400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife

[canon816]

Id go long and get the 600mm.

I have a 600 F4 and a 3002.8. Its really the perfect pair to have for wildlife photography.

I even find that the 600 is too short and often wish I had a bit longer glass. But I will add that the wildlife I shoot is really wild, which means getting in position in the dark, sitting still and waiting hours... sometimes with no luck.

If the wildlife you are shooting is more tame then you don't need the extra glass.

BTW... once you spend some time with a long lens it becomes second nature to find birds in flight. When I first started shooting 600mm i struggled to get a bird in the view finder... now its no problem at all. Just practice practice practice. (Also orienting your lens hood so that the knob is pointing straight up and in line with your hot shoe helps. you can look over the top of the camera and use these points as an open sight to align it with a bird, then as you move your eye to the viewfinder just tilt the lens up a little bit and you find what you are looking for....)

 

[dolina]

EF 800mm f/5.6L IS if the light is good, I do not need to walk much and if the subject's tiny like say less than 6-inch in length.

Given that these parameters are not always so I previsualize and shift from different glass when situations merit it.

Again if you want the most flexible lens go with the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x. The only drawback is that it's a f/4 without the extender and f/5.6 with the extender. Other than that it's a perfect product.

Dimension, weight and price would be like the EF 500mm f/4L IS II.

Which of your primes sees the most wildlife work? I'm sure you have a favorite.

Having not used the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x I would recommend this lens. It's a zoom and has a built-in extender. The convenience trumps prime quality if you are only interested in a single super tele.

I have the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 800mm f/5.6L IS. Also used a EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II. All of em are good for wildlife and sports for varying light condition, subject size and framing.

 

[Loswr]

I am surprised the 400 2.8L II with 1.4x is not as sharp as the 500 f/4. Was the 1.4x a II or a III?

I was surprised, too. It was the 1.4x III.

 

[bkorcel]

I am quite familiar with sitting in the dark, sitting still, and waiting for hours. Quite a bit of good info posted here in a short amount of time. I'm getting from all of this that F4 or F2.8 is pretty irrelevant...more important is having the reach in a good prime, no extenders if at all possible...unless you are going to the zoo where a 300mm might be good enough. Buy as much lens as you can afford even if you have to go into debt to do so.

Id go long and get the 600mm.

I have a 600 F4 and a 3002.8. Its really the perfect pair to have for wildlife photography.

I even find that the 600 is too short and often wish I had a bit longer glass. But I will add that the wildlife I shoot is really wild, which means getting in position in the dark, sitting still and waiting hours... sometimes with no luck.

If the wildlife you are shooting is more tame then you don't need the extra glass.

BTW... once you spend some time with a long lens it becomes second nature to find birds in flight. When I first started shooting 600mm i struggled to get a bird in the view finder... now its no problem at all. Just practice practice practice. (Also orienting your lens hood so that the knob is pointing straight up and in line with your hot shoe helps. you can look over the top of the camera and use these points as an open sight to align it with a bird, then as you move your eye to the viewfinder just tilt the lens up a little bit and you find what you are looking for....)

 

[vkiran]

I am quite familiar with sitting in the dark, sitting still, and waiting for hours. Quite a bit of good info posted here in a short amount of time. I'm getting from all of this that F4 or F2.8 is pretty irrelevant...more important is having the reach in a good prime, no extenders if at all possible...unless you are going to the zoo where a 300mm might be good enough. Buy as much lens as you can afford even if you have to go into debt to do so.

Id go long and get the 600mm.

I have a 600 F4 and a 3002.8. Its really the perfect pair to have for wildlife photography.

I even find that the 600 is too short and often wish I had a bit longer glass. But I will add that the wildlife I shoot is really wild, which means getting in position in the dark, sitting still and waiting hours... sometimes with no luck.

If the wildlife you are shooting is more tame then you don't need the extra glass.

BTW... once you spend some time with a long lens it becomes second nature to find birds in flight. When I first started shooting 600mm i struggled to get a bird in the view finder... now its no problem at all. Just practice practice practice. (Also orienting your lens hood so that the knob is pointing straight up and in line with your hot shoe helps. you can look over the top of the camera and use these points as an open sight to align it with a bird, then as you move your eye to the viewfinder just tilt the lens up a little bit and you find what you are looking for....)

+1 for the reach. I have settled on carrying 600 on the full frame body and a 70-200 on my 7D. I keep the 1.4x extender handy on occasion for extra reach for birds.

 

[CanonWife]

We just returned from a two-week shoot which included shorebirds and migratory birds in Tule Lake, CA and the Klamath basin in OR. The only lens my husband used nearly the entire time was his 600mm f/4 II for birds in flight, birds standing in glass calm water, and even small animals such as a mink on the bank of a river. The detailing is amazing. From 40 ft. the mink's head shows the skin pores on its nose and every lock of water-drenched hair on its head! I drove the RV while he shot out the window on a bumpy gravel road. This lens brings your subject up close and really personal. Birds in flight were so detailed we could see the scales on their feet tucked in while flying. It's a pricy lens but surprisingly light and will out-do your expectations. Have your wife get you one for your birthday like I did.

 

[kaihp]

Have your wife get you one for your birthday like I did.

I'm afraid that getting a wife will be more expensive that just purchasing the lens myself. 8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;D

 

[TexPhoto]

I have the 400mm f2.8 IS version 1. I also have the 1.4X and 2X extender (both vIII) For me this is a versatile combination, for both sports and wildlife, giving me 400, 560, and 800. The 500 and 600 (and 800) are probably fabulous lenses, but the f2.8 is critical when I shoot night sports, so this was the way to go for me.

I also have a 300mm f4 IS. This is a really nice alternative when traveling or when the 400 is not practical. It works very well with the 1.4X, and with my 1M4, the 2X.

I must admit though the 600 is on my must have list...

 

[CanonWife]

Have your wife get you one for your birthday like I did.

I'm afraid that getting a wife will be more expensive that just purchasing the lens myself. 8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;D

Canon has an easy payment plan. ;D

 

[Waterloo]

We just returned from a two-week shoot which included shorebirds and migratory birds in Tule Lake, CA and the Klamath basin in OR. The only lens my husband used nearly the entire time was his 600mm f/4 II for birds in flight, birds standing in glass calm water, and even small animals such as a mink on the bank of a river. The detailing is amazing. From 40 ft. the mink's head shows the skin pores on its nose and every lock of water-drenched hair on its head! I drove the RV while he shot out the window on a bumpy gravel road. This lens brings your subject up close and really personal. Birds in flight were so detailed we could see the scales on their feet tucked in while flying. It's a pricy lens but surprisingly light and will out-do your expectations. Have your wife get you one for your birthday like I did.

You don't happen to have a twin sister who is available? Do you?

 

[bkorcel]

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)?

 

[canon816]

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

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Greatland]

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]

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?

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[dolina]

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

 

[bkorcel]

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]

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.

 

[Shizam]

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