Going beyond 600mm

[kaihp]

From time to time, I find shooting either distant wildlife (mainly deer) or motorcycle racing and coming up wanting to have more reach than I have today.

Today, I use a 300mm f/2.8L II + 2x TC III on either 5D3 or 1DX (Mk I), so this is my baseline.
I also have the 1.4x TC III, so this in combination with a lens is definitely a possibility.

Without setting a budget (I'd have to save up anyway or possibly rent the lens the few times I'll need it), I've been consideringthe following:
- 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II (+1.4x TC)
- 200-400mm f/4L 1.4x EXT (+1.4x TC / 2x TC)
- 600mm f/4L II (+1.4x TC)

I can see that the 'weapon of choice' among pro racing photographers is a 600mm+1.4x TC, but (A) I'm not a pro and (B) I'm a bit concerned whether I'd find the prime being less practical than a zoom. However, I see Eldar (and Edward too?) saying that they use their 600/4 much more than the 200-400/4.

For motorcycle racing the 1DX would be used, but for the wildlife the 5D3 also comes into play. Either case, both will only focus to f/8 at the center point.

The Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm end up with f/6.3, so I'll loose AF with an extender at the long end.

Are there other options I should consider? Manual focus is a no-go.

 

[Loswr]

I can see that the 'weapon of choice' among pro racing photographers is a 600mm+1.4x TC,

For motorcycle racing the 1DX would be used, but for the wildlife the 5D3 also comes into play. Either case, both will only focus to f/8 at the center point.

600mm f/4 + 1.4x = 840mm f/5.6. You would have all of your AF points. With the 2x, it's f/8.

I use the 1.4xIII with my 600/4 II the majority of the time.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Whilst the Canon 600 Mk2 is a lovely lens the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS can be picked up (used) somewhat cheaper. My "Used", but near mint, 800mm was just under half the current price of a new 600 F4 Mk2 in the UK.

Given the choice I would love a 600 Mk2 but they are simply too expensive here + the 800mm is cheaper and very nearly as good - or (possibly) better if you want 800mm?

With the newer Canon higher end cameras the 1.4 extender is quite good on this lens - think of it as a 2 x on an F4 lens. However with the 800mm focal length extenders are rarely needed.

For some reason people are frightened of this lens! I have no idea why as I use it for 70%+ of my photography! After seeing what a friend of mine was doing with his 600 F4 Mk1 on landscapes I have discovered a whole new use for my 800mm!

Just another lens to consider?

 

[arbitrage]

I'm confused why the 100-400II/1.4TC that is only 560mm and a stop slower than your current 600mm setup is even in consideration??

That said, the 200-400 with 2xTC (or with internal and external 1.4TCs...preferred way due to versatility) is good at 784mm (technically 800mm as the TCs should be square root of 2 but camera reports 784mm) but it isn't great.

I would recommend two options both of which I own (well I own all the options listed here and used to have the 300II)...

1) 600II + 1.4TC.....this is the ultimate in IQ and fastest aperture you can get but it is way bigger and heavier than what you are used to

2) 400DOII + 2xTCIII....this option is very good, IQ not quite as good as 600/1.4 but the IQ at 800 is exactly like the 300II/2x at 600 IMHO. However, you really need a 1DX2 or 5D4 to make it work and get all the AF modes (this would hold for the 200-400 at 800mm also). I find the 400DOII at 800mm better IQ than the 200-400 at 784 or 800. But the 200-400 has more versatility but again it is just as heavy as the 600 (although a bit easier to wield because it is smaller). The 400DOII would be exactly like the 300II for handling (actually even a small bit lighter and smaller than the 300II).

There is also the 800 f/5.6 as mentioned above but I will list my argument against the 800 vs 600...
1) The 800 can't use all 61 points on the new cameras
2) The MFD of the 800 is much worse than the 600
3) The 600 gives you more versatility as you get 600, 840 and 1200 options whereas the 800 is 800 and 1120
4) The 800 is heavier and even more unwieldy
5) All reports show the 600 at 840 has IQ that is the equal to the 800.
6) Both are focusing at 5.6 at 800 so AF is very similar..
Disclaimer: I've never used the 800 f/5.6 and never will.....

Last option....wait for the 600DO but you may need to pay for dialysis after giving up both kidneys and that could limit your shooting.....

 

[rancho_runner]

Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...

 

[scyrene]

Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...

Yes, do consider the 500 II. Note it is considerably cheaper than the 600 II (in the UK, ~£8k versus £11k at one major retailer at the moment), and although the latter is probably (rightly) widely currently considered Canon's foremost long lens, the 500 has similar performance, with only 100mm less.

I'd caution about BIF though - I find the 500L too big to use for that under most circumstances (but I hand hold, I don't know if others are using support).

 

[arbitrage]

Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...

Good call, not sure why the 500 didn't pop into my head.

I would also strongly consider the Sigma 500 f/4 Sport to save money if 700mm would work.

Brad Hill is currently doing a very detailed and long-term review comparing the 500 FL vs the 500 Sport ( he is also including the 400FL and Sigma 150-600S in the comparison)...his data should be reflective of how the 500II would fare as I would consider the 500II and 500 FL to be equals in the real world. He hasn't completed all parts of his review yet but his initial IQ assessment in a controlled environment is showing the Sigma to be exactly like the Nikon 500 FL in IQ and bokeh etc.

Here is the link to his blog: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#500mm_wars_4

If the Sigma holds up in the next section on AF, IS and real-world results (for Brad mostly handholding) then I think it would be an option to seriously consider. Of course you could also get a used 500 f/4 IS (version 1) used for a similar price to the Sigma.

 

[danski0224]

Of course you could also get a used 500 f/4 IS (version 1) used for a similar price to the Sigma.

That's the rub for Canon users.

The Sigma will have to perform spectacularly and flawlessly.

Of course, that Canon 500 VI will be declared obsolete and non-serviceable at some point in the not too distant future... I do not know how Sigma will fare long term with lens support.

 

[JMZawodny]

Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...

Yes, do consider the 500 II. Note it is considerably cheaper than the 600 II (in the UK, ~£8k versus £11k at one major retailer at the moment), and although the latter is probably (rightly) widely currently considered Canon's foremost long lens, the 500 has similar performance, with only 100mm less.

I'd caution about BIF though - I find the 500L too big to use for that under most circumstances (but I hand hold, I don't know if others are using support).

I have the 500 II and use it with the 1.4x most of the time. It is a very nice combination. I also hand hold it all day long at airshows. I doubt I could do that with the 600. One other option would be to wait and see what the 600 DO will be like. I'll be considering that if it is about the same weight, or lighter than, the 500 II.

 

[xps]

Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...

Good call, not sure why the 500 didn't pop into my head.

I would also strongly consider the Sigma 500 f/4 Sport to save money if 700mm would work.

Brad Hill is currently doing a very detailed and long-term review comparing the 500 FL vs the 500 Sport ( he is also including the 400FL and Sigma 150-600S in the comparison)...his data should be reflective of how the 500II would fare as I would consider the 500II and 500 FL to be equals in the real world. He hasn't completed all parts of his review yet but his initial IQ assessment in a controlled environment is showing the Sigma to be exactly like the Nikon 500 FL in IQ and bokeh etc.

Here is the link to his blog: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#500mm_wars_4

If the Sigma holds up in the next section on AF, IS and real-world results (for Brad mostly handholding) then I think it would be an option to seriously consider. Of course you could also get a used 500 f/4 IS (version 1) used for a similar price to the Sigma.

Recent test in german Color Foto (2/17):
The Sigma 4/500mm DG OS HSM performs excellent 100 points (27 higher than average) on the 5DSr. This lens is 1/3 cheaper than the Canon pedant. Friends say, the Sigma is better in IQ than the Canon 500/4 Mk I.


If you go on an cheaper zoom lens (=< 600mm): 100-400II+1.4x III IQ ~ 150-600 DG OS HSM Sigma Sport IQ. The plus of the sigma is the usage of all/more AF points, as you do not reach f8. If you use the 100-400II without the teleconverter, the IQ is much better than the Sigma´s

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Easy - instead of the 600/4, go for the 500/4L IS II and with the money you've saved, upgrade your 5D3 to a 5D4. Image quality with the 1.4x III is superb, and the 2x III is good when you have to. The 30 MP images are more croppable than the 5D3's. The f/8 focusing (for the combo with the 2x III) is very capable, with all 61 points active including 21 cross-type. 6 fps -> 7 fps isn't a big difference but every little helps.

I've only had the 5D4 for a week (had the 500/4 II for much longer on a 7D2) so maybe it's just that the initial enthusiasm hasn't worn off yet, but it seems to me to be a killer combination.

 

[AJ]

or 400/2.8 with a 2x TC?

 

[Steve Balcombe]

or 400/2.8 with a 2x TC?

I used the 300/2.8L IS II with a 2x III regularly for three years, and while it's a very capable combination the AF performance hit is significant and that was my main reason for upgrading, along with the increased reach. I'm sure it would be exactly the same with the 400/2.8. For that reason I'd recommend the 500 + 1.4x to anybody who expects to need that much reach on a regular basis.

 

[Loswr]

For that reason I'd recommend the 500 + 1.4x to anybody who expects to need that much reach on a regular basis.

Agreed in general, get the FL you need rather than skimping and planning to use a TC most of the time. However, there's an exception currently at the long end – the 600/4 II + 1.4xIII is longer, lighter, and sharper than the 800/5.6.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Agreed in general, get the FL you need rather than skimping and planning to use a TC most of the time. However, there's an exception currently at the long end – the 600/4 II + 1.4xIII is longer, lighter, and sharper than the 800/5.6.

The 600 Mk2 + 1.4 is certainly longer than the 800 F5.6 - but an extra 40mm at these focal lengths? It is certainly lighter a BIG plus factor in my books!

Unfortunately I have only had one opportunity to try the 600 Mk2 + 1.4 Mk3 in the field - I rather liked it!

It is just that the 800 F5.6 L IS can be picked up for far less money - the 400mm + Mk2 lenses were just not in the frame for me, hence my suggestion of the 800 as a cheaper alternative. Not quite as good but thousands of pounds cheaper, and a little heavier.....

 

[rancho_runner]

Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...

Yes, do consider the 500 II. Note it is considerably cheaper than the 600 II (in the UK, ~£8k versus £11k at one major retailer at the moment), and although the latter is probably (rightly) widely currently considered Canon's foremost long lens, the 500 has similar performance, with only 100mm less.

I'd caution about BIF though - I find the 500L too big to use for that under most circumstances (but I hand hold, I don't know if others are using support).

I have the 500 II and use it with the 1.4x most of the time. It is a very nice combination. I also hand hold it all day long at airshows. I doubt I could do that with the 600. One other option would be to wait and see what the 600 DO will be like. I'll be considering that if it is about the same weight, or lighter than, the 500 II.

This is what I am thinking too, JMZawodn.

 

[Loswr]

It is just that the 800 F5.6 L IS can be picked up for far less money - the 400mm + Mk2 lenses were just not in the frame for me, hence my suggestion of the 800 as a cheaper alternative. Not quite as good but thousands of pounds cheaper, and a little heavier.....

Is the OP in the U.K.? Here in the US, used 800/5.6 prices from a reputable dealer are $10000 for 9/10 and $11000 for 9+/10. A new 600/4 II from an authorized dealer is $10400. Which would you advise?

 

[Deleted member 91053]

It is just that the 800 F5.6 L IS can be picked up for far less money - the 400mm + Mk2 lenses were just not in the frame for me, hence my suggestion of the 800 as a cheaper alternative. Not quite as good but thousands of pounds cheaper, and a little heavier.....

Is the OP in the U.K.? Here in the US, used 800/5.6 prices from a reputable dealer are $10000 for 9/10 and $11000 for 9+/10. A new 600/4 II from an authorized dealer is $10400. Which would you advise?

Yoiks! I thought that you got things much cheaper in the USA! My 800 F5.6 L IS cost £5500 (about $6700 at today's rates). True mine was second hand but it was in pretty much mint condition and MUCH cheaper than a used 600 Mk2 in any condition over here.

Perhaps Britain is not so much of a ripoff as we/I thought? I do know that RRS tripods are a no go here. They are simply superb but one 3 series RRS tripod vs a Gitzo 4542LS + a Gitzo 3320BS + a Gitzo 2531 + a Gitzo 2541 Mono Pod + a used Gitzo 1550T and a little change - bit of a no brainer really!

Tell me is $938 a reasonable price for a new 7D2 in your area? This was in December 2015.

I think that I may have to stop whinging about UK prices?

P.S. Do you know anyone who wants a very nice condition Canon 800 F5.6 L IS at USA prices? I will pay shipping and insurance. In fact at $10K I will throw in a full Canon (Elstree) service as well!

 

[Loswr]

Tell me is $938 a reasonable price for a new 7D2 in your area? This was in December 2015.

A new 7DII is $1350 here.

 

[xps]

For that reason I'd recommend the 500 + 1.4x to anybody who expects to need that much reach on a regular basis.

Agreed in general, get the FL you need rather than skimping and planning to use a TC most of the time. However, there's an exception currently at the long end – the 600/4 II + 1.4xIII is longer, lighter, and sharper than the 800/5.6.

I was able to shoot with the 800mm and 600mm + 1.4x extender at Nature Photography days, before I bought the 600mm. Mr. Neuroanatomist is right. I decided to go with the 600mm, because I can use it handheld too, what was not sufficient with the 800mm. Also using both lenses on an highend-tripod with the 5DSr and 5DIII, in sum, I got visibly better images. We compared the taken pictures on scene.
First, I tended to take the 800mm, but afterwards, I believed the other nature phototgrapher that are mostly using the 600mm, that the 600 II is the better solution.