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

[bkorcel]

I'd like to hear from people who have purchased one of these lenses for wildlife photography and why you chose one vs. the other two.

400 2.8L looks better overall for lower light usage...typically when wildlife is most active. However the F4 models have a bit more reach but sacrifice 1 stop.

 

[Jeffrey]

I rented the 400mm f2.8 L and the 600 mm f4.0 L, and shot with them on my 1D-X without using extender tubes. I liked the 400mm much better for shooting birds. Having said that though, when light conditions warrant using f2.8 the depth of field becomes quite short and the bird is typically not well illuminated. The bottom line for me is to continue using my 400mm f5.6 L and not shoot in super dimly lit situations.

 

[Waterloo]

All depends on how close you expect to get to your subject. Here's a Black Bear sow shot with the 5D Mark II and the old non IS 300mm f2.8. Saying that I would go for the 500. I've had my 500 since November of 2001 and it is my most used lens. The new 500 Mark II should be here next week and I can't wait. The new 500 to me looks like the sweet spot, especially if you can believe the MTF curves that Canon publishes.

 

[Loswr]

Wildlife, likely the 500/4. Birds, especially small birds, the 600/4 II - IQ with 1.4x III is on par with the 800/5.6, but much lighter plus f/4 if you don't need the reach.

 

[bkorcel]

What specifically was the reason you like the 400 2.8 more? I've toyed with the concept of getting 1 stop faster shutter speed...not necessarily pushing the light limits of the lens or camera. In practical terms does that 1 stop actually make any difference say with birds in flight?

I'd like to hear from people who have purchased one of these lenses for wildlife photography and why you chose one vs. the other two.

400 2.8L looks better overall for lower light usage...typically when wildlife is most active. However the F4 models have a bit more reach but sacrifice 1 stop.

 

[bkorcel]

Nice shot. But I think I would rather have the 500 than the 300 for this kind of shot! LOL! CPS loaned me their 500 for a couple of weeks and I found it a challenge trying to find the subject when it was in flight. for stationary objects it was great, especially on the wimberly. As you state the MTF on the new models offer theoretical advantages but I'm curious to how they relate to real world usefulness. Reach is obviously an advantage shooting most any wildlife...you often dont have the opportunity to get closer...even with bears.

How important to you is f2.8 vs F4 or F5.6 in the scheme of things?

All depends on how close you expect to get to your subject. Here's a Black Bear sow shot with the 5D Mark II and the old non IS 300mm f2.8. Saying that I would go for the 500. I've had my 500 since November of 2001 and it is my most used lens. The new 500 Mark II should be here next week and I can't wait. The new 500 to me looks like the sweet spot, especially if you can believe the MTF curves that Canon publishes.

 

[Jeffrey]

Exactly the point regarding birds in flight. I had the lenses on a Wimberley mount too. Ducks on landing were great and relatively easy to find using the 400mm lens. Forget about birds in flight using the 400mm f2.8 or 600mm lenses, at least at my skills level. The 400mm f5.6L USM is a dream to use for birds in flight.

 

[Waterloo]

Nice shot. But I think I would rather have the 500 than the 300 for this kind of shot! LOL! CPS loaned me their 500 for a couple of weeks and I found it a challenge trying to find the subject when it was in flight. for stationary objects it was great, especially on the wimberly. As you state the MTF on the new models offer theoretical advantages but I'm curious to how they relate to real world usefulness. Reach is obviously an advantage shooting most any wildlife...you often dont have the opportunity to get closer...even with bears.

How important to you is f2.8 vs F4 or F5.6 in the scheme of things?

All depends on how close you expect to get to your subject. Here's a Black Bear sow shot with the 5D Mark II and the old non IS 300mm f2.8. Saying that I would go for the 500. I've had my 500 since November of 2001 and it is my most used lens. The new 500 Mark II should be here next week and I can't wait. The new 500 to me looks like the sweet spot, especially if you can believe the MTF curves that Canon publishes.

If I had the 500 on I would have had to put the 25mm extension tube on too to get her in focus.

 

[fotografnuntaiasi]

The 300's is for birds, bugs and peaceful animals and for bears, wolfs and other dangerous things I should star thinking to have the 600's or to run faster.

 

[Waterloo]

You know the old saying "horses for courses". Well, my favorite subject is wild horses. With the 500 I've missed a lot of shots because I had too much lens on and couldn't back off. I'm waiting patiently for the new 200-400.....

(5D Mark III and 500mm f4 L IS)

 

[westr70]

I really appreciate this discussion. I've been pondering the 500mm for bif but maybe I'll continue to use my 400mm. Any others with experience with the 500mm with birds in flight?

 

[bkorcel]

Also pondering the use of a 1.4x with both. With the 2.8 it would yield an F4 at 560mm. Any resolution tradeoff between that combo and the 500mm f/4 outright? One would think but who knows.(Someone who has tried it and made the comparison).

I really appreciate this discussion. I've been pondering the 500mm for bif but maybe I'll continue to use my 400mm. Any others with experience with the 500mm with birds in flight?

 

[Waterloo]

I really appreciate this discussion. I've been pondering the 500mm for bif but maybe I'll continue to use my 400mm. Any others with experience with the 500mm with birds in flight?

Check this post:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8876.0

 

[Loswr]

Also pondering the use of a 1.4x with both. With the 2.8 it would yield an F4 at 560mm. Any resolution tradeoff between that combo and the 500mm f/4 outright? One would think but who knows.(Someone who has tried it and made the comparison).

Check the TDP ISO12233 charts. My sense is that the 400 II takes a bigger IQ hit with the 1.4xIII than the 500 II or 600 II. The new 500/600 + 1.4x seem equivalent to the MkI 600 and the 800, respectively, while the 400 II + 1.4x seems to fall short on IQ vs. the 500 MkI (and the bare 500 II is even sharper).

 

[bkorcel]

So the primes alone still seem to take the cake. How about F4 to F2.8? One would not think it's much of a difference. Does anyone think twice about it? or just make it up with a higher ISO?

Also pondering the use of a 1.4x with both. With the 2.8 it would yield an F4 at 560mm. Any resolution tradeoff between that combo and the 500mm f/4 outright? One would think but who knows.(Someone who has tried it and made the comparison).

Check the TDP ISO12233 charts. My sense is that the 400 II takes a bigger IQ hit with the 1.4xIII than the 500 II or 600 II. The new 500/600 + 1.4x seem equivalent to the MkI 600 and the 800, respectively, while the 400 II + 1.4x seems to fall short on IQ vs. the 500 MkI (and the bare 500 II is even sharper).

 

[Waterloo]

So the primes alone still seem to take the cake. How about F4 to F2.8? One would not think it's much of a difference. Does anyone think twice about it? or just make it up with a higher ISO?

Also pondering the use of a 1.4x with both. With the 2.8 it would yield an F4 at 560mm. Any resolution tradeoff between that combo and the 500mm f/4 outright? One would think but who knows.(Someone who has tried it and made the comparison).

Check the TDP ISO12233 charts. My sense is that the 400 II takes a bigger IQ hit with the 1.4xIII than the 500 II or 600 II. The new 500/600 + 1.4x seem equivalent to the MkI 600 and the 800, respectively, while the 400 II + 1.4x seems to fall short on IQ vs. the 500 MkI (and the bare 500 II is even sharper).

I think twice about it all the time. Not because of the light loss, but the loss of image quality. I know adding the 1.4 Extender will give me more reach and I know I'll have to pay for it when I pull the images up on the computer screen. Plus living here in Nevada with the dust, I dread each time I remove the camera from the lens/extender. And, the fumbling in the field changing the extender and the resultant lost shots.

 

[Loswr]

I think twice about it all the time. Not because of the light loss, but the loss of image quality. I know adding the 1.4 Extender will give me more reach and I know I'll have to pay for it when I pull the images up on the computer screen.

It used to be that the bare lens always beat the lens+TC. Now, that statement needs to be revised to, in some cases within the same generation of lenses, the bare lens will always beat the lens + TC. The 600 II + 1.4x III is actually a little sharper than the 800/5.6, plus it's got a little more reach and is a heck of a lot lighter, for no additional money. So, at the point the only reason to go with an 800/5.6 is if you plan to put a 1.4x on that, which will beat out the 600 II + 2xIII. Likewise, the 500/4 II + 1.4x III is sharper than the bare 600/4 MkI, and also longer and lighter, perhaps making the 500 II + TC a better choice than the older 600 (more expensive, though). Note that the above assumes the 50% AF speed reduction you get with a 1.4x TC is acceptable (but the superteles focus so fast, 50% slower is still going to be fast).

However, the 400 II + 1.4x is not as sharp as the bare 500/4 MkI.

So, if comparing the current (MkII) lenses, you're better off getting the focal length you will use most.

Keep in mind that while you can crop, often you cannot back up to get a wider AoV, especially with a long lens where you'd have to back up a lot. Depending on what you shoot, you may want to have a second body with a shorter lens, like a 70-200/2.8 II to pair with a 400/500, or a 100-400 to pair with a 600.

The 200-400/4 + 1.4x if it ever becomes a reality, is worth considering. The zoom is convenient - but of course, only if 560mm f/5.6 is long enough and fast enough. If not, the 500/600 II may be better choices.

 

[dolina]

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.

 

[bkorcel]

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.

 

[bkorcel]

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 think twice about it all the time. Not because of the light loss, but the loss of image quality. I know adding the 1.4 Extender will give me more reach and I know I'll have to pay for it when I pull the images up on the computer screen.

It used to be that the bare lens always beat the lens+TC. Now, that statement needs to be revised to, in some cases within the same generation of lenses, the bare lens will always beat the lens + TC. The 600 II + 1.4x III is actually a little sharper than the 800/5.6, plus it's got a little more reach and is a heck of a lot lighter, for no additional money. So, at the point the only reason to go with an 800/5.6 is if you plan to put a 1.4x on that, which will beat out the 600 II + 2xIII. Likewise, the 500/4 II + 1.4x III is sharper than the bare 600/4 MkI, and also longer and lighter, perhaps making the 500 II + TC a better choice than the older 600 (more expensive, though). Note that the above assumes the 50% AF speed reduction you get with a 1.4x TC is acceptable (but the superteles focus so fast, 50% slower is still going to be fast).

However, the 400 II + 1.4x is not as sharp as the bare 500/4 MkI.

So, if comparing the current (MkII) lenses, you're better off getting the focal length you will use most.

Keep in mind that while you can crop, often you cannot back up to get a wider AoV, especially with a long lens where you'd have to back up a lot. Depending on what you shoot, you may want to have a second body with a shorter lens, like a 70-200/2.8 II to pair with a 400/500, or a 100-400 to pair with a 600.

The 200-400/4 + 1.4x if it ever becomes a reality, is worth considering. The zoom is convenient - but of course, only if 560mm f/5.6 is long enough and fast enough. If not, the 500/600 II may be better choices.