September 23, 2014, 12:49:02 PM

Author Topic: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife  (Read 10613 times)

bkorcel

  • Guest
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2012, 01:30:23 PM »
Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the 600 f4 IS with the MKII version with and without extenders?  From an IQ perspective, how much difference is there really (lighter weight and improved IS aside)?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2012, 01:30:23 PM »

canon816

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2012, 01:59:03 PM »
Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the 600 f4 IS with the MKII version with and without extenders?  From an IQ perspective, how much difference is there really (lighter weight and improved IS aside)?

Use this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=336&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14469
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2012, 02:08:57 PM »
Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the 600 f4 IS with the MKII version with and without extenders?  From an IQ perspective, how much difference is there really (lighter weight and improved IS aside)?

A lot.  The 600 II + 1.4xIII is better than the bare original 600/4 (and also better than the bare 800/5.6).  Even with the 2xIII, the new 600 II is very good.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Greatland

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2012, 04:09:38 PM »
I think that comparing the new 600 with the old one is a bit like sending someone to a gun fight with only a knife.  Yes the old 600 was an excellent lens.  The new 600 is, Lighter, better balanced, has improved glass, improved IS, and works better with the extenders with virtually nothing lost at all with the new 1.4 III extender..The only drawback is the price and if you want the best that money has to offer you pay the price!  For wildife bigger and longer is better and while I agonized over whether to purchase the 800, which I have rented from LensRentals, I opted for the 600 because of all of the aforementioned, including the fact that the weight difference between the 800 and the 600 is negligible and with the extender I get the 800....btw, I used the 800 with the 1.4 III extender on my Polar Bear trip in the Arctic back in July and there was a difference between the sharpness using the extender and not using the extender....I like to go BIG with many of my shots and I could not do that using the extender...that problem is solved with the new 600.....

Mick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
  • Wildlife, Landscape and above all sport.
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2012, 04:40:43 PM »
I bought he 500, arrived yesterday and as I've posted before, am he worlds biggest sceptic about upgrades. Whilst I know they cost a lot, I've done a few shots and as with the 70/200 I was blown away. I couldn't believe from the mtf there would be a differance. Well there is. It's unbelievably light. I can now handhold it easily. It's silent and even with the extender focus's very fast. It appears a bit sharper perhaps but it's the colours and contrast, vibrant and accurate that impress. It is a justified upgrade. As for the cost what I tell those who think I'm mad, remember, put your money in a bank and its looses money, buy a big white and you'll loose almost nothing in 5 years if you keep it in good condition. One point, it arrived with two lens foot, a longer attached one and a shorter one. Any idea why?
1DX, 1DMK4, 1DS3, 7D, 16-35 F2.8 mk2, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8 is L mk2, 500 f4 mk2, 300 f2.8 mk2 1x4 and 2x mk3 extenders.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14469
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2012, 04:59:31 PM »
One point, it arrived with two lens foot, a longer attached one and a shorter one. Any idea why?

The shorter one is a monopod foot. 

Should have mentioned in the other thread - I really like the RRS LCF-53 replacement foot, compared to the Canon foot with a Wimberley plate or the Kirk foot, which shares the swept-forward design of the stock foot. The RRS foot extends further back, so you can balance the lens on a gimbal with a TC attached. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dolina

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1008
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2012, 02:25:27 PM »
What carry on bag do you guys use for your wildlife setup?
Visit my Flickr, Facebook & 500px and see my photos. :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2012, 02:25:27 PM »

bkorcel

  • Guest
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2012, 05:10:07 PM »
Street Walker Pro if I'm going to be using the 300 2.8 a lot (Holds the lens with Camera attached).  I can even squeeze in a 24-70 and a couple of extenders.  You can use it to carry a 400 but I don't think you can with the camera attached.  You may only have room then for a couple of extenders in the case along with the detached body.

Tamrac 5793 for a 600mm or 500mm with camera attached.  Pockets can accommodate extenders but if you are packing a 600, you need to carry your extra bodies and smaller lenses in another carry on.

You need to check the carry on size restrictions with your airline.  However since these are backpacks and wearable you can take another rolling carry on and stow your backpack under the seat.  The Tamrac makes it kind of crowded down there but it's doable.

I'm against using the HUGE all in one rolling backpacks for air travel as you don't want to put all of your eggs (golden) in one basket even if you can carry it on.  They get extremely heavy and will likely get bumped around more.  I would rather use a backpack and a photo vest or coat with large pockets to store extra stuff.


What carry on bag do you guys use for your wildlife setup?

dolina

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1008
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2012, 06:04:52 PM »
Street Walker Pro if I'm going to be using the 300 2.8 a lot (Holds the lens with Camera attached).  I can even squeeze in a 24-70 and a couple of extenders.  You can use it to carry a 400 but I don't think you can with the camera attached.  You may only have room then for a couple of extenders in the case along with the detached body.

Tamrac 5793 for a 600mm or 500mm with camera attached.  Pockets can accommodate extenders but if you are packing a 600, you need to carry your extra bodies and smaller lenses in another carry on.

You need to check the carry on size restrictions with your airline.  However since these are backpacks and wearable you can take another rolling carry on and stow your backpack under the seat.  The Tamrac makes it kind of crowded down there but it's doable.

I'm against using the HUGE all in one rolling backpacks for air travel as you don't want to put all of your eggs (golden) in one basket even if you can carry it on.  They get extremely heavy and will likely get bumped around more.  I would rather use a backpack and a photo vest or coat with large pockets to store extra stuff.


What carry on bag do you guys use for your wildlife setup?

Thanks for pointing out the tamrack. This is what the Lowepro lens trekker 600 aw ii should have been.
Visit my Flickr, Facebook & 500px and see my photos. :)

Shizam

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2012, 06:17:42 PM »
I'm late to the party but having owned all three lenses with the intention of 'shooting wildlife' the 500mm is the no-brainer of the three, it really comes down to weight and the fact that you said 'wildlife' not 'birds'.

First lets take the 400mm off the list immediately, it weighs as much as the 600mm (8.6lbs) and has considerably less reach just to get 1 more f-stop of brightness, this is really a sports lens where you need that f2.8 aperture, not a nature/wildlife lens.

Now its the 500mm (7lbs) vs the 600mm (8.5lbs) for 'wildlife', lets say wildlife ranges in size from birds to moose and you'll generally want to travel reasonable distances on foot, you're going to rather have a 1.5lb lighter lens that allows you to travel further than that 20% closer crop.  Being able to travel that extra 1-3 miles is going to make more of a difference than that close crop.

Now, if you had said 'I want to shoot birds', it would be a different story, the 600mm lens is critical for shooting birds for two reasons: get 20% more resolution on the tiny details or allowing you to be 20% further from your subject so it doesn't up and fly away.  See my related answer here for more info http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/7942/1819

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2012, 06:17:42 PM »