Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...

[Ken B]

There are allot of great points brought up. I was also wondering about a 7D as a possibility to give me the added reach. While I'm not rich affording both in the future is a possibility in the future. For now I need to pick one. The Frugal side of me says 300mm is the way to go. But considering the 300 price is halfway to the 600 it's one of those things. No one else can make the call except me.

To answer the folks that said I didn't provide enough info.. Truth is I would shoot what ever I can with which ever lens I had. If I had the 600 I would probably shoot more wildlife. Presently I do allot of autosports. so I think the 300 would be a great lens for that purpose. But I also shoot Macro.. So go figure... LOL

 

[mrsfotografie]

There are allot of great points brought up. I was also wondering about a 7D as a possibility to give me the added reach. While I'm not rich affording both in the future is a possibility in the future. For now I need to pick one. The Frugal side of me says 300mm is the way to go. But considering the 300 price is halfway to the 600 it's one of those things. No one else can make the call except me.

To answer the folks that said I didn't provide enough info.. Truth is I would shoot what ever I can with which ever lens I had. If I had the 600 I would probably shoot more wildlife. Presently I do allot of autosports. so I think the 300 would be a great lens for that purpose. But I also shoot Macro.. So go figure... LOL

Be careful to consider if the 7D will deliver high enough image quality for you, particularly at higher iso's. Coming from a 5D MkIII you may be disappointed (I just got a 5D Mark III just for this reason). My 7D is still here, but I think I may sell it if I truly find I no longer need it.

 

[Eldar]

Be careful to consider if the 7D will deliver high enough image quality for you, particularly at higher iso's. Coming from a 5D MkIII you may be disappointed (I just got a 5D Mark III just for this reason). My 7D is still here, but I think I may sell it if I truly find I no longer need it.

True, the current 7D is no alternative to the 5DIII or the 1DX. But if a 7D replacer (whatever they decide to call it) get a really decent AF system, then it may become an interesting alternative. We can expect more resolution and I would also expect significantly improved high ISO performance.
For motor sports the 300 will be a great alternative.

 

[Skatol]

"But considering the 300 price is halfway to the 600"

Check ebay for some deals on a non IS 600. I bought one from Montereypark in Washington state. I may have the seller name spelled wrong but should be close enough for a search. Perfectly good lens that works well with the mark III 1.4TC. Yes it's heavier but you'll most likely have it on a tripod anyway. Shutter speed will most likely be high enough that IS is a non issue.
You can find them for around $5500.

I also made the upgrade from a 7D to the 5DIII. The 7D rarely sees any action now. Cropping down still gives me better image quality at ISO 800 and up than the 7D could ever hope for.

 

[mackguyver]

+2 on the 7D - after buying a 5DIII, I found the 7D wasn't worth keeping and sold it, keeping my 5DII & III. It's a great camera, but as soon as you hit ISO 1600, it's just way too noisy for me.

 

[MichaelHodges]

The 7d is incredibly unforgiving. Almost everything has to be perfect to get a pleasing image. Even ISO 400 is riddled with noise in the blue channel (problematic for birds in flight, etc). I still have mine, but that sensor is a mess compared to my 6D.

 

[AlanF]

I am still getting some superb results from my 7D but the focussing with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII can hunt when there is not a contrasty subject. I got sufficiently frustrated yesterday, despite getting some good BIF shots, that in the evening I ordered a 70D and it arrived this morning from WEX. The initial results are looking good, and I'll post a comparison when there is good weather here in a couple of days. DxO tests on its sensor suggest the 70D has significantly better IQ than the 7D.

 

[Northstar]

I am still getting some superb results from my 7D but the focussing with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII can hunt when there is not a contrasty subject. I got sufficiently frustrated yesterday, despite getting some good BIF shots, that in the evening I ordered a 70D and it arrived this morning from WEX. The initial results are looking good, and I'll post a comparison when there is good weather here in a couple of days. DxO tests on its sensor suggest the 70D has significantly better IQ than the 7D.

Congrats Alan...have fun!

 

[Canon1]

I didn't see if you were trying to decide between the 300 II and the 600II, but if you are willing to go with Version I lenses you could get both for less then the cost of a new 600. You would even still have some $$ left over for a new 5D Mark III to add to the mix.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Alan F, I'll be waiting for some comparative shots from your 70D with great interest! Any chance you could do a capture of the same subject with both cameras. I had my 300 2.8 II on my friend's and it wasn't AFMA, anyway the result wasn't as good as we had hoped.

Jack

 

[TexPhoto]

It all comes down to budget, and what you shoot. I have a 400mm f2.8 IS , and both 1.4X and 2X because i can afford that, and I shoot sports as much as nature.

When you need a 600mm the best lens to have is a 600mm. But a 300mm f2.8 and 2X converter is certainly a great combo.

When you need a 300mm f2.8, a 600mm is just not going to work.

 

[candc]

OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want them.

I think if you get the 300 that you will still want the 600. If you want 600+ it's the best way I have seen

 

[Eldar]

OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want them.

I think if you get the 300 that you will still want the 600. If you want 600+ it's the best way I have seen

+1
With sailing boats people often get the 3-feet-desease (just 3 more feet and I´ll be happy ...) With tele lenses you find a similar problem. It may be an expensive route to go 300 -> 400 ->500 -> 600, if you should have gone for the 600 in the first place. A combo of 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 600mm f4L IS II, 1.4xIII/2xIII extenders and 5DIII/7DII bodies will cover just about everything.

But be aware that the 600mm is a Big lens. But it can still be handheld and with the right harness it is fairly easy to bring on hikes and full day jobs. I have attached an image of my carrying solution, which basically is a flag bandoleer.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?

The question you should be asking is 600 f4 vs 800 f5.6.

What you get will probably depend on how much light you get where you live; I'm in the UK so compromising on focal length to get that f4 aperture is probably worth it... but 600 is still pretty short if you're a birder.

You mentioned that 300mm is perfect for the sports cars. That may be but who needs f2.8 when you're panning? For freezing-the-action head-on shots f4 and 600 (or f5.6 and 800) will still give you sufficient shutter speed on a bright day and the steeper drop off you get from in-focus to out of focus areas you get from the longer focal lengths will help the cars 'pop'.

Don't listen to me though; my longest lens is a 300 f4.

 

[surapon]

OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?

I am certain others have gone down this which to get path before so I can only ask for thier guidence. Fortunatly I have time before I buy. We have a Camera-imaging Expo coming to Phoenix next week and I plan on going to play with some big lenses to see how I like them.

Dear Ken B .
I am not the Sport shooter or Birders, But , When I need to shoot this Both Job, My Lovely EF 600 MM . MK I is my Weapon, Plus 70-200 F/ 2.8 IS on my 2 Camera, Plus On the third Camera -85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II.
Good Luck for your Choice.
Your Friend.
Surapon
PS, Yes, If I wear the Press Badge( Some of my real Job--Not Just go to watch the excite Games), I use 70-200 mm fr/ 2.8, and 135 F/ 2.0 , because Short distant from the players.

PS-2, From Photo DB-2, I just Tired my monopod to the Metal hand rail with Tied Cords.

 

[surapon]

I am not the Sport shooter or Birders, But , When I need to shoot this Both Job, My Lovely EF 600 MM . MK I is my Weapon, Plus 70-200 F/ 2.8 IS on my 2 Camera, Plus On the third Camera -85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II.

 

[surapon]

I am not the Sport shooter or Birders, But , When I need to shoot this Both Job, My Lovely EF 600 MM . MK I is my Weapon, Plus 70-200 F/ 2.8 IS on my 2 Camera, Plus On the third Camera -85 mm. F/ 1.2 L MK II.

Enjoy
Surapon

 

[Eldar]

OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?

The question you should be asking is 600 f4 vs 800 f5.6.

What you get will probably depend on how much light you get where you live; I'm in the UK so compromising on focal length to get that f4 aperture is probably worth it... but 600 is still pretty short if you're a birder.

You mentioned that 300mm is perfect for the sports cars. That may be but who needs f2.8 when you're panning? For freezing-the-action head-on shots f4 and 600 (or f5.6 and 800) will still give you sufficient shutter speed on a bright day and the steeper drop off you get from in-focus to out of focus areas you get from the longer focal lengths will help the cars 'pop'.

Don't listen to me though; my longest lens is a 300 f4.

I do not see how the 800/5.6 can be an alternative to the 600 f4L IS II. Combined with the 1.4xIII the 600 is sharper than the 800. But if you can get the 800 for a good price ...

 

[arbitrage]

Okay, I quickly read the replies but mostly to see if the OP had given any more info on what he shoots and it looks like he hasn't yet. Therefore, all I can do is sum up the pros and cons as I own the 70-200 f/2.8II, 300II and 600II and TCs. So I think I can provide some good background info and if the OP has the time to reply to his own thread at some point then I may be able to help a little more with specifics......

First off the 70-200 with a 2.0TC (and I have the latest versions of both) is pitiful for AF speed. My 100-400 runs circles around it at 400 f/5.6. The 300II with 2.0TC is phenomenal at AF and the hit is there but it doesn't affect shooting. I just finished using it over the holidays to shoot small chickadees and songbirds handheld through lots of branches and the AF on the 1DX and 5D3 is spectacular (other bodies may not perform as well). The 600II bare lens at 600 f/4 is faster at AF and the IQ is a bit better than the 600 f/5.6 II IS(as I like to call it) but the IQ of the 600 f/5.6 is still pretty remarkable. No lens made by Canon, Nikon, or others in the 300 and above FL can touch the bare 300II for IQ and AF. That combo is simply unbelievable. The 420 f/4 IS II (300II + 1.4III) is also pretty fricken amazing.

The 840 f/5.6 IS II is also very, very good for both AF and IQ. The 1200 f/8 IS II is also very, very good for IQ....BUT, AF does take a hit because of the f/8. I have great shots of large birds in flight (eagles and swans) but anything smaller is a lost cause. For perched birds, the combo is phenomenal however.

If you really need 600 and want even more reach at times and can handle the bulk of the 600 then just go and get it. The weight is a bit of a problem (I handhold about 75% of the time and use a gimbal for certain times) but the real issue is the actual size and not the weight. This is where the 600 f/5.6 wins hands down as it is much smaller and lighter and I can handhold it for hours without fatigue.

These are my initial scramble of thoughts.....IMHO....YMMV

Posted below...Junco with the 600 f/5.6 IS II and Bald Eagle with the 1200 f/8 IS II both handheld.

 

[arbitrage]

OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo, would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?

The question you should be asking is 600 f4 vs 800 f5.6.

What you get will probably depend on how much light you get where you live; I'm in the UK so compromising on focal length to get that f4 aperture is probably worth it... but 600 is still pretty short if you're a birder.

You mentioned that 300mm is perfect for the sports cars. That may be but who needs f2.8 when you're panning? For freezing-the-action head-on shots f4 and 600 (or f5.6 and 800) will still give you sufficient shutter speed on a bright day and the steeper drop off you get from in-focus to out of focus areas you get from the longer focal lengths will help the cars 'pop'.

Don't listen to me though; my longest lens is a 300 f4.

I do not see how the 800/5.6 can be an alternative to the 600 f4L IS II. Combined with the 1.4xIII the 600 is sharper than the 800. But if you can get the 800 for a good price ...

I totally agree....
600II pros:
lighter
more FL flexibility
more available AF points on 5D3 and 1DX
shorter MFD and better MM at 840mm
Equal or better?? IQ even with the 1.4TC than the 800 (this is splitting hairs but there is definitely no loss in IQ from what I have seen out there from the 800)
Equal AF even with the 1.4 or at least no appreciable or effective difference.

800 f/5/6 pros:
????????????????????????????????
Better price, maybe??