose a grand on them? That's worth getting money shots of your daughter before she's gone to college. Based on your comments I think you would be better suited by the 200-400 over a prime for field sports. Super glue that aperture wide open and go to town

Aug 04, 2023 at 02:48 PM

Richard-BB
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

CANON R3 most impressive camera in terms of original design; especially at new lower price?

Aug 15, 2023 at 04:39 AM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

Richard-BB wrote:
CANON R3 most impressive camera in terms of original design; especially at new lower price?

I really liked the ergonomics of the R3 when I saw one at a camera shop. Just don't know that its worth 3x the cost of my R6. yes, I'd really like that stacked sensor. I suppose if I was still sitting here with my 5D3 and didn't have the R6, the R3 would be a nice easy choice. But at this point I kinda want to hold out for some more resolution. I really don't feel limited by the 20mp I have, but if buying a 'better' body I'd rather get a little more than stacked and weather sealed for that price. If it drops further in price with the release of the R1 and R5II, I could see grabbing one to replace my R6 and picking up an R5 for some high resolution work.

Brian

Aug 15, 2023 at 10:27 AM

artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · One big purchase opportunity, what would you choose?

Richard-BB wrote:
CANON R3 most impressive camera in terms of original design; especially at new lower price?

The R3 is a nice camera but not nearly worth it's retail price. If they were priced closer to $4K that would make sense now with the release of the Z8. This is a fairly decent price for a brand new R3 at $4500, but no way are they worth more than that at the much higher retail price:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1819835/0?keyword=R3#16310960

Aug 15, 2023 at 10:50 AM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end

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