Long telephotos
- Thread starter Act444
- Start date
Act444 said:
300 2.8 USM non-IS? Sometimes referred to as "VI".
300 2.8 USM with IS?
I think you will find that the weights of the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4 are pretty comparable. There is supposed to be very little drop in IQ with the 1.4x and a little more with 2x VIII teleconverters, and the VII IS lenses and the VIII TC's are designed to work together. You only have f/8 center point AF with the 2x TC attached.
Do not forget that the free Canon DPP software has lens optimization tools.
There also is a 500mm f/4.5 USM non-IS lens that is still extremely well regarded and lightweight.
None of the USM and non-IS big white lenses are serviceable by Canon and for all practical purposes, spare parts outside of cannibalizing another lens essentially do not exist. *If* you can deal with that, it is about the most inexpensive way to get into the big white club. You will need a camera body with AFMA to get the most out of these lenses as calibration by Canon is not an option.
Bear in mind that someday, the "VI" IS lenses will also be declared obsolete by Canon.
Upvote
0
Oops, my bad. It's the 1st IS version (the "300mm f2.8L IS USM").
That lens (which I was able to hold & shoot for a couple min) is 5.6 lbs while the 500 f/4 II is 7 lbs (according to TDP). 5.6 vs. 7...not an insignificant difference !
I'd rather stick to the version II (or current) models out there as I am thinking long-term.
Making me wonder if there is a carry bag/backpack that could fit one of these things (attached to a body) + another body with a lens, perhaps up to 70-200 2.8 size? This would be essential if I were to pick the 300...
That lens (which I was able to hold & shoot for a couple min) is 5.6 lbs while the 500 f/4 II is 7 lbs (according to TDP). 5.6 vs. 7...not an insignificant difference !
I'd rather stick to the version II (or current) models out there as I am thinking long-term.
Making me wonder if there is a carry bag/backpack that could fit one of these things (attached to a body) + another body with a lens, perhaps up to 70-200 2.8 size? This would be essential if I were to pick the 300...
Upvote
0
Act444 said:
I guess it depends on what you intend to take pictures of (300 vs 500) and whether or not you want to use an extender to get there. If the 300 doesn't cut it, then the weight difference is insignificant.
As far as backpacks go, there is the Lowepro Flipside 400AW, and there are many others. Whether or not the 300/500 lens hood will fit in there too is another matter.
Lenscoat is offering a collapsible fabric lens hood.
Upvote
0
I'm fortunate to have the 200 2.0, 300 2.8II, 100-400 II and 600 II + TC's in my kit, so perhaps my experience will be helpful. What I shoot = indoor sports, outdoor wildlife - strong avian interest, landscape at remote locations (backpacking). I think you are already debating the key issues - use of native focal length -vs- weight -vs- cost -vs- performance with TC's.
200 2.0 - I think you've ruled this out already, but if indoor sports is a strong interest, you might keep you eye open for a used one. I only use it w/o TC's and at 2.0 - and it is phenomenal for this application and portraits.
300 2.8II - I actually rarely use this at the native focal length b/c it is a little too long for the indoor sports I shoot (mostly volleyball), so it has become my 'walk around 600mm' w the 2XIII and low light large mammal wildlife lens. Amazing IQ but I probably don't use it as much since I got the 100-400, which works OK with the 1.4X, is more flexible (good for landscape while backpacking), and a little lighter package.
600 II - my most used wildlife lens. I have carried this one a long way on day hikes but it takes a toll on my back and shoulders. Pairs great w 1.4XIII and OK with 2XIII at f11. This is an expensive 'must have' if you really love avian photography (or at least belongs at the top of the 'if I win the lottery list'). I don't have a crop frame body, so can't compare the 300 + 2X on the 7D2 to this lens + TCs on 1Dx or 5DMKIII.
The new 400 DO looks very good, but I don't think I have a niche for it in my kit - unless I sold the 300 2.8 - this has crossed my mind. If you really want the most portable, longest tele in your price range, it sounds like the best choice.
200 2.0 - I think you've ruled this out already, but if indoor sports is a strong interest, you might keep you eye open for a used one. I only use it w/o TC's and at 2.0 - and it is phenomenal for this application and portraits.
300 2.8II - I actually rarely use this at the native focal length b/c it is a little too long for the indoor sports I shoot (mostly volleyball), so it has become my 'walk around 600mm' w the 2XIII and low light large mammal wildlife lens. Amazing IQ but I probably don't use it as much since I got the 100-400, which works OK with the 1.4X, is more flexible (good for landscape while backpacking), and a little lighter package.
600 II - my most used wildlife lens. I have carried this one a long way on day hikes but it takes a toll on my back and shoulders. Pairs great w 1.4XIII and OK with 2XIII at f11. This is an expensive 'must have' if you really love avian photography (or at least belongs at the top of the 'if I win the lottery list'). I don't have a crop frame body, so can't compare the 300 + 2X on the 7D2 to this lens + TCs on 1Dx or 5DMKIII.
The new 400 DO looks very good, but I don't think I have a niche for it in my kit - unless I sold the 300 2.8 - this has crossed my mind. If you really want the most portable, longest tele in your price range, it sounds like the best choice.
Upvote
0
^ Thanks very much for your insight, it's definitely helpful.
I have actually NOT ruled the 200 2.0 out completely - I do occasionally shoot dimly lit ice skating shows and typically the 70-200 gets the nod, although I did turn to the 135 f2 once when the lighting was just plain awful. The 200 would really be a dream here - mainly because I could use the 5D3 instead of the 7D2 for even better high ISO - but in most cases I'd probably pick the 70-200 for the increased flexibility.
I haven't really done BIF but I do try to get birds on the ground or in trees, rabbits, squirrels, whatever I can find around here. The 300mm end on the 70-300 just gets by on the 7D2, and often times the 5.6 has me at ISO 3200 or higher which kills detail. For this I was considering the 400 DO II (perhaps the favorite at the moment) and the 500 f/4 (literally the bleeding edge of my price range at CPW street value). However, the weight is also something I need to consider. I need to be able to carry it around without much struggle for a couple of hours at least.
Then there's the 300 2.8, the lens I basically have the least use for in terms of native focal length. However, IF I can figure out a way to carry it around in combination with another camera+lens, it wouldn't go unused - might end up taking it to a couple of events here and there (used with a 5D3). Not sure how useful it will be for my dabbles in animal photography though. I guess the extra 2 stops will help on the 7D2 but ultimately I'd rather have more reach. Again, going to come down to which realm of photography I value most.
Thanks for the info on the backpacks as well. I'll look into Lowepro - they have some good stuff. Looks like it may be a tight squeeze though for what I'm looking at. Most of those bags seem designed to hold one body mounted with lens and other bodies and lenses separately, while I'm looking for something that will fit two bodies WITH lenses mounted (and hoods). I suppose some compartments can be rearranged though.
I have actually NOT ruled the 200 2.0 out completely - I do occasionally shoot dimly lit ice skating shows and typically the 70-200 gets the nod, although I did turn to the 135 f2 once when the lighting was just plain awful. The 200 would really be a dream here - mainly because I could use the 5D3 instead of the 7D2 for even better high ISO - but in most cases I'd probably pick the 70-200 for the increased flexibility.
I haven't really done BIF but I do try to get birds on the ground or in trees, rabbits, squirrels, whatever I can find around here. The 300mm end on the 70-300 just gets by on the 7D2, and often times the 5.6 has me at ISO 3200 or higher which kills detail. For this I was considering the 400 DO II (perhaps the favorite at the moment) and the 500 f/4 (literally the bleeding edge of my price range at CPW street value). However, the weight is also something I need to consider. I need to be able to carry it around without much struggle for a couple of hours at least.
Then there's the 300 2.8, the lens I basically have the least use for in terms of native focal length. However, IF I can figure out a way to carry it around in combination with another camera+lens, it wouldn't go unused - might end up taking it to a couple of events here and there (used with a 5D3). Not sure how useful it will be for my dabbles in animal photography though. I guess the extra 2 stops will help on the 7D2 but ultimately I'd rather have more reach. Again, going to come down to which realm of photography I value most.
Thanks for the info on the backpacks as well. I'll look into Lowepro - they have some good stuff. Looks like it may be a tight squeeze though for what I'm looking at. Most of those bags seem designed to hold one body mounted with lens and other bodies and lenses separately, while I'm looking for something that will fit two bodies WITH lenses mounted (and hoods). I suppose some compartments can be rearranged though.
Upvote
0
That would be an awfully big backpack. I have the Lowepro 400 AW and it won't fit 2 bodies with the lenses, hoods and bodies as you describe.
I'd definitely look for something with a frame for weight distribution and support.
I'd definitely look for something with a frame for weight distribution and support.
Upvote
0
My big wish is for 600mm f/4 L IS II, a 5D3/4, ..... and for serious upper body muscle (for a small woman), for hand-held BIF. I have a bunch more exercising to do, still putzing with 10 and 12 pound weights. :-[ I would like to be up to 12 to 15 pound weights in an endurance rep sequence before I rent a Big Heavy White and Heavy Full-frame Camera (what, about 10 pounds combined).
No excuses, now that I see that a 92+ year old woman completed a full marathon in 7 hours.
No excuses, now that I see that a 92+ year old woman completed a full marathon in 7 hours.
Upvote
0
NancyP said:
good attitude!
And I don't want to be discouraging, so would also suggest a strong core and lower back for hand holding the 600. I have done this for BIF w the 1Dx mounted and while you can track so much better than the kit on a gimbal mount (b/c your eye is the rotation point instead of mid-lens), I find it tough on my back (and I lift fairly heavy weights regularly; 40-50 lbs dumbbells). Renting is a great idea. I rented the 500 II and 600 II, each for a week at the beach, and ultimately picked the 600 for the maximum reach. However, if you are really keen on handheld BIF, the little bit of weight difference (and less front-heavy) w the 500 might be your best choice.
Upvote
0
This review comparing the 500 and 600 basically tells me all I need to know as far as hand-holding these things goes. I'll pass on the 500 - I value portability. It was a nice thought though...and the 600 was always well out of earshot anyway.
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/03/02/comparing-the-canon-500mm-f4l-is-ii-and-the-canon-600mm-f4l-is-ii/
So ultimately it's the 300 2.8 II vs. 400 DO II - right back where I started, of course. Will add in a 1.4x extender either way. Also officially writing off the 2x, does not sound ideal.
I feel the 200 2.0 is probably going to be updated soon...and therefore will probably will pass on it this round but if I ever end up with one I might shoot for used or refurbished (or heavily discounted).
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/03/02/comparing-the-canon-500mm-f4l-is-ii-and-the-canon-600mm-f4l-is-ii/
So ultimately it's the 300 2.8 II vs. 400 DO II - right back where I started, of course. Will add in a 1.4x extender either way. Also officially writing off the 2x, does not sound ideal.
I feel the 200 2.0 is probably going to be updated soon...and therefore will probably will pass on it this round but if I ever end up with one I might shoot for used or refurbished (or heavily discounted).
Upvote
0
Act444 said:
Lots of people handhold the 500I or 500II (f/4) with great success. Do a web search. Yes, length of time spent handholding that lens probably varies- physical condition of the photographer matters. A monopod works too.
The 500 f/4.5 USM non-IS is lighter than the 500 f/4 and still gives you 500mm. That lens is also very highly regarded, even though it is obsolete and non-serviceable.
Portability is great, but if the portable lens is short, then what good is it?
Upvote
0
when hand holding long lenses, look for things to lean against to add stability.... like the side of a tree, car roof, railing, whatever.....
Upvote
0
johnf3f said:
I have the 500 mark II. It is a wonderful lens. For birds especially (in particular smaller ones, perched) it is faultless, and image quality is essentially unchanged in real world usage with the 1.4x extender. I don't find it too heavy, and I am not strong - it takes a little getting used to initially, but for instance I recently used it for 5+ hours hiking round a moderately hilly part of the countryside. However, the minimum focus distance is a bit long, and it is much less versatile for indoor use/portraiture, whereas the 200 f/2 or even 300 f/2.8 would be better. IS is top notch.
Upvote
0
I see. Cool, thanks for taking the time to show me (us)!
For me, the best compromise for getting to 500mm seems to be the 400 DO + 1.4x for a 560 5.6. On a 7D2 that should be a nice amount of reach. The appeal of the 500 was being able to use the 5D3 instead for an equivalent amount of reach and get FF quality.
Probably going to "pull the trigger" sometime later this month (not ready to do it now)...will continue to post thoughts/questions throughout my decision-making process. Thanks for all your help/patience!
For me, the best compromise for getting to 500mm seems to be the 400 DO + 1.4x for a 560 5.6. On a 7D2 that should be a nice amount of reach. The appeal of the 500 was being able to use the 5D3 instead for an equivalent amount of reach and get FF quality.
Probably going to "pull the trigger" sometime later this month (not ready to do it now)...will continue to post thoughts/questions throughout my decision-making process. Thanks for all your help/patience!
Upvote
0
Best of luck with your decision.
Too much choice really but all are probably very good.
I'd love the 200-400mm but I'll wait for a lotto win for that.
Too much choice really but all are probably very good.
I'd love the 200-400mm but I'll wait for a lotto win for that.
Upvote
0
