Considering Super Tele Options

[3Events]

I've got a fairly complete kit now, however, there is one thing still missing and that's a super tele lens.

I'm trying to decide between the 400mm f2.8L IS II and the 600mm f4 IS II. I'm thinking the 400mm gives me a lot more options when I add the 1.4 and 2X extenders and would bring me to the same f-stop as the 600. Both lenses seem similar in weight although the 600 is a bit longer. Would they both be about the same in terms of ability to hand hold? How much does the image degrade with the extenders? Has anyone tried these two setups? What are your impressions/recommendations?

Thanks in advance.

 

[3Events]

I have a 5D III and if a new 7D appears I may purchase one to have a crop sensor as well as a full frame. I expect to use this for both wildlife and sports.

 

[3Events]

Also, budget limits apply in that I am not interested in buying both lenses, but the two options are relatively close in price. Consider that I would do one or the other and the delta in price between the two is probably not a deciding factor.

 

[Loswr]

The 600 II is sharper than the 400 II + 1.4x, the 600 II + 1.4x is sharper that the 400 II + 2x, and the 600 II + 2x is 1200mm, still quite sharp, and will AF on the 5DIII after the firmware update due in April.

But...the 600mm is on the long side for sports. I shoot birds/wildlife a lot, so for me the 600 II was the best choice. If you shoot sports more than wildlife, the 400 may be better - it can be made longer with TCs. Do keep in mind there's an AF speed penalty with TCs - a 50% drop with a 1.4x and a 75% drop with a 2x. If you plan to mostly use an extender, get a longer lens (the only current exception is the 600 II, since that plus the 1.4x beats the 800/5.6, and the 600 II + 2x beats the 800 + 1.4x).

Once my kids are old enough for field sports (2-3 years, I guess), I can see adding a 300/2.8 II to my kit.

 

[3Events]

Thanks for the reply Neuro. I hadn't realized there was a speed penalty in AF with the extenders. This is the kind of information I was hoping for.

With regard to field sports and wanting the 300 2.8 II, would that be on a full frame or your 7D? Do you expect a 400 to be too long on a full frame to be used in that capacity?

 

[Loswr]

With regard to field sports and wanting the 300 2.8 II, would that be on a full frame or your 7D? Do you expect a 400 to be too long on a full frame to be used in that capacity?

On FF. Since getting the 1D X, the only times the 7D has been used are when I loaned it to someone as a backup camera for a wedding shoot, and to take a few comparison shots vs. the 1D X. Those comparison shots confirmed my belief (based on a more detailed 5DII vs. 7D comparison), that a 1D X image cropped to the FoV of the 7D has equivalent IQ (and better IQ at high ISO), so I'd only be giving up megapixels, and 7-8 MP meets my usual needs (up to 24x36" prints). So, at this point, I see no need for my 7D.

 

[AlanF]

Neuro and I agree in various threads that the IQ of the 1D X and 5D III makes up for the loss of crop compared with the 7D. He is right that the 600 II is about as sharp as you can get. But, whereas he can wander around with a toddler under one arm and a 600 mm in the other, it's too heavy for me and I like something lighter for hand held use. So, I have opted for the 300mm f/2.8 II and 1.4 and 2xTCs. With the 1.4 TC III, it's far sharper than the 400mm f/4. And it's still very sharp with the 2xTC III, and it focusses very fast with the 5D III. Here is a 100% crop of a greenfinch I took this morning with the 600mm combo.

 

[3Events]

Thanks for all the responses, particularly the relative comparisons between the various lenses with and without extenders. You've given me a lot to think about regarding lenses and potentially saved me some buyers remorse regarding the 7D.

Much appreciated!