What super-telephoto zooms do you use?

What Super Telephoto Zooms do you use?


  • Total voters
    30
  • This poll will close: .

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
5,041
1,863
There is speculation about which are most commonly used super-telephoto zoom lenses so let's see what are the most popular for Canon users in CR.
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,476
103
By Canon's definition of a "Super Telephoto" only one Canon you listed qualifies.

The other Canon's are just "Telephoto Zoom". Possibly the common definition of "Super" some photogs use is different than Canon's.
 

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
5,041
1,863
By Canon's definition of a "Super Telephoto" only one Canon you listed qualifies.

The other Canon's are just "Telephoto Zoom". Possibly the common definition of "Super" some photogs use is different than Canon's.
"Telephoto lenses are sometimes broken into the further sub-types of short telephoto(85mm to 135mm in 35mm film format), medium telephoto: (135mm to 300mm in 35mm film format) and super telephoto (over 300mm in 35mm film format) ."
 

bichex

EOS M50
Dec 9, 2014
28
35
On my last trip I was able to use a 200-500 nikon with a companion D850 at some point. The af seemed much slower than the canon 100-400 II; also in 500 mm they have to close the F a little for better clarity. The guide on the other hand used a nikon D500 with a sigma 150-600. Pesima quality of 500 mm up and AF just very bad. I think my 100-400 II is far superior to those lenses beyond what some reviewers say. Exactly the 100-400 II is the reason why I would not want to change brands
 
Reactions: AlanF

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
5,041
1,863
On my last trip I was able to use a 200-500 nikon with a companion D850 at some point. The af seemed much slower than the canon 100-400 II; also in 500 mm they have to close the F a little for better clarity. The guide on the other hand used a nikon D500 with a sigma 150-600. Pesima quality of 500 mm up and AF just very bad. I think my 100-400 II is far superior to those lenses beyond what some reviewers say. Exactly the 100-400 II is the reason why I would not want to change brands
Absolutely! The Nikon 200-500 is weak at 500mm - from many reviewers and from users I've met - and has slow AF. The Nikon 80-400 has fast AF but mediocre IQ. You need the new Nikon 500mm f/5.6 prime for good IQ and fast AF. The 100-400mm II is tack sharp across the frame at 400mm and has blisteringly fast AF. It helps keep me with Canon.
 
Reactions: pj1974

Nat_WA

EOS 7D mk.II
Aug 15, 2017
641
202
Netherlands
Copied from 'bird portrait' thread -

My non scientific assessment after a couple of days of using the Sigma 60-600mm S (and much longer use of the excellent Canon 100-400mm II):
100-400mm II can achieve the best detail / sharpness - if you can get close enough for good framing
60-600mm comes quite close in sharpness and contrast while adding reach for tight framing - if you can handle the weight - or work from a tripod / monopod (the additional kilo of weight, way in front of the camera, makes itself felt...)
100-400 II + 1.4xTC III (so 560mm f/8) lags behind a bit in contrast / sharpness (all on my 7DmkII)
So this new 60-600mm will be used on occasions reserved for photography, where I know I'll need tightest possible framing (or need the massive flexibility in framing of the 10x zoom). When hiking "with the possibility of capturing a nice shot" and in case I know the reach is not critical, I'm using the 100-400 for its lower weight, easier handling and excellent quality.
W.