Long Range L Choices

[Wilmark]

Is any of you aware of real field comparisons of the 600 II vs the 400 II + 1.4x and 600 II +1.4x vs 400 II +2.0x. I would be really interested to read about that.
Best!

I think we are in the same boat Vossie. Dreaming of A White... I hope Santa is Kind enough this year... But i agree that a field comparison of these new options is what we need. I have recently criticized Bryans (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/) methods of reviewing lenses elsewhere because he does not identify differences when we are faced with when there are similar choices. And he is the only guy that i think that could do this comparison. DPREview is an absolute waste these days and only good for news and general announcements. They never review serious stuff, look how they messed up the D800, 5Dmkiii reviews. Youtube and other sites did far better reviews. And they recently gave Nokia Symbian Pure View 41 MP phone with a ridiculously low res screen - we are talking about 4 yrs old tech the GOLD AWARD, I dont trust them anymore. We should find a way to get Bryan to do this comparison. I would like to hear how these options perform relative to each other at both their native FL and with the extended lengths, maybe with pics of birds etc. I know that its best to have the max focal length you need natively. But that 400 2.8 options is mighty tempting. And could be used in applications outside sports and birding. I think I want to see some real world examples of this lens with 1.4 and 2x teles. There are non of these in my country (Trinidad & Tobago) that i know of so i cant rent or borrow.

[Minnesota Nice]

I've used the 100-400 a few times and I love it, if you aren't a fan of the push/pull zoom type then obviously it's not for you.

But it's a great lens, snappy focusing and the build is ridiculously good.  I actually thought it was pretty compact as well which is a plus for me.  It wasn't too heavy to do some hand held shooting for extended periods.

[canon816]

In this respect the 400+T/C's would give more flexibility and thanks to it's faster aperture you can almost reach the same length as with the 600/4 (840@5.6 vs 800@5.6). The 200-400 for my purposes is less interesting as it cannot be 'Extended' to 800 with working AF (besides I already have the 100-400).

In my experience 2.0x converters really degrade images.  I sold mine because I could consistently shoot without a TC, crop an image in post and have a higher quality image then using a 2.0x converter. 

My 1.4x works well on a couple of my lenses (300f2.8 and 70-200f4) but does not work well on my 600f4.

I used several 2.0x converters both version II and III on my 300f2.8 (arguable canon's sharpest lens) and the images all looked very very soft.  I would be willing to bet that a 600+1.4x will knock the socks off a 400+2.0x.

Honestly, I think there is a lot of variability between copies of canon TC's.  Just make sure you get a good copy and you will be able to get decent results.  A bad copy.... and it really does an awful number on IQ.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I would forget about the sigmonster.

I would forget the 600mm since you need dual sports and widlife duty (although for wildlife only, it would be the one for sure, but for sports it will be kinda long for some stuff and not flexible enough as a one lens for all solution).

So that leaves 400 2.8 (+TC for wildlife). Or 300 2.8 + TC 1.4x + TC 2 set if you are more value and light weight
Or 200-400, it's only f/4 but that still might be ok, depending.

none of these are exactly value conscious 

all the canon's take tc 1.4x very well and they handle 2x ok too although you won't get full on magic IQ with the 2x on, the new II might handle it a bit better, but you can still match like a tamron 70-300 wide open sort of quality with the 2x tc on the amrk i super tele, which is more than usable

I am thinking about a long L series telephoto. My interest is action sports and birding. I am a value conscious buyer.

Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM (+teleconv)
Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X (when it becomes available)
OR Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 EX DG APO IF HSM (sigmonster)

I am looking for long term use and value in the purchase. I know at least one of the items in the list has not been released yet but apparently there are lot of people previewing it. How does the Sigmonster compare with the Canon L brethren? Considering that its about half the price (well OK not quite half), both from a usage standpoint (speed of focusing, weight, zoom etc) and from IQ. Which one of the Canon is the best choice, Would the 400 F2.8 + 1.4X Converter (not the zoom) be a near match for the 600mm F4? Because if its close, then the 400 F2.8 may be the better choice as it give you the 400mm F2.8 which is a sweet combo for many options, including sports. Whats your opinion? Especially if you'd had any experience with these guys? I plan to use it with a 5DMkIII in the first instance?

[M.ST]

If you have only the money for one supertelephoto get the EF 400 2.8 II and both latest teleconverters.

If your profession is the wildlife photography or u want to shoot far away castles or landmarks get the EF 600 4 II with both tc´s.

[AJ]

Be sure to add Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS to your shortlist.  Shoot the lens as-is for sports, and add a teleconverter for small birds (get the best converter money can buy.  No point skimping here)

[hendrik-sg]

I have been in south africa with the 300 2.8 IS 1 and 2xIII and changed the camera from 50d to 5dII as needed, together with a 70-200 4 IS and some more stuff.

This was a good choice of equipment, because it is still hand-holdable and transportable. I had to wear all this equipment with tripod on my back, and i couldn't imagine to wear more than one big white. Yes sometimes more reach would have been better, and yes with the 2x i couldn't manage to get BiF because AF is to slow.

But transportability is everything, what's the use of a 400 2.8 which gets stolen in the hotel, or what helps the best stuff if you couldn't get to your spot with it? So you must find your compromise and for sure you will know the best compromise when you are back from the trip and know whats opportunities you had.

and one more tip: i would not take a long lens without IS, so often you have no time for the tripod or no possibility for it if you can not leave the car for example. 960mm FF equivalent are very unforgiving even with IS. There the new generation long lenses with the newer IS would be much better than the previous generation.

[tron]

I am an amateur so I am not sure if I can offer much of an advise. So with that in mind, I would prefer to have an EF500mm f/4L IS II.

It is one of the lightest white ones (the 300mm excluded...), almost as long as a 600mm and a little cheaper too.

I would add the 2 teleconverters (EX1.4X III and EF2.0X III) and ... a 1DMarkIV to take advantage of both the 1.3 crop factor and f/8 focusing.

[canon816]

You could always go big...  The Canon 1200mm comes to mind.  You might need the hulk to help you lug your gear.  (Just thought I would lighten it up for a sec.  Sorry it's not constructive to the thread.... ) 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[bdunbar79]

You could always go big...  The Canon 1200mm comes to mind.  You might need the hulk to help you lug your gear.  (Just thought I would lighten it up for a sec.  Sorry it's not constructive to the thread.... ) 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

Strap that to your back in the wilderness of Africa.  Wouldn't it be cool to do 400 yard macro work?

[Wilmark]

Have found the reviews on BH to be pretty helpful esp for the 400 F2.8II. It appears for the 13 reviews there that there is quite decent performance with the 1.5x Telli and the 2x slows down the AF too much for BIF. So you are looking at about 560mm useful range with the 400-2.8II.

[tron]

Have found the reviews on BH to be pretty helpful esp for the 400 F2.8II. It appears for the 13 reviews there that there is quite decent performance with the 1.5x Telli and the 2x slows down the AF too much for BIF. So you are looking at about 560mm useful range with the 400-2.8II.

In that case a 500mm f/4L IS II is a much better choice...

[Wilmark]

@ Tron. You might be right. The 500 may still be good for sports and action. And good  for birding as is and with a 1.4x telli.