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

[AlanF]

The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron. Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).

In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10. If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy. I could not handle them. I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.

 

[candc]

dang!

 

[candyman]

dang!

Using THAT at the Olympics you know who will be the winner ;D

 

[Dylan777]

You are not making it easy for Dylan, in fact you will make him want both ... for starters. Then he will have to add the 300mm 2.8L IS II ;D

He he; I told you so Dylan, that when you start on this route, by deciding to go for the 300, it might be a very expensive one. Then you upgraded to the 400/2.8, which, combined with the extenders, is a very flexible and high quality package, with better reach. But then you start thinking about the improved IQ at long reach with the 600 and the option of going all the way to 1200mm. And when you have done that (I assume you will ), you start thinking about the flexibility of the 200-400 or combining the 600 with the 300, which you just sold .... :

The Great Whites are very addictive and requires either fairly deep pockets to get a combo, or the ability to live with the limitations of just one of them

Eldar, I still recalled that conversation with you and you are 100% correct

Off topic:
Here are my thoughts shooting with 2 bodies.
1. 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II - shorter range indoor/outdoor = amazing IQ
2. 70-200 f2.8 IS II + 400mm f2.8 IS II - mid range indoor/outdoor = amazing IQ
3. 70-200 f2.8 IS II with 1.4x TC III + 400mm f2.8 IS II with 1.4x TC III - longer range outdoor = happy with IQ

600mmish is in the consideration. I'm not good with math, but 600mm with 1.4x TC III would give decent lenght for BIF and surfing photography.

 

[Dylan777]

To me the question is a bit odd. The 600mm is made for a totally different use than the 200-400. They are both exceptional lenses and outstanding for their use. When going on a trip, where I don´t bring both, it has not been difficult to choose which one to bring.

It would be more difficult to compare the 200-400 with the 300 f2.8L IS II, with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. The 300 is clearly less flexible, but it is smaller, it gives you exceptional IQ, AF speed and a stop advantage and also very good performance with the extenders. You also have significant money saved for something else.

It´s a substantial cost to get both the 200-400 and the 600, but it would have to be for something really exceptional if I were to part with any of them.

A agree Eldar, both these Lenses are a substantial investment for most that decide to buy either, or both, and one would imagine a serious amount of thought goes into that decision.

The 600f/4 is not your close in type Lens, it's uses are varied but going on CR and the many fine Images I've seen with the 600 exhibited here, Birders are the Lenses main stream users, followed by people like myself, Wild Life at a distance.

The 200-400f/4 is clearly more your closer in Lens, with the option to go out to 560 albeit at a small light disadvantage with f/5.6, More suited to your Wildlife/Sports Photographer.

If I'm heading to Open Plains style Geography, Serengeti, Mara etc, I would place the 600 +1.4x in the Bag first, the 200-400 second.

If I'm heading to Okavango Delta, South Africa, Timbavati, it's the 200-400 in the bag first with the 300f/2.8 second.

In my own Imaging if I had to choose just one Lens for 90% of my Imaging, it would be the 200-400.

Thanks eml58 for a clear drawing between the two

Be able to visit places you mentioned above would be a dream come true for me - maybe one day when the kids grow up a little bit more.

I live in California, 10min -15mins away from Huntington Beach. It's very well known place for surfing. The summer here is quite special. Be able to capture the pro surfers will be interesting in my photography collection.

http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/


Best,
Dylan

 

[KitsVancouver]

The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron. Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).

In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10. If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy. I could not handle them. I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.

I believe you are. I would be surprised if it was even 10% of people who would prefer the Tamron. Let's just pretend everyone (on this forum) wins a free lens at the camera store and they have a pile of Tamrons and a pile of Canons. I really really really doubt that given the choice, very many people are going to walk out with the Tamron. Because I deal with contracts and by nature, "paranoid", I would even say that the choice would not change much if you told them they could not sell the lens.

 

[Aichbus]

ok, enough of this now. Next topic: What's the better lens: The EF 2.8 14 L or the EF 5.6 800 L?

 

[9VIII]

To me the question is a bit odd. The 600mm is made for a totally different use than the 200-400. They are both exceptional lenses and outstanding for their use. When going on a trip, where I don´t bring both, it has not been difficult to choose which one to bring.

It would be more difficult to compare the 200-400 with the 300 f2.8L IS II, with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. The 300 is clearly less flexible, but it is smaller, it gives you exceptional IQ, AF speed and a stop advantage and also very good performance with the extenders. You also have significant money saved for something else.

It´s a substantial cost to get both the 200-400 and the 600, but it would have to be for something really exceptional if I were to part with any of them.

A agree Eldar, both these Lenses are a substantial investment for most that decide to buy either, or both, and one would imagine a serious amount of thought goes into that decision.

The 600f/4 is not your close in type Lens, it's uses are varied but going on CR and the many fine Images I've seen with the 600 exhibited here, Birders are the Lenses main stream users, followed by people like myself, Wild Life at a distance.

The 200-400f/4 is clearly more your closer in Lens, with the option to go out to 560 albeit at a small light disadvantage with f/5.6, More suited to your Wildlife/Sports Photographer.

If I'm heading to Open Plains style Geography, Serengeti, Mara etc, I would place the 600 +1.4x in the Bag first, the 200-400 second.

If I'm heading to Okavango Delta, South Africa, Timbavati, it's the 200-400 in the bag first with the 300f/2.8 second.

In my own Imaging if I had to choose just one Lens for 90% of my Imaging, it would be the 200-400.

Thanks eml58 for a clear drawing between the two

Be able to visit places you mentioned above would be a dream come true for me - maybe one day when the kids grow up a little bit more.

I live in California, 10min -15mins away from Huntington Beach. It's very well known place for surfing. The summer here is quite special. Be able to capture the pro surfers will be interesting in my photography collection.

http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/


Best,
Dylan

Great birding on that pier too. not often you get to shoot above a bunch of large birds while they go fishing. I was down there for a wedding recently (which means I now have relatives in the area) and absolutely wish I would have brought my 400f5.6.

 

[AlanF]

The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron. Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).

In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10. If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy. I could not handle them. I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.

I believe you are. I would be surprised if it was even 10% of people who would prefer the Tamron. Let's just pretend everyone (on this forum) wins a free lens at the camera store and they have a pile of Tamrons and a pile of Canons. I really really really doubt that given the choice, very many people are going to walk out with the Tamron. Because I deal with contracts and by nature, "paranoid", I would even say that the choice would not change much if you told them they could not sell the lens.

You might as well ask suppose somebody offered you a 100 carat diamond studded solid gold mounted Sigma 50-500 or a plain Canon, which one would they take? That situation is just as unlikely as everyone on this forum being offered what you would suggest. If I was given a 200-400mm Canon I would never use it. And that is a fact, not a let's pretend scenario. But, if someone were to offer me a 200-400mm free of charge, I would of course accept it - that is human nature.

 

[kasperj]

Just a quick observation from someone who owns the 200-400 1.4, and prior to purchase went through the same considerations.

The deciding factor for me was the compositional "freedom" that only the zoom will give you. Often you want to get in close on the subject, maybe for a vertical portrait, then back up for a horizontal shot which shows the environment. This can of course also be accomplished with 2 cameras / lenses that together cover the focal lengths needed, but switching between cameras or having to change lenses or add/remove an extender, will invariably result in missed moments

 

[Deleted member 91053]

ok, enough of this now. Next topic: What's the better lens: The EF 2.8 14 L or the EF 5.6 800 L?

The 800 F5.6. Bought my 1DX in November 2013 and have hardly used any other lens on it, in fact I have yet to even mount a lens shorter than 300mm on it - hope they will fit!

 

[Loswr]

ok, enough of this now. Next topic: What's the better lens: The EF 2.8 14 L or the EF 5.6 800 L?

Neither. The 14/2.8L II is better than the original, and the 600/4L IS II + 1.4xIII is better than the 800/5.6.

If you really want to compare just those two lenses, it depends on your needs. The 14/2.8L makes a better hand-thrown projectile weapon, and the 800/5.6 makes a much better club.

 

[eml58]

Sigma 50-500 or a plain Canon, which one would they take?

I was Photographing the Bull Run at Pacu Jawi couple days back, of the 11 to 15 serious Photographers 4 were using the Sigma 50-500 on a mix of Canon/Nikon & Olympus, One of the Photographers is a close friend and his Images were excellent coming from this Lens on a D800 all shot on a Monopod.

I was using the 200-400 on a Tripod, have to admit when it came to running from the bulls path I envied my friends rig.

 

[eml58]

Be able to visit places you mentioned above would be a dream come true for me - maybe one day when the kids grow up a little bit more.

I live in California, 10min -15mins away from Huntington Beach. It's very well known place for surfing. The summer here is quite special. Be able to capture the pro surfers will be interesting in my photography collection.

Hi Dylan, I couldn't afford to get to most of these places until my mid 40's, I'de say you have plenty of time.

Huntington Beach is a lovely spot I agree, My Family & I visited the area in 2011, we drove from San Diego to Vancouver over a 5 week period, probably some of the most amazing Coastline on the Planet.

 

[Dylan777]

ok, enough of this now. Next topic: What's the better lens: The EF 2.8 14 L or the EF 5.6 800 L?

Neither. The 14/2.8L II is better than the original, and the 600/4L IS II + 1.4xIII is better than the 800/5.6.

If you really want to compare just those two lenses, it depends on your needs. The 14/2.8L makes a better hand-thrown projectile weapon, and the 800/5.6 makes a much better club.

Neuro, your title "CR GEEK" is well earned

 

[KitsVancouver]

The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron. Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).

In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10. If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy. I could not handle them. I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.

I believe you are. I would be surprised if it was even 10% of people who would prefer the Tamron. Let's just pretend everyone (on this forum) wins a free lens at the camera store and they have a pile of Tamrons and a pile of Canons. I really really really doubt that given the choice, very many people are going to walk out with the Tamron. Because I deal with contracts and by nature, "paranoid", I would even say that the choice would not change much if you told them they could not sell the lens.

You might as well ask suppose somebody offered you a 100 carat diamond studded solid gold mounted Sigma 50-500 or a plain Canon, which one would they take? That situation is just as unlikely as everyone on this forum being offered what you would suggest. If I was given a 200-400mm Canon I would never use it. And that is a fact, not a let's pretend scenario. But, if someone were to offer me a 200-400mm free of charge, I would of course accept it - that is human nature.

The point in question is whether the Tamron or Canon is preferred, ceteris paribus.

The only reasons I can imagine for buying the Tamron over the Canon are price and weight/size. You already said you don't want a big lens so you've explained that your utility formula places a higher value on size/weight. Because this forum is full of gearheads and guys who care about IQ, I still believe that at least 90% of those on this forum would choose the Canon over the Tamron if they could afford it.

You can go buy the Tamron.

 

[Dylan777]

Be able to visit places you mentioned above would be a dream come true for me - maybe one day when the kids grow up a little bit more.

I live in California, 10min -15mins away from Huntington Beach. It's very well known place for surfing. The summer here is quite special. Be able to capture the pro surfers will be interesting in my photography collection.

Hi Dylan, I couldn't afford to get to most of these places until my mid 40's, I'de say you have plenty of time.

Huntington Beach is a lovely spot I agree, My Family & I visited the area in 2011, we drove from San Diego to Vancouver over a 5 week period, probably some of the most amazing Coastline on the Planet.

Well eml58,
If you ever come by again....I would love to buy you a beer or two and some Vietmanese food

 

[tron]

And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D

 

[Dylan777]

And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D

If the size and color is same as my 400mm f2.8 IS II, she couldn't tell the diff. That why I ruled out Tamron ;D

 

[tron]

And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D

If the size and color is same as my 400mm f2.8 IS II, she couldn't tell the diff. That why I ruled out Tamron ;D

But I guess she can count... She cannot think that these things multiply by themselves ;D