Going beyond 600mm

Thanks to everyone for chipping in.

For the record I'm Denmark so neither US nor the UK. However, buying from a EU country (UK still applies, although Jersey/Guernsey doesn't) would be an option.

arbitrage: The reason for considering the 100-400/II was simply from a point of cost and just wondering if it at all was an option. Seems the answer is pretty much a "no".
The 800's MFD of 6m doesn't scare me - I'll be 20-30m from the racetrack anyway, although it is widely reported that the 600/II + 1.4x TC combo is superior to the 800mm (which hasn't got the Mk II treatment yet).

rancho_runner: for reminding me of the 500mm II. It's significantly less expensive than the 600/II (72K vs 94K; $10K/$12K6; £8K4/£11K).

The 400 DO +2x TC and a possible 600 DO x 1.4x TC would definitely be interesting options too.

Steve Balcome: the money saved by going 500mm vs 600mm would more likely go towards upgrading the (used) 1DX to a 1DX2 than for a 5D4.

I've found that a pro shop actually have the 600mm as rental, so I'm leaving towards renting it at least as a try-out so I can delay selling the kidney. Rental looks like to be ~2700DKK ($385/£320/€365) for Thursday-Monday morning.
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 91053

Guest
kaihp said:
The 800's MFD of 6m doesn't scare me - I'll be 20-30m from the racetrack anyway, although it is widely reported that the 600/II + 1.4x TC combo is superior to the 800mm (which hasn't got the Mk II treatment yet).

I do find that the MFD on my Canon 800mm can be a little awkward at times but a 21mm extension tube is enough to sort this out.

I did try the 600 Mk2 + 1.4 extender - very good indeed but I am not certain that it was any better than my 800. Like you, I have read that the 600 + 1.4 Mk3 is better - I just didn't see it in a side by side comparison. However the fact that the 600 Mk2 + 1.4 was at least as good as the 800 bare speaks volumes for the quality of this lens!

Some of the "Mk 2" treatment is in the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, it is a sort of a Mk1 1/2 lens. It is much sharper and proportionately much lighter than the 600 F4 L IS that I had, but it still has the protective front element and some of the extra weight of the earlier construction.

The 600 Mk2 is definitely a better lens, especially with the very latest cameras, but it is much more expensive!
I want one......
 
Upvote 0
johnf3f said:
kaihp said:
The 800's MFD of 6m doesn't scare me - I'll be 20-30m from the racetrack anyway, although it is widely reported that the 600/II + 1.4x TC combo is superior to the 800mm (which hasn't got the Mk II treatment yet).

I do find that the MFD on my Canon 800mm can be a little awkward at times but a 21mm extension tube is enough to sort this out.

I did try the 600 Mk2 + 1.4 extender - very good indeed but I am not certain that it was any better than my 800. Like you, I have read that the 600 + 1.4 Mk3 is better - I just didn't see it in a side by side comparison. However the fact that the 600 Mk2 + 1.4 was at least as good as the 800 bare speaks volumes for the quality of this lens!

Some of the "Mk 2" treatment is in the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, it is a sort of a Mk1 1/2 lens. It is much sharper and proportionately much lighter than the 600 F4 L IS that I had, but it still has the protective front element and some of the extra weight of the earlier construction.

The 600 Mk2 is definitely a better lens, especially with the very latest cameras, but it is much more expensive!
I want one......

I think the main advantage of the 600+1.4 combination is flexibility - it's gives 600 and 840 (and 1200 with the 2x), whereas the 800 is just an 800 (and will only autofocus with the 1.4). I agree with you though inasmuch as I think the 800 is dismissed too readily on these forums. I know a guy who uses it and produces wonderful results, including handheld. If money was no object, I'd love one... :)
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
My latest purchase made under some duress because it's an amount I'd never have dreamed poor old me would spend on camera gear, was the 1DX II and the 400 DO II. While I have lingering regrets that I couldn't get a 1DX II with 5D4 resolution, I have not a hint of doubt about the 400 choice and the 800 it gives me.

Virtually everything about what I now have is very similar to my very enjoyable three years hiking with 6D, 300 2.8 II X2 III except I now get to 800 with wonderfully snappy AF. As much as the 600 is a super lens I would never choose it for portability (the 500.... also just a tad heavy).

My feeling is that for smaller birds given their typical approachability, FF with 800 is fine and an awful lot better than 600 in a fair number of situations. Previously 300 and 420 were sparsely used. I'll likely sell the 300 since the 70-200 2.8 II X 1.4III can serve as my alternative to it.

Jack
 
Upvote 0

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
283
223
kaihp said:
Steve Balcome: the money saved by going 500mm vs 600mm would more likely go towards upgrading the (used) 1DX to a 1DX2 than for a 5D4.

Funnily enough I thought that as I was replying, but it's always easy to spend other people's money! Also my argument was partly based on having 30 MP to play with, so it doesn't work quite as well with the 1DX2.
 
Upvote 0
Steve Balcombe said:
kaihp said:
Steve Balcome: the money saved by going 500mm vs 600mm would more likely go towards upgrading the (used) 1DX to a 1DX2 than for a 5D4.

Funnily enough I thought that as I was replying, but it's always easy to spend other people's money! Also my argument was partly based on having 30 MP to play with, so it doesn't work quite as well with the 1DX2.

It's always easier (even if not quite as fun) to spend Other Peoples' MoneyTM ;D

My reasoning for upgrading the 1DX over the 5D4 is that I don't feel I'm missing Mpixels nor DR. For me, the AF speed and accuracy has a higher value than Mpixels. I had struggled with getting the 5D3 AF to work as I liked and found an immediate and significant jump in keeper rate when I used the 1DX. Viggo's recent report about the 1DX2 AF being a (big) step up from the 1DX was very interesting to me!
 
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
I have been contemplating the 1Dx v 1Dx2 vs 5D4 question myself and have spent considerable time reading in-depth reviews and talking to people with experience of both. I have rented the 1Dx2 but not used the 1Dx and the general idea I get is that the 1Dx2 is a 'significant' step up if you are already pushing a model like the 1Dx to its limit: the 1Dx2 provides about 1-stop better ISO performance, it drives big whites+extender better. If those will overcome limited focal length then fair enough. You already have the 1Dx so you are the best judge as to whether the 1Dx2 will offer more opportunities for you, but given the tenor of your original post it seems focal length is now your main concern, not AF accuracy, and the 1Dx2 will not solve that.

In your OP you say
I find shooting either distant wildlife (mainly deer) or motorcycle racing and coming up wanting to have more reach than I have today.
Yet you are now talking about upgrading the 5D3 so I would ask whether you really know what problem you are trying to solve. The 500 f4LISII plus tc plus 1dx2 will give you more reach and higher keeper rate - but that is no good if your current porfolio shows you need 600-840mm instead of 500-700mm.
If you are wanting to handhold the lens a lot then the 500mm makes far more sense.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
Mikehit said:
I have been contemplating the 1Dx v 1Dx2 vs 5D4 question myself and have spent considerable time reading in-depth reviews and talking to people with experience of both. I have rented the 1Dx2 but not used the 1Dx and the general idea I get is that the 1Dx2 is a 'significant' step up if you are already pushing a model like the 1Dx to its limit: the 1Dx2 provides about 1-stop better ISO performance, it drives big whites+extender better. If those will overcome limited focal length then fair enough. You already have the 1Dx so you are the best judge as to whether the 1Dx2 will offer more opportunities for you, but given the tenor of your original post it seems focal length is now your main concern, not AF accuracy, and the 1Dx2 will not solve that.

In your OP you say
I find shooting either distant wildlife (mainly deer) or motorcycle racing and coming up wanting to have more reach than I have today.
Yet you are now talking about upgrading the 5D3 so I would ask whether you really know what problem you are trying to solve. The 500 f4LISII plus tc plus 1dx2 will give you more reach and higher keeper rate - but that is no good if your current porfolio shows you need 600-840mm instead of 500-700mm.
If you are wanting to handhold the lens a lot then the 500mm makes far more sense.

I know about all this. After a few days of pondering, your head just swims and any choice is rational.... and probably any choice is perfectly satisfactory, provided you're not inflicted.....

Jack
 
Upvote 0
Mikehit said:
In your OP you say
I find shooting either distant wildlife (mainly deer) or motorcycle racing and coming up wanting to have more reach than I have today.
Yet you are now talking about upgrading the 5D3 so I would ask whether you really know what problem you are trying to solve. The 500 f4LISII plus tc plus 1dx2 will give you more reach and higher keeper rate - but that is no good if your current porfolio shows you need 600-840mm instead of 500-700mm.
If you are wanting to handhold the lens a lot then the 500mm makes far more sense.

The comment about upgrading the body was in relation to Steve's suggestion to go for the 500mm over the 60mm, and then use the saved money to upgrade the 5D3 to a 5D4 (in part to get f/8 focusing on all AF points). My point to him was that I was probably more likely to want to upgrade the 1DX to a 1DX2, than the 5D3 to a 5D4. That still holds.

Handhold-ability is less relevant for the purposes I'm looking at. With the distant deer, a tripod+gimbal is fine. When shooting roadracing you use a monopod attached to a "flagpole pocket" so the weight goes through the belt around your waist. This allows you to rotate quite freely when panning as the riders go by.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
Thanks for clarifying, kaihp.
I would have a look at the exif data on the pictures and see how many photos were pushing the focal length of the kit you have. It can be quite surprising when you compare what you think you shoot with what you do shoot. I find a lust of the longer lenses (longer than the 400 DO that I own) comes from frustration on a relatively small number of occasions and it sort of puts the lust into perspective. Also, do you need to go much greater than 600mm or is the 2x tc affecting AF/tracking whereas a f4 big white will be more reliable?

Arash Hazhegi did an excellent review of the 1Dx2 for photographing raptors in flight and his comment was that it drives big whites with the 2x converter much better than did the 1Dx. So I would concentrate on the 1.4x with the 2x as 'emergency cover'.

So looking at the exif data (and the amount of cropping you do), if you are borderline on the focal length then the 500+1.4tc will probably give you enough reach and you have the 2xtc to add a bit more if needed.
 
Upvote 0
Mikehit said:
Thanks for clarifying, kaihp.
I would have a look at the exif data on the pictures and see how many photos were pushing the focal length of the kit you have. It can be quite surprising when you compare what you think you shoot with what you do shoot. I find a lust of the longer lenses (longer than the 400 DO that I own) comes from frustration on a relatively small number of occasions and it sort of puts the lust into perspective. Also, do you need to go much greater than 600mm or is the 2x tc affecting AF/tracking whereas a f4 big white will be more reliable?

Cool logic should definitely decide this. This is why my plan is to rent the 600/4L for the next time I'm going to a MotoGP race (so far planning on doing the AssenTT again this year).
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 91053

Guest
The longest I have used is my 800 F5.6 L IS + 2 x Mk3 and 7D2, gives 1600mm with a field of view of 2560. Hated the manual focus/live view focus but it was quite a bright day so I didn't have to use IS. The "Concrete" tripod was a Gitzo 3530LS - hardly a biggie!

Due to a recent Gitzo 50% off sale I now have a nice new 4542LS - bit heavier but what about a 3 x extender ;D
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
Gman said:
Jack, the tripod is actually the weakest link in the setup. Optically stunning at 48x. We're expecting rain. I'll be out at 670 yards on rooftop (law enforcement approved). If it works out, I'll consider posting an image.

Do post. Here in Canada your new president gets lots of notice! My wife never misses the latest on CNN and now she even has me watching instead of Just For Laughs, Gags. ;)

Jack
 
Upvote 0