Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC

[Dylan777]

Hi guys,
Between the Canon 600mm f4 II and Canon 200-400mm w/ 1.4x TC, which one would you prefer? and Why?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754508-REG/Canon_5125B002_EF_600mm_f_4L_IS.html

Thanks
Dylan

 

[Loswr]

The 600 II, because I often need all the focal length I can get. The 600 II is sharper at 840mm f/5.6 than the 200-400+1.4x at 560mm f/5.6 (link).

I bought my 600 II before the 200-400+1.4x came out, but I'd make the same choice today.

 

[Dylan777]

The 600 II, because I often need all the focal length I can get. The 600 II is sharper at 840mm f/5.6 than the 200-400+1.4x at 560mm f/5.6 (link).

I bought my 600 II before the 200-400+1.4x came out, but I'd make the same choice today.

Thanks Neuro

 

[candyman]

I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200

 

[thepancakeman]

You asked which I would prefer, and that's easy: the 200-400. Why? Because I'm technically incapable of using sneaker zoom (aka primes).

 

[Lightmaster]

the 200-400mm.. it´s just more flexible.

maybe not the best choice for birder... but for sport and overall wildlife i think it is.

what is the sharpest lens worth when you don´t get the shoot you want?

 

[Jeffrey]

I have rented both lenses, like various aspects of each lens, but for me the decision hands down is the 600mm lens. Simply an amazing lens even with TC's attached.

 

[Vern]

I have the 600II and since avian photography is an area of high interest for me, I would need this lens even if I had the 200-400. My biggest wish is for built-in 1.4X's on all future 600 and 800 offerings so I can get some of the quick focal length flexibility for re-framing but keep the speed and quality of the primes.

200-400 would be ideal for larger wildlife (safari) and sports action. Improving performance at high ISO's in future sensors makes it even more attractive. When I go on safari, I will buy one.

 

[Skatol]

The two have different functions. 600 for birds and such, 200-400 for sports/action of larger subjects. really depends on the intended use. As a birder the 600 with 1.4TC wins hands down and this is often not enough.

 

[candc]

I don't think there is any question that they are both the best there is at what they do and that is 600+ or 560-. That's why people buy one or the other. Either you want to be able to shoot at 560 and back it down quickly or shoot 600 and be able to go to 840 or 1200 with the tc's. I am considering buying the 600ii because I shoot that range a lot and that lens is just the business. Other posters have said that its sharper with the 1.4xiii at 840 f/5.6 than the 800!

 

[Eldar]

Milk or honey? Yes please, both

 

[docsmith]

They are different beasts. The 600 mm is for when you want all the reach you can get. Ultimately, you'll be "zooming" by cropping the image in post. The 200-400 would be for when you need an optical zoom. Safari has already been mentioned. But there is a reason they were all over the place in Sochi. Ice skaters close to your position then the ice skaters move away from you. You need the optical zoom. The 600 mm wouldn't work well for that.

I voted 600 mm. I'd love to own both someday. But if the two were on a table in front of me and I was only allowed to pick one, I'd pick up the 600 mm. For what I shoot, I need all the reach I can get.

 

[AlanF]

For $1000 instead of $12000, and a fraction of the weight, get the Tamron 150-600mm. Here is it compared at 200mm and 400mm with the Canon 200-400mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

 

[candc]

What Alan says is true. I dont have the canon to do a comparison but from what iv'e seen, The tamron will give you 90% performance at 10% cost of the canon. For most of us it doesn't pay, you pay a lot for that 1stop at 400 or even more extreme: how about the extra 2 stops with the sigma 200-500 f/2.8?

 

[Loswr]

...you pay a lot for that 1stop at 400 or even more extreme

That's nothing new... 300/4 vs. 300/2.8, 400/5.6 vs. 400/4 DO vs. 400/2.8, 200/2.8 vs. 200/2, 17-40/4 vs. 16-35/2.8, etc.

 

[kirispupis]

A few months ago I had to make the same choice and I picked the 200-400/1.4x. I do not regret this choice.

Ultimately it really boils down to what you like to photograph. I use this lens for a wide variety or purposes - wildlife, sports, and landscapes. For these purposes there is no contest - the 200-400 is the best lens that can achieve all three.

If I were only photographing wildlife, or more specifically birds, then the 600/II would be the better choice. You simply need as much length as possible. If an 800/4 existed that was actually portable, I would recommend that. That being said, you can certainly accomplish a lot with 560mm.

For a real world example see this set http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157641149672084/ Three of these images were taken at 560mm, but three were not. The versatility of the 200-400 certainly wins out here.

For sports I almost never use the extender. I also find myself switching a lot between 200mm and 400mm. It is one case where a zoom is invaluable.

Finally for landscapes I am all over the place. That was really the deciding factor for me. I wanted a lens I can use for landscapes to catch the shots many landscape photographers miss. For these I rarely shoot at 560mm.

This set illustrates the flexibility - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157640572094314/ Most of the landscape shots were not taken at 560mm, while most of the close up bird shots were. A 600/4 would have probably done an even better job, but the 200-400 certainly did a very good job.

Someday I may pick up a 600/II if I have a sudden influx of cash, but it is not a huge priority given the excellent performance of the 200-400 at 560mm already.

BTW, the Tamron is a very nice lens, but the 600/II and 200-400 are in a completely different class. There are vast differences in AF speed, image quality, and the extras that go into a top end lens.

 

[sanj]

The two have different functions. 600 for birds and such, 200-400 for sports/action of larger subjects. really depends on the intended use. As a birder the 600 with 1.4TC wins hands down and this is often not enough.

Perfect.

 

[Dylan777]

Thanks for your thoughts guys. The poll shows 50/50, interesting.

 

[candc]

...you pay a lot for that 1stop at 400 or even more extreme

That's nothing new... 300/4 vs. 300/2.8, 400/5.6 vs. 400/4 DO vs. 400/2.8, 200/2.8 vs. 200/2, 17-40/4 vs. 16-35/2.8, etc.

True enough, there is a point where cost and weight explode. the law of diminishing returns seems very apparent when it comes to lenses

 

[Dylan777]

A few months ago I had to make the same choice and I picked the 200-400/1.4x. I do not regret this choice.

Ultimately it really boils down to what you like to photograph. I use this lens for a wide variety or purposes - wildlife, sports, and landscapes. For these purposes there is no contest - the 200-400 is the best lens that can achieve all three.

If I were only photographing wildlife, or more specifically birds, then the 600/II would be the better choice. You simply need as much length as possible. If an 800/4 existed that was actually portable, I would recommend that. That being said, you can certainly accomplish a lot with 560mm.

For a real world example see this set http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157641149672084/ Three of these images were taken at 560mm, but three were not. The versatility of the 200-400 certainly wins out here.

For sports I almost never use the extender. I also find myself switching a lot between 200mm and 400mm. It is one case where a zoom is invaluable.

Finally for landscapes I am all over the place. That was really the deciding factor for me. I wanted a lens I can use for landscapes to catch the shots many landscape photographers miss. For these I rarely shoot at 560mm.

This set illustrates the flexibility - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157640572094314/ Most of the landscape shots were not taken at 560mm, while most of the close up bird shots were. A 600/4 would have probably done an even better job, but the 200-400 certainly did a very good job.

Someday I may pick up a 600/II if I have a sudden influx of cash, but it is not a huge priority given the excellent performance of the 200-400 at 560mm already.

BTW, the Tamron is a very nice lens, but the 600/II and 200-400 are in a completely different class. There are vast differences in AF speed, image quality, and the extras that go into a top end lens.

Thanks kirispupis for your feedbacks and photos

I recently bought 400m f2.8 IS II - mainly for indoor swimming and ballet. All I can say is AWESOME and now going for bit longer for outdoor activities