December 20, 2014, 07:31:43 AM

Author Topic: I've started shopping for Great whites... and I mean great... someone stop me.  (Read 11176 times)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1726
    • View Profile
I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

I request you to reconsider. 'Make sense' is subjective. To me, spending a little money on doing creative things that makes one happy makes sense. Life is short, we should do what we can.

canon rumors FORUM


jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • View Profile
Judging from who is answering here, you are sunk.

My prediction, along with sugar plumb fairies dancing in your head, you will be dreaming of clicking "check out now" on B & H tomorrow morning.

I'm thinking 1DX personally, however that's me.  Tell us which one you buy.

sek
I've bought the. 200-400 before, just to see how it felt.... but I didn't give a valid form of payment.  So I got a taste of the shipping experience, but neither the reward or the dirty looks from the wife.

Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • View Profile
I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

I did net fifteen bucks the other day from selling a print... So yeah... buy it now.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • View Profile
I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad." 

I remember fondly when I spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 and I thought that was a lot of money... I'm off to bed... this bug will surely pass before I wake.

honestly i was seriously looking at the 200-400 but could not justify the price then i decided the tamron 150-600 was so cheap it was worth a shot for my limited usage its gold while it definitely cant hold a candle to the 200-400 its still impressive and worth a look if you are in a similar situation

Thanks.  When I played golf I didn't want my gear to be the reason I didn't break par... So I bought good gear, let's say comparable to a 7d, and then my only excise for not breaking par was on me.  I have a similar attitude with my photo gear... So I'm not sure I can go downthat route... but I'm pretty sure I can hold off on getting a great white until it is warranted.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4366
    • View Profile
I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

Not everyone here doing photography for living. The enjoyment holding, feeling, shooting the BIG WHITE is priceless. The excitement when you lock on BIF through view finder through BIG WHITE is something I can't describe.

I bought my 400mm f2.8 IS II NEW ($10,500)from Canon US authoutrized dealer about year ago. If you look at the price today: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732109-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html
Bodies: 1DX -- 5D III
Zooms: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Primes: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Spectrum

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
First time poster, long time reader.  Glad to be here...

GAS is chronic and incurable.  All you can do is hope that therapy will put it into remission.  I have found that buying that big ticket item works wonders for GAS for a while--at least six months or more in remission after purchase.  But it will eventually come back...
1DX, 5DIII, lenses big and small, far and wide

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3048
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
but I'm pretty sure I can hold off on getting a great white until it is warranted.
Good luck with your affliction ;D.  Also, here's a recent review of the 200-400 by Bob Atkins and the quote below sums up why I bought the 300 f/2.8 IS II, which with the extenders and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (which I already had), is so versatile:

"Well, for $11,700 you could buy a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, a 1.4x III extender, and a 2x III extender and still have $1700 in your pocket! Of course with 2 lenses and two extenders you’ve a lot more gear to haul around and you don’t have as much telephoto zoom capability, but you do have a faster 300mm lens and you do have 70-200mm (at f2.8) covered too."

canon rumors FORUM


neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15215
    • View Profile
I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

I request you to reconsider. 'Make sense' is subjective. To me, spending a little money on doing creative things that makes one happy makes sense. Life is short, we should do what we can.

+1

Justifying a 'great white' from a business standpoint would be a bit challenging.  Wildlife and freelance sports shooters would need to be at the top of their field for revenues to balance an expense like that (most white lenses at events aren't owned by individuals), and if a purchase can't pay for itself it's poor business practice to spend the money.

But for a hobby, there's no need to justify...as long as one can afford it.   :)

FWIW, the 300/2.8 II is next on my list.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • View Profile
Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L?  I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present.  I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii. 

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

tomscott

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 652
  • Graphic Designer & Photographer
    • View Profile
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Have you tried your 70-200mm with 2x MKIII?

Try it out first before hand you may surprise yourself at how good it is! Certainly did for me.

The most challenging thing is keeping the bird in frame with a prime its even more difficult if its flying toward you. With the zoom my technique is to track the bird at 70mm (140mm with the 2x) then as its coming toward you zoom into 400mm or what ever tele you need to try to fill the frame. Its a lot easier but obviously you loose a little AF speed canon quote 75% but I think this is worst case scenario from digital picture review he explains how the AF speed isn't really an issue with MKII lenses and MKIII extenders. I didn't have any trouble following Puffins and they are quick and unpredictable.

Next on my list is a MKIII extender I think :)
5D MKIII 40D 17-55mm F2.8 IS 16-35mm F2.8 II L 24-70mm F2.8 L 24-105mm F4 IS L 100mm F2.8 IS L 70-200mm F2.8 IS II L 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS L 50mm F1.8 2x Ex 580EX

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3048
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L?  I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present.  I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii. 

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.
I don't think you can go wrong with either, but I prefer the smaller size and (mostly) handholdable weight of the 300mm.  The price is a little better, too ;)  And yes, the 70-200 f/2.8, 98-280 f/4, 140-400 f/5.6, 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6 are rather nice for anything other than distant critters and little birds. 

Also, to mirror Neuro's comment, the 600 f/4 II is on my list 8)

Pieces Of E

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
  • Canon owners and operators
    • View Profile
    • Pieces Of E, LLC
jdramirez, if that kinda money is no object, then your dreams are like most of us, only for us, they remain just dreams. Happy shopping and enjoy the investment!
EOS 7D, BG-E7, EF 300L IS f4, EF 100L IS f2.8 macro, EF 24-105L IS f4 , EF 1.4 extender MKIII, EF-S 10-22 f3.5-5.6, 70-200L IS f2.8 II, EOS-M, 22 f2 STM, EF-S 18-135 IS STM, EF 85 f1.8

rs

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 694
    • View Profile
Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L?  I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present.  I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii. 

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.

Which lens to go for really depends on budget, long term plans, and shooting style.

The 70-200 II works so well with 1.4x TC's that it can almost render the bare 300/2.8 II pointless for anything but wider than f4 shots. Obviously the sharpness, bokeh and AF speed take a step up, but it's not like they're lacking on the 70-200 II. However, once the 300 II is combined with a TC, the 300 gains a very real advantage.

Therefore, if you go by the adage that you should buy the lens whose native length is what you primarily intend to shoot with, you could argue that the 400 II makes more sense to pair with a 70-200 II as the only big white in your kit.

The 200-400 on the other hand buys you flexibility. It does next to nothing the 70-200 and 300 together with a selection of TC's does, other than allow you to go from 200 to 560 without any messing about with lens changes and adding/removing TC's, and save you a little bit of bulk to lug around. Looking at it the other way, the 70-200, 300 and TC combo does give you an extra stop at 200mm and 300mm, options wider than 200mm, and slightly more reach at f5.6, together of course with a lot of spare change.

Compare the 200-400 to the 400 II, and the cost gap narrows while the prime advantage widens (f4 at 280mm with both, but one stop faster at 200, 400 and all subsequent telephoto lengths).

If I was somehow in your financial position, I'd be torn between the 200-400 and the 400 II.
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

canon rumors FORUM


tomscott

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 652
  • Graphic Designer & Photographer
    • View Profile
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Weight is a big issue too.

400mm F2.8 MKII is 3850g
200-400mm F4 1.4 is 3620g

300mm F2.8 MKII is 2350g

1500g less than the 400mm and 1270g less than the 200-400mm

Add a 5DMKIII 860g
or a 1DX 1530g

teleconverters
2x MKIII 325g
1.4x MKIII 225g

The 300mm in this respect wins big with weight and size, and doesn't suffer too badly in IQ, but AF is reduced.

Tough one. The 200-400mm is the all in one field lens, it near enough matches the 400mm F2.8 II at F4.

The dark horse is still the 400mm F5.6

Its only 1250g and out-resolves the 300mm F2.8 at 420mm at 5.6, almost matches the 400mm F2.8 MKII at 5.6.

It is also £4000 cheaper than the 300mm and £5,500 cheaper than the 400mm. Thats pretty much a no brainier for most. Only problem is putting tele converters on it makes it a 560mm F8 or 800mm F11.

Saying that the 400mm F5.6 with 1.4 MKIII converter outperforms the 400mm F2.8 IS MKII at 560 at F8 in the corners and is only very very slightly softer in the centre. Almost indistinguishable.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

But it will still focus like an F4 lens rather than the speed of F8.

A 400mm F5.6 IS would be a beast, even better the lens I crave 400mm F4 IS NON DO.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 11:07:48 AM by tomscott »
5D MKIII 40D 17-55mm F2.8 IS 16-35mm F2.8 II L 24-70mm F2.8 L 24-105mm F4 IS L 100mm F2.8 IS L 70-200mm F2.8 IS II L 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS L 50mm F1.8 2x Ex 580EX

AcutancePhotography

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1202
    • View Profile
I guess these are the problems you want in life.   ;D ;D
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

canon rumors FORUM