« on: March 09, 2014, 12:04:32 AM »
If I had the money, I'd go with the 600II as well. It seems like you never have a long enough lens....I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200
I zoom with my feet. ;-)
I chose the 600 II when I bought a big lens. Would make the same choice today, especially given that it is just as good as the EF 800 f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC attached (840mm f/5.6) and has the option to use the 2x TC for 1200mm f/8.
You can zoom with your feet, but many time you can't because of terrain, water, or common sense (a 24mm lens and a grizzly bear are not a good combination). For those cases you either need a long lens or a bear-proof suit.
Indeed. I zoom with my feet while using one of Canon's longest lenses. The longest, when you factor in the 2x TC. My point was that there is no reason to get the 200-400, the 600 is longer in every case, and still just as flexible because, well, you can "zoom" with your feet.
Absolutely not true. There are a great many occasions where it is simply not possible to zoom with your feet.
- Most sports events
- Landscape photography where you can only take the shot from one spot
- Wildlife - where moving could scare away the animal, or where you are in a blind
- Closeup photography
The 600/II is a great lens, but which one to buy really depends on whether you are a birder or not. I absolutely agree that for birders the 600/II is more appropriate (the 600/I has far fewer advantages as the 200-400 is considerably sharper). However for most other purposes, including those above, the 200-400 wins out.