If you could have only one...

[Fatalv]

I have the option of picking up a high quality telephoto lens with some savings. Originally I was looking at a high end telescope for some astro photography work but have been leaning towards a telephoto instead. I've been pleasantly happy with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and other L glass for astro and have been interested something longer for birding/wildlife.

So… which would you choose?

Current gear is 7D/5DMK3. 8-15 f/4L, 16-35 f/2.8 II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 50 1.4, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 2x Extender III.

As a side note, I've used the 2x extender on the 70-200 with mixed results. Do the extenders perform better on the telephotos listed? Optimized for primes by chance?

I was currently leaning towards the 400 f2.8 strictly for the light gathering ability for astro work and the ability to stack extenders and still have autofocus. But I keep wondering if I should go longer since I'm likely to only afford to own one of these lenses.

Thanks in advance for the advice!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Extenders magnify any imperfections in a lens. The expensive big whites are as good as technology allows and still be affordable by ordinary people. That's why they have better images when used with TC's.

Don't forget to budget another 2K for tripod and head.

 

[Fatalv]

Extenders magnify any imperfections in a lens. The expensive big whites are as good as technology allows and still be affordable by ordinary people. That's why they have better images when used with TC's.

Don't forget to budget another 2K for tripod and head.

Thanks for the reply!

I partly forgot about tripod/head as I was thinking astro in my mind and it riding on an EQ mount. I'm currently using a Arca Swiss Monoball Z series/Gitzo 1320 tripod and Manfrotto monopod. Mostly have been using the tripod for long exposure work (waterfall, city, etc.).

Would the monopod suffice or should I be thinking a gimbal head? Forgive my ignorance, I've been used to hand holding for BIF and other wildlife, but (as you remind me) I don't think that's feasible with the options above.

 

[rpt]

The 600L. For birding. f4 beats f8 that I currentl get when I add the 1.4x to my 100-400L...

 

[Marsu42]

Thanks in advance for the advice!

If you want to get the most iq from your sensor for larger output size, you have to crop as little as possible.

Unless you're shooting in a controlled setting, having a zoom gains you flexibility for wildlife and journalism. I understand the 200-400 with built-in tc was a much desired lens for this reason. The exception is if you want to get "as long as possible" for birding and expect to crop even with a 600mm lens. But remember that if the bird starts flying towards you, yu're out of luck

 

[9VIII]

If you say "wildlife" and "there can only be one" it has to be the 600f4.
People still like to use that lens with 2X-TC.
I've played with an 800mm mirror lens and getting ideal framing with that was still uncommon (IQ was horrible but for $300 you can get a feel for the focal length, and how hard it is manually focusing at that distance).
Using my 400f5.6 getting too close is uncommon, but it does happen (usually seeing wildlife on the side of the road) and then the 70-200ISII would probably be the ideal lens to have on backup. You see a lot of sports photographers saying they switch back and forth between that lens and a big white (with a body on each of course).

For the tripod, I've been using an Induro AT413, that thing is massive, probably about as sturdy as anyone could want, and at a little over $200 it's a great value for anyone that doesn't have to go far with it.
What it is not is light weight, but for the studio and car camping you probably can't do better.
Honestly the few times I have tried to use it for wildlife, with a full size gymbal, I wished I was using a monopod. Setting up three legs still feels like it takes forever (with the gymbal you have to re-level the feet every time you move).

 

[expatinasia]

I am a very, very big fan of the 400 f/2.8 ii.

I have used both the Mark III extenders with it and while I was mainly just messing around, the few serious shots I did take were excellent. It definitely takes them better than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, which as someone posted above, is to be expected considering the quality of the lens.

Which to buy? Only you can answer that, as you know what you are going to do with the lens. If wildlife is important than I would presume reach is a priority. For the work where I need a big white, then it is always the 400 f/2.8 ii.

Good luck with your choice, a nice one to have!

 

[Ruined]

400 f/2.8 because as you stated you can have only one and it can serve dual roles as astro/wildlife.

While into wildlife now you will probably get back intro Astro in a big way at some point and then you will regret not getting the f/2.8 lens.

 

[JonAustin]

I cast my vote for the 200-400, because I prefer the flexibility of a zoom and the convenience of the built-in TC.

But then, my wildlife subjects rarely include birds, and I don't have any designs on astrophotography applications.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

 

[Marsu42]

I cast my vote for the 200-400, because I prefer the flexibility of a zoom and the convenience of the built-in TC.

Another advantage as a zoom in a natural environment is the ability to re-frame, i.e. change to composure of the subject vs. potential distractions in the background while cropping as little as possible. When shooting with my 100L (other than usual 70-300L), I often find it annoying to be essentially fixed to a "take it or leave it" decision.

 

[Dylan777]

As an owner of 400mm f2.8 IS II, I voted for my lens. It works very good with x2 TC III.

If I have the money, I would buy all. I rented the 600mm, nothing but excellent IQ.

 

[TeT]

200 400, always like the zooms ...

 

[JoFT]

Definetely none of those. I prefer the 100-400 and the 1.4x Extender....

 

[JonAustin]

I cast my vote for the 200-400, because I prefer the flexibility of a zoom and the convenience of the built-in TC.

Another advantage as a zoom in a natural environment is the ability to re-frame, i.e. change to composure of the subject vs. potential distractions in the background while cropping as little as possible. When shooting with my 100L (other than usual 70-300L), I often find it annoying to be essentially fixed to a "take it or leave it" decision.

Yep. I just completed a three-day portrait session (high school yearbook) last week, and for the first time, used a zoom (70-200 II) instead of a prime (100/2.8L). Even with a fixed lens-to-subject distance (tripod-mounted camera to stationary bench), I appreciated the ability to tweak focal length a bit from subject to subject.

 

[meywd]

I am still nowhere near getting any of those, but when I save the money I will have to go through the same process, since you mentioned astro and birding I think the 600 is the one and that's what i voted, however i think there is another option, with 2xTC the 300mm f/2.8L IS II is great for both needs and still hand holdable, yeah i know the 70-200 is heavy enough but with a shoulder strap and few breaks it will not be bad ;D

If I could get more than one then definitely the 300mm and the 600mm.

 

[slclick]

Ha! I thought it was one of those 'If you only had one lens' polls. Therefore I went for versatility. (200-400)

 

[Hillsilly]

I'd be tossing up between the 400 and the 600. For most things I'd shoot with it (sports, landscapes - and often in lower light), 600mm might be a little too long, so I'd opt for the 400. I could always use an extender for longer reach. But in your case, the 600mm sounds like a good option.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I would have added the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS to that list - mainly because I love mine!
I used to have the 600 F4 L IS Mk1 and it is a great focal length for wildlife. Even though it may seem a bit long for larger species it allows you stay well out of their comfort zone and get shots of more natural behavior. The Mk2 600 is everything that the Mk1 is just lighter and better - especially with extenders. Probably why I voted for it!

The 500 F4 Mk2 should also be considered as it offers far greater mobility and much easier hand holding. So much so that the tripod could be left behind!

With any of these lenses it would be silly to skimp on support! For my 300 F2.8 & 800 F5.6 I use the Wimberley2 head on top of a 3 series Gitzo systematic (3530LS). Having tried the more recent Gitzo tripods in 3,4 and 5 series, there is no practical advantage to them - the "old" 3530LS is well up to the job of damping down vibration with my 800 mm, not I don't (well very, VERY, rarely) use IS.

 

[NancyP]

Well, I may be voting with my pocketbook, but first I need to rent and see what I can actually handle. It is a big step up from a 400 f/5.6L, which is trivially light. Handheld birds-in-flight photography is reasonable with the 400 f/5.6L, but what about the Big Whites? I see guys saying they handhold the Big Whites. I shoot with tripod too, but do like to be relatively mobile.

 

[expatinasia]

Handheld birds-in-flight photography is reasonable with the 400 f/5.6L, but what about the Big Whites? I see guys saying they handhold the Big Whites. I shoot with tripod too, but do like to be relatively mobile.

The 400 f/2.8 ii can be handheld for short periods, even though it is quite a weight. Personally, I do not enjoy handholding it. Of course for the best performance, it needs to be on a tripod or monopod.