Canon 200-400/1.4x vs. 600/4 II

[TrumpetPower!]

Why not the 600mm II and pick up a 100-400mm f/5.6 for baseball, zoo, etc...?

I like this suggestion.

Also, I'm compelled to point out that the 400 f/2.8 makes an awesome zoo lens. Maybe the 200-400 would be better, but I simply can't believe how much fun I've had with the 400 f/2.8 at the zoo.

Cheers,

b&

[briansquibb]

I have both the 400f/2.8 and the 600 f/4.

- they are both about the same weight
- the 400 is easier to take hand held shots due to the focal length and length of the lens
- both are awesome lens
- both work well with a 1.4

Realistically both should be used on a gimbal if going to be used for any length of time

I had a quick go with the 200-400 at a show - seems to be at least as heavy as the 300 f/2.8 so not exactly a lightweight, walkabout option. There are none to be had in the shops yet

[danski0224]

I photograph birds almost every day. It's my passion and part-time profession. At least 80% of the time I am shooting 840mm (600+1.4x). The 200-400 is an interesting lens, but 560mm @ f/5.6 doesn't cut it for me.

Also, I have personally tried the 400mm f/2.8 II lens with a 2x III TC and its autofocus is too slow for me. Yes, it will work and it is incredibly sharp. Sharpness is not an issue with that combo, but autofocus acquisition speed is noticeably slower.

Why not the 600mm II and pick up a 100-400mm f/5.6 for baseball, zoo, etc...?

How much slower is the 400 + 2x vs 600 + 1.4x?

I don't have either lens or TC.

[kirispupis]

This is very good to know. I have a feeling I may end up going for the 600/4, because AF is certainly a concern for me.  I would be curious to hear your results from using the 400/2.8 II + 2x III on either a 5D3 or 1DX.  I have noticed that the AF with my 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III is a bit quicker on my 5D3 than it was on my 7D.  I still would not call it quick by any means - but it is quick enough where I feel birds in flight may be a possibility.

[briansquibb]

Greenfinch taken with 1D4 and 600 this afternoon. Bird is about 5 inches long including tail

1/400, f/8, iso 400 (on gimbal) Just cropped and levels adjusted a little - nice bg blur from this lens

[FarQinell]

Just a gut feeling that the 600/4 will be significantly sharper than 560 on the new zoom.

Another gut feeling is that you will need to stop down the 560 perhaps to f8 to get the sharpness of the 600 wide open. If that turns out to be the case it will mean that the whole design concept is wrong.

Price wise they will be comparable but I guess the new 600/4 will still be 50% heavier than the 200-400.

If the new zoom concept works than perhaps future 500/4s and 600/4s could all have an integral TC rather than having to rely on the bog standard TC as you do now?

All will be revealed in a couple of months!

[Wass]

I would say definitely the 200-400 1.4x. I went on safari in Botswana and had a 300mm 2.8 with a 1.4x TC. There were times that was too long and I had to try to quickly take the TC off.  I think especially for safari and wildlife, you will have way too many times where the 200 end of your 70-200 is too short and the 600 is way too long. The 200-400 1.4x will give so much more flexibility.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Still, most of my bird photography is not done on vacation but is done almost every day.  My office is within walking distance of an area that has quite a few birds and I take walks there every day during lunch.  Therefore, whichever lens I pick up will likely be used at least twice a week.

Ok, I can't imagine you taking either of these lenses to work twice a week, especially the 600/4.  I think the 400/5.6 might be lighter, add the 1.4 tc or 2.0tc and boom.  Plus you have the 70-200.

+1.  That was exactly my thought.  Getting one out and setup would take your lunch hour.  I sold my 600mm f/4 because it became a big expedition to haul it around and use it.
 

 
 

[briansquibb]

The 600 is lighter than the 400f/2.8 so I often handhold it especially in strong light when shooting at 1/1000 or higher