« on: March 10, 2014, 08:43:42 AM »
As someone else wrote, it would be more sensible to have discussion on the 300 vs the 200-400 as they overlap in focal length and the 600mm is for a different purpose. I made the decision to buy the 300mm f/2.8 II plus extenders because I care about both IQ and weight.
There is very little to choose between them in IQ. But, the 300 weighs 1.27 kg (2.8 lb) less. At 300mm it gives a stop wider aperture and better IQ at f/2.8 than the 200-400 at f/4 – see:
At 420mm and f/4 it is nearly as good as the 200-400mm at f/4.
At 600mm, it is slightly better than the 200-400 at 560mm with the in-built TC at f/5.6.
Whereas I would never use the 200-400, I could see myself using the 600 with a 1.4xTC on the rare occasion I wanted to sit in a hide for a day, not too far from my car. So, I would take up the offer on a free 600mm.
You can go on a hike with your arm wrenching 200-400 while I will jauntily carry my 300mm as I am more concerned with celeris than ceteris.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The 300 is a truly amazing lens but it cannot really be compared to the 200-400 X 1.4.
People tend to buy the 300 first as a big white as it is the cheapest of the lot. The difference in price between the 300 and the 400 is pretty big, and from memory the 200-400 1.4X is a bit more on that.
So the comparison between the 200-400 (560) and the 600 is perfectly valid. And remember extenders can still be added to them both.
I frequently use the 400 and while I love the 300, they are both for very different uses.