If you could have only one...

[danski0224]

. 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?

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.

Birding/wildlife will push you to the 600.

The VII lenses are optically optimized to work with the III extenders *and* AF optimized for a current body such as 5DIII, 1DX or 7DII.

No comments on the suitability for astro work on any of those lenses.

I'd suggest checking out the weights of the 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4.

The f/4 lenses will still autofocus with a 2x extender, center point only on a f/8 AF capable body.

I would suggest picking 2 and renting them before committing.

 

[danski0224]

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.

"Hand hold-able" is a personal thing.

If you search for birding lens threads, the 500mm lens is by far the most common choice.

There are the VI and VII 500mm f/4 IS lenses.

There is also the Canon 500 f/4.5 USM non-IS. This particular lens is obsolete and no longer serviced by Canon (and most likely, not serviceable at all if it should fail), but it is significantly less expensive than either of the IS lenses. This lens is focus by wire and it will not manual focus at all without power (or if the USM fails)- the "manual focus" is similar to the STM lenses and the 85L f/1.2. The optics are still on par with the latest and greatest. Minimum focus distance is less on the newer versions.

 

[Fatalv]

Thanks for all the replies everyone!

Some really good info in the thread so far. I've been looking through the Bird Portrait thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.7590. I figured it would be a good place to see what these lenses can do.

I'm starting to think about hand hold ability and how important it is to me. Someone mentioned renting the lenses which is an excellent idea! I'm a CPS member so I'm thinking about planning a trip and borrowing a lens through the loan program.

Additional comments and opinions are welcome! Keep it coming

 

[Besisika]

200-400 for versatility as well.

 

[Eldar]

I have both the 600 f4L IS II and the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. Both are excellent lenses. Before I got the 600 I had the 400 f2.8L IS II. The reason for getting the 600 was the option of going all the way to 1200mm with the 2xIII, when we got f8 AF on the 1DX.

It is easy to get a bit lost in the tempted versatility of the 200-400. Having the option of going to 560mm at the flick of a switch is great. And if your main interest is wildlife, that is a great choice.

But if you are interested in birds, it´s simply not long enough. I use the 600, with the 1.4xIII extender more or less permanently attached, for birds. Even that is very often too short.

As for handholding, the 200-400 is in my view the most difficult, because you have to operate the zoom ring with the arm that carries all the weight. I have a convenient rig, with a monopod with a tilt head and a traditional flag bandoleer for that. I do hand hold the 600. But it is heavy and requires practice. A better alternative, if that is a prime requirement, is the 500 f4L IS II. Smaller, lighter and cheaper, but still quite long.

The 400 f2.8L IS II is a phenomenal lens and I have regretted selling it many times. The ability to go to f2.8 is missed and with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders you do get good reach with excellent IQ.

 

[emag]

My vote is 400/2.8 and both extenders. Reach when you need it, speed when you don't. I find f/4 plenty fast enough for astro (I use a 300/4 when I don't use a scope) but I wouldn't kick a 400/2.8 out of bed for eating crackers. I've often wondered how the Sigma 200-500/2.8 would work.

 

[Marsu42]

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.

I always found it difficult to wrap me head 'round the concept that wildlife equals ultra-long reach. True, there are lotsa "shoot 'em safari animals on the horizon" shots, but if you look at other good wildlife shots it's more about getting to mid-range distance.

Therefore I went for versatility. (200-400)

There is the point how versatile such a large and heavy lens can be in any case though ... it's not one of the op's choices, but I'm rather happy with my cheap 70-300L and if you want longer reach imho the new 100-400L2 with tc is definitely to be considered even if you end up with f8.

 

[expatinasia]

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.

I always found it difficult to wrap me head 'round the concept that wildlife equals ultra-long reach. True, there are lotsa "shoot 'em safari animals on the horizon" shots, but if you look at other good wildlife shots it's more about getting to mid-range distance.

I really would not know as I do not shoot wildlife and only use my 400 f/2.8 ii for work. That's why I was being presumptuous about needing reach for wildlife.

 

[Creeping_Death]

Hey,

if you think that adding a big white to your setup would be great because you could serve two purposes, astro and wildlife, than it might be a good option, but you should really think about where your priority is.

If you really want the best performance for astro, I would always go with a high end telescope as it will be better than all of the big whites regarding image quality, and it will probably still be cheaper. The thing is, those lenses have to be optimized to do a couple of things well, whereas a dedicated telescope can be optimized for its one purpose: imaging pinpoint light sources at infinity. So it is just natural that you can push the boundary of physics a little further if you only have to concentrate on one task.

Also, I don't know what kind of astro equipment you have, but investing in a good mount and an autoguider will be the basis of advanced astrophotography.

If you still want to go with the lens as it would be a great compromise, I would choose the 600 f/4 as it features the largest aperture (in terms of lens diameter) and a reasonably long focal length. Most deepsky objects are very small, so you would really like to have that kind of focal length to go with a full frame sensor as it is necessary to get decent magnifcation for the objects you are imaging. But then you should pay attention to the weight of the total setup (lens, camera, guide optics and autoguider) and if your EQ mount can handle it.

 

[danski0224]

I'm starting to think about hand hold ability and how important it is to me. Someone mentioned renting the lenses which is an excellent idea! I'm a CPS member so I'm thinking about planning a trip and borrowing a lens through the loan program.

Additional comments and opinions are welcome! Keep it coming

As I understand it, you do not get to pick the dates for the equipment loan. The loan time has been shortened as it now includes transit time.

The other issue is paying for shipping insurance. I would bet money that Canon does not pay for insurance through FedEx- they either have a separate policy, or take the risk (as a multi-billion dollar company, the "self-insure" risk is affordable).

You may want to find out just how much it will cost you to ship and insure the replacement cost of something like a 200-400 or 600 II... or find a way to attach it to your homeowners insurance for shipping. Seriously. The retail shipping rates for express shipping are quite dear (your loan period includes shipping time). Being close enough to pick up and return equipment directly would be a huge benefit here.

Oh, and make sure that you are up on the packaging requirements, or else the carrier will not pay out the insurance claim.

The 500 II seems to win the general "hand held shooting" contest based upon reading other threads- not ownership in my case, and of course, each person is different. Hand holding for a few minutes in an hour is different from more often or longer (sounds stupid, but it is important to keep time in mind). You also have to drag the equipment to the site.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I've used a 400mm f2.8 LIS for many years and it's easily the most versatile of all the big whites when coupled with a set of tele converters.

 

[FramerMCB]

I checked the 500mm f/4 II. But the reality is, if money wasn't an issue, I would choose an option you don't have listed: the new Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS. Super lightweight for carrying around and hand-holdability. It's received excellent reviews/ratings for sharpness, autofocus, bokeh, etc. And, it works great with any of the extenders being talked about. Obviously, you need a 1DX, 5D MKIII, or the new 7D Mk II to make autofocus work when paired with the 2X III extender - but this same limitation would apply with the all others listed too with the exception of the 400MM f/2.8 II. In fact, with the option I've listed, you could then also buy the new 100-400mm f/4-5.6 II and still be in it for less money then either the 400mm f/2.8II or the 600mm f/4 II.

However, this goes out the window, if your focus is completely on shooting big game and/or birds. I just like some versatility, and what I suggest, you could pack into the back country for short trips. I don't know too many people who would be interested in doing that with the 600mm f/4. Or the big 400mm f/2.8...

my two cents anyway.

 

[Fatalv]

Hey,

if you think that adding a big white to your setup would be great because you could serve two purposes, astro and wildlife, than it might be a good option, but you should really think about where your priority is.

If you really want the best performance for astro, I would always go with a high end telescope as it will be better than all of the big whites regarding image quality, and it will probably still be cheaper. The thing is, those lenses have to be optimized to do a couple of things well, whereas a dedicated telescope can be optimized for its one purpose: imaging pinpoint light sources at infinity. So it is just natural that you can push the boundary of physics a little further if you only have to concentrate on one task.

Also, I don't know what kind of astro equipment you have, but investing in a good mount and an autoguider will be the basis of advanced astrophotography.

If you still want to go with the lens as it would be a great compromise, I would choose the 600 f/4 as it features the largest aperture (in terms of lens diameter) and a reasonably long focal length. Most deepsky objects are very small, so you would really like to have that kind of focal length to go with a full frame sensor as it is necessary to get decent magnifcation for the objects you are imaging. But then you should pay attention to the weight of the total setup (lens, camera, guide optics and autoguider) and if your EQ mount can handle it.

My current astro rig is an Orion Atlas EQ, Starshoot Autoguider, Adam Losmandy Dual Saddle, etc. I have a AT65EDQ that gets me in the 420mm range. For moon shots the 70-200 f2.8L II + 2x actually produces better images thus far. I have Adam adapters to mount either my 5D or 7D sufficiently and have stack of Andromeda and some other milky way long exposures. (I should really post them sometime).

I was looking at a TEC 140 before I starting thinking the camera lens route. I figured at around $7k-$8k for a full TEC setup why not look into a big white and be able to use it for terrestrial work

 

[Creeping_Death]

Hey,

the Atlas EQ and the Guider should be a good combination to do some serious imaging. I think it really depends on how deep you want to dive into the astrophotography hobby and how much quality you demand for your images. I am sure that you can get very satisfactory results with one of the big whites. But the longer you stay in the field of astrophotography, the more obsessed with perfectly round, pinpoint stars you usually get

I also have the 65Q and I am a little suprised that it underperforms the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter. When i got mine the optics were pinched, which resulted in astigmatism and slightly unsharp stars so you might want to check whether yours is ok in this regard.

The thing is really what kind of objects (whats your favorite? Galaxies, planetary nebulas, large nebulas?) you want to image in the future and how much time you want to invest. Only a few objects are as large as the Andromeda Galaxy, so once you have imaged the brightest objects you will usually want more reach. And as only a few telescopes are corrected to the full frame image circle, they will be costly the more focal length and aperture you want.

But it really depends on your style of astrophotography. If you are the type of guy who spends 5-10 hours on a single object, then a TEC like you mentioned or any other high end refractor (Takahashi, TMB, AstroPhysics etc) will be the thing you want. On the other hand, if you say that your interest in wildlife and astro is really balanced, and you rather shoot multiple objects per night and you don't insist on filling the frame, then you could be really happy with a big white.

Me personally, I really prefer to have a telescope with a dedicated focuser. And if you still go deeper into astro, this would also allow you to switch to a cooled CCD camera if you wish to later on. But if you could buy the Canon lens used, you could still give it a try and sell it later if you develop into this direction.

 

[Fatalv]

Hey,

the Atlas EQ and the Guider should be a good combination to do some serious imaging. I think it really depends on how deep you want to dive into the astrophotography hobby and how much quality you demand for your images. I am sure that you can get very satisfactory results with one of the big whites. But the longer you stay in the field of astrophotography, the more obsessed with perfectly round, pinpoint stars you usually get

I also have the 65Q and I am a little suprised that it underperforms the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter. When i got mine the optics were pinched, which resulted in astigmatism and slightly unsharp stars so you might want to check whether yours is ok in this regard.

The thing is really what kind of objects (whats your favorite? Galaxies, planetary nebulas, large nebulas?) you want to image in the future and how much time you want to invest. Only a few objects are as large as the Andromeda Galaxy, so once you have imaged the brightest objects you will usually want more reach. And as only a few telescopes are corrected to the full frame image circle, they will be costly the more focal length and aperture you want.

But it really depends on your style of astrophotography. If you are the type of guy who spends 5-10 hours on a single object, then a TEC like you mentioned or any other high end refractor (Takahashi, TMB, AstroPhysics etc) will be the thing you want. On the other hand, if you say that your interest in wildlife and astro is really balanced, and you rather shoot multiple objects per night and you don't insist on filling the frame, then you could be really happy with a big white.

Me personally, I really prefer to have a telescope with a dedicated focuser. And if you still go deeper into astro, this would also allow you to switch to a cooled CCD camera if you wish to later on. But if you could buy the Canon lens used, you could still give it a try and sell it later if you develop into this direction.

For astrophotography I usually take a trip or two to Cherry Springs State Park each year. If you are not familiar with it, CS is one of the best dark parks in the eastern US. Andromeda was my first major DSO target. I'm into DSOs so galaxies and nebulas mostly. My goal for astro was to find a decent DSO object for each month that I could work on imaging throughout the year in my backyard (light polluted Pittsburgh) but also for random trips to the dark park.

I was looking at the TEC since a large refractor would still allow me to image from not so great skies when not at CS and also be one of those lifetime investments. As far as the AT65, I feel that the focuser was the limiting factor on quality vs. the 70-200 II. I was reaching a point that even though it was dual speed the smallest change was never perfectly focused. I honestly didn't expect a $600 telescope to be a match for a $2000 camera lens though. I had heard about the pinched optics but I'll have to do some more testing on this front (I haven't had a chance to use the autoguider yet other than software tests).

I'd say I do astro about as much birding at this point, but I could see more use for a telephoto just based on the number of camping/outdoor excursions I do without bringing all the astro gear. Hence why I'm debating the options I am. Don't get me wrong, I'm still debating the TEC as it would be a great lifetime scope. I'm just torn with making the proper decision with what is likely the only chance I will get before the funds need re-appropriated towards something slightly more practical

 

[Creeping_Death]

Okay, the way you describe it it sounds like you really will have much more opportunities for birding while being outside/camping than those occasions where you will find yourself under great skies.

In this case, I would recommend that you get the lens you really want for birding (right focal length and weight for you), use it for astrophotography whenever you have the chance to, and if you start do develop more and more interest in astro buy a telescope later. It doesn't have to be a high end scope, you could really make a nice step up from the 65Q if you spend around $2k at some point in time for a larger scope with a longer focal length.

Once you get the autoguider working properly, you will be able to do up to 10 minutes single exposures with a litte experience, and you will have some really nice shots to show once you get home from a dark sky site. Its just that the less known objects will stay pretty small

 

[quod]

600 because the 100-400 II is a great lens, which eliminates some of the allure of the 200-400, my runner-up lens. The 600 is an excellent birding lens.

 

[rpt]

600 because the 100-400 II is a great lens, which eliminates some of the allure of the 200-400, my runner-up lens. The 600 is an excellent birding lens.

+1

 

[Marsu42]

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.

I always found it difficult to wrap me head 'round the concept that wildlife equals ultra-long reach. True, there are lotsa "shoot 'em safari animals on the horizon" shots, but if you look at other good wildlife shots it's more about getting to mid-range distance.

I really would not know as I do not shoot wildlife and only use my 400 f/2.8 ii for work. That's why I was being presumptuous about needing reach for wildlife.

For most shots, you're probably correct, as even 400mm on full frame isn't *that* long (without a 2x tc, that is).

I just made it a habit to comment on this because my impression is that people wanting to get into wildlife w/o actually doing it before (b/c of the lack of equipment) might think it's all about scanning the horizon with 1200mm on a crop camera. But the perspective is completely flat on these shots, something that doesn't appeal to me personally.

Last not least, lugging around too much equipment kills flexibility and fun, which is something to be considered if you're not an actual pro photog (in which case only the result matters and nothing else).

 

[danski0224]

I was looking at a TEC 140 before I starting thinking the camera lens route. I figured at around $7k-$8k for a full TEC setup why not look into a big white and be able to use it for terrestrial work

Just for a pause here, but you do realize that all of the Canon VII lenses are significantly above this dollar range at MSRP, correct?