Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC

[AlanF]

The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

You can also check this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=2

Even a 100-400 L with the 1.4III extender is comparable with Tamron (just a little worse at the center but better at mid-frame and edges...)

I have tried the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC. The AF was awful. FoCal would not AFMA with it either.

[Dylan777]

Thanks for your thoughts guys. The poll shows 50/50, interesting.

Interesting, the poll still showing 50/50 between these two. And of course, the Tamron option

[tron]

I will tell you this: If you get the 200-400 you will still need the 600 

[Kestrel]

For my purposes (birding) the 600mm II is the clear choice.

[expatinasia]

No easy answer.Between the two, if I was into birding or need the distance etc I would choose the 600.

But as someone mentioned earlier once you have one of the two, you are very likely to want the other, eventually. In fact I think if you get the 200-400 you would want the 600 more, than if it were the other way round.

If it was for personal use (rather than professional use) and I was forced to choose, I would go for the 600.

[eml58]

To me the question is a bit odd. The 600mm is made for a totally different use than the 200-400. They are both exceptional lenses and outstanding for their use. When going on a trip, where I don´t bring both, it has not been difficult to choose which one to bring.

It would be more difficult to compare the 200-400 with the 300 f2.8L IS II, with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. The 300 is clearly less flexible, but it is smaller, it gives you exceptional IQ, AF speed and a stop advantage and also very good performance with the extenders. You also have significant money saved for something else.

It´s a substantial cost to get both the 200-400 and the 600, but it would have to be for something really exceptional if I were to part with any of them.

A agree Eldar, both these Lenses are a substantial investment for most that decide to buy either, or both, and one would imagine a serious amount of thought goes into that decision.

The 600f/4 is not your close in type Lens, it's uses are varied but going on CR and the many fine Images I've seen with the 600 exhibited here, Birders are the Lenses main stream users, followed by people like myself, Wild Life at a distance.

The 200-400f/4 is clearly more your closer in Lens, with the option to go out to 560 albeit at a small light disadvantage with f/5.6, More suited to your Wildlife/Sports Photographer.

If I'm heading to Open Plains style Geography, Serengeti, Mara etc, I would place the 600 +1.4x in the Bag first, the 200-400 second.

If I'm heading to Okavango Delta, South Africa, Timbavati, it's the 200-400 in the bag first with the 300f/2.8 second.

In my own Imaging if I had to choose just one Lens for 90% of my Imaging, it would be the 200-400.

[tron]

To me the question is a bit odd. The 600mm is made for a totally different use than the 200-400. They are both exceptional lenses and outstanding for their use. When going on a trip, where I don´t bring both, it has not been difficult to choose which one to bring.

It would be more difficult to compare the 200-400 with the 300 f2.8L IS II, with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. The 300 is clearly less flexible, but it is smaller, it gives you exceptional IQ, AF speed and a stop advantage and also very good performance with the extenders. You also have significant money saved for something else.

It´s a substantial cost to get both the 200-400 and the 600, but it would have to be for something really exceptional if I were to part with any of them.

A agree Eldar, both these Lenses are a substantial investment for most that decide to buy either, or both, and one would imagine a serious amount of thought goes into that decision.

The 600f/4 is not your close in type Lens, it's uses are varied but going on CR and the many fine Images I've seen with the 600 exhibited here, Birders are the Lenses main stream users, followed by people like myself, Wild Life at a distance.

The 200-400f/4 is clearly more your closer in Lens, with the option to go out to 560 albeit at a small light disadvantage with f/5.6, More suited to your Wildlife/Sports Photographer.

If I'm heading to Open Plains style Geography, Serengeti, Mara etc, I would place the 600 +1.4x in the Bag first, the 200-400 second.

If I'm heading to Okavango Delta, South Africa, Timbavati, it's the 200-400 in the bag first with the 300f/2.8 second.

In my own Imaging if I had to choose just one Lens for 90% of my Imaging, it would be the 200-400.

You are not making it easy for Dylan, in fact you will make him want both ... for starters. Then he will have to add the 300mm 2.8L IS II 

[tron]

Well I understand. I do have the 500mm f/4L IS II and maybe next year the though of 300mm f/2.8L IS II will start to cross my mind 

[kirispupis]

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.

If I had the money, I'd go with the 600II as well. It seems like you never have a long enough lens....

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.
https://www.nfb.ca/film/project_grizzly/

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.

[9VIII]

I voted for the 200-400.
1. I want an 800mm lens, not 600, and even then there's a chance the SX50HS successor will take better photos at an extreme distance.
2. I've had one or two encounters with wildlife that aren't a mile away recently (always while travelling without my camera, of course), and it would be a little disappointing to happen across a moose and only be able to take close-up shots of its face before it darts back into the bush.

Really a combination of the two (800 and 200-400) would be ideal.

[9VIII]

For $1000 instead of $12000, and a fraction of the weight, get the Tamron 150-600mm. Here is it compared at 200mm and 400mm with the Canon 200-400mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Very funny Alan

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

    At maximum focal length

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

Ahh, but everyone should know by now that the Tamron works best at f11. The image is actually decent, but the formula of value per dollar still revolves around available light.

I voted for the 200-400, simply because I don't shoot birds (or surfers). But I have no professional use for either of these lenses, and can't justify their prices for my hobby work.

(Somewhat off-topic, but no more so than the Tamron 150-600 posts) I own neither of these lenses (nor anything longer than 200mm, unless I slap in my 1.4x), but am waiting patiently for the successor to the Canon 100-400. Personally, I'm not a fan of zooms with more than a 3x range, and would like to see the 100-400 replaced by a 150- or 200-400 f/4.5-5.6, rather than a 100-400 II.

If there's any way they can improve IQ at the long end by taking away some of the range at the short end, that would be my preference as well. I wouldn't mind if it were a straight up constant aperture 200-400f5.6 either, as long as it has top of the line IS and IQ that rivals the old prime then it would be an amazing lens.

[Eldar]

You are not making it easy for Dylan, in fact you will make him want both ... for starters. Then he will have to add the 300mm 2.8L IS II 

He he; I told you so Dylan, that when you start on this route, by deciding to go for the 300, it might be a very expensive one. Then you upgraded to the 400/2.8, which, combined with the extenders, is a very flexible and high quality package, with better reach. But then you start thinking about the improved IQ at long reach with the 600 and the option of going all the way to 1200mm. And when you have done that (I assume you will ), you start thinking about the flexibility of the 200-400 or combining the 600 with the 300, which you just sold .... 

The Great Whites are very addictive and requires either fairly deep pockets to get a combo, or the ability to live with the limitations of just one of them

[KitsVancouver]

The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron.  Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10). 

[KitsVancouver]

I only shoot birds once a year (eagles) so I don't really need the reach that often.  I wanted to take photos of my 5 and 3 year old kids so I got the 200-400.  For anything other than birding (and some other niche things), I would think the 600 is too long. 

The lenses really are quite different. 

[trandzung]

I only shoot birds one a year (eagles) so I don't really need the reach that often.  I wanted to take photos of my 5 and 3 year old kids so I got the 200-400.  For anything other than birding (and some other niche things), I would think the 600 is too long. 

The lenses really are quite different. 

+1. I vote 200-400. I saving now...