I've started shopping for Great whites... and I mean great... someone stop me.

[Spectrum]

First time poster, long time reader. Glad to be here...

GAS is chronic and incurable. All you can do is hope that therapy will put it into remission. I have found that buying that big ticket item works wonders for GAS for a while--at least six months or more in remission after purchase. But it will eventually come back...

 

[mackguyver]

but I'm pretty sure I can hold off on getting a great white until it is warranted.

Good luck with your affliction ;D. Also, here's a recent review of the 200-400 by Bob Atkins and the quote below sums up why I bought the 300 f/2.8 IS II, which with the extenders and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (which I already had), is so versatile:

"Well, for $11,700 you could buy a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, a 1.4x III extender, and a 2x III extender and still have $1700 in your pocket! Of course with 2 lenses and two extenders you’ve a lot more gear to haul around and you don’t have as much telephoto zoom capability, but you do have a faster 300mm lens and you do have 70-200mm (at f2.8) covered too."

 

[Loswr]

I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

I request you to reconsider. 'Make sense' is subjective. To me, spending a little money on doing creative things that makes one happy makes sense. Life is short, we should do what we can.

+1

Justifying a 'great white' from a business standpoint would be a bit challenging. Wildlife and freelance sports shooters would need to be at the top of their field for revenues to balance an expense like that (most white lenses at events aren't owned by individuals), and if a purchase can't pay for itself it's poor business practice to spend the money.

But for a hobby, there's no need to justify...as long as one can afford it.

FWIW, the 300/2.8 II is next on my list.

 

[jdramirez]

Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L? I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present. I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii.

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.

 

[tomscott]

Have you tried your 70-200mm with 2x MKIII?

Try it out first before hand you may surprise yourself at how good it is! Certainly did for me.

The most challenging thing is keeping the bird in frame with a prime its even more difficult if its flying toward you. With the zoom my technique is to track the bird at 70mm (140mm with the 2x) then as its coming toward you zoom into 400mm or what ever tele you need to try to fill the frame. Its a lot easier but obviously you loose a little AF speed canon quote 75% but I think this is worst case scenario from digital picture review he explains how the AF speed isn't really an issue with MKII lenses and MKIII extenders. I didn't have any trouble following Puffins and they are quick and unpredictable.

Next on my list is a MKIII extender I think

 

[mackguyver]

Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L? I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present. I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii.

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.

I don't think you can go wrong with either, but I prefer the smaller size and (mostly) handholdable weight of the 300mm. The price is a little better, too And yes, the 70-200 f/2.8, 98-280 f/4, 140-400 f/5.6, 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6 are rather nice for anything other than distant critters and little birds.

Also, to mirror Neuro's comment, the 600 f/4 II is on my list 8)

 

[Pieces Of E]

jdramirez, if that kinda money is no object, then your dreams are like most of us, only for us, they remain just dreams. Happy shopping and enjoy the investment!

 

[rs]

Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L? I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present. I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii.

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.

Which lens to go for really depends on budget, long term plans, and shooting style.

The 70-200 II works so well with 1.4x TC's that it can almost render the bare 300/2.8 II pointless for anything but wider than f4 shots. Obviously the sharpness, bokeh and AF speed take a step up, but it's not like they're lacking on the 70-200 II. However, once the 300 II is combined with a TC, the 300 gains a very real advantage.

Therefore, if you go by the adage that you should buy the lens whose native length is what you primarily intend to shoot with, you could argue that the 400 II makes more sense to pair with a 70-200 II as the only big white in your kit.

The 200-400 on the other hand buys you flexibility. It does next to nothing the 70-200 and 300 together with a selection of TC's does, other than allow you to go from 200 to 560 without any messing about with lens changes and adding/removing TC's, and save you a little bit of bulk to lug around. Looking at it the other way, the 70-200, 300 and TC combo does give you an extra stop at 200mm and 300mm, options wider than 200mm, and slightly more reach at f5.6, together of course with a lot of spare change.

Compare the 200-400 to the 400 II, and the cost gap narrows while the prime advantage widens (f4 at 280mm with both, but one stop faster at 200, 400 and all subsequent telephoto lengths).

If I was somehow in your financial position, I'd be torn between the 200-400 and the 400 II.

 

[tomscott]

Weight is a big issue too.

400mm F2.8 MKII is 3850g
200-400mm F4 1.4 is 3620g

300mm F2.8 MKII is 2350g

1500g less than the 400mm and 1270g less than the 200-400mm

Add a 5DMKIII 860g
or a 1DX 1530g

teleconverters
2x MKIII 325g
1.4x MKIII 225g

The 300mm in this respect wins big with weight and size, and doesn't suffer too badly in IQ, but AF is reduced.

Tough one. The 200-400mm is the all in one field lens, it near enough matches the 400mm F2.8 II at F4.

The dark horse is still the 400mm F5.6

Its only 1250g and out-resolves the 300mm F2.8 at 420mm at 5.6, almost matches the 400mm F2.8 MKII at 5.6.

It is also £4000 cheaper than the 300mm and £5,500 cheaper than the 400mm. Thats pretty much a no brainier for most. Only problem is putting tele converters on it makes it a 560mm F8 or 800mm F11.

Saying that the 400mm F5.6 with 1.4 MKIII converter outperforms the 400mm F2.8 IS MKII at 560 at F8 in the corners and is only very very slightly softer in the centre. Almost indistinguishable.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

But it will still focus like an F4 lens rather than the speed of F8.

A 400mm F5.6 IS would be a beast, even better the lens I crave 400mm F4 IS NON DO.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I guess these are the problems you want in life. ;D ;D

 

[applecider]

Have you handled a larger great white? I'd suggest that you do and decide if you want a hand holdable or not.

The 400 is ii us m and 600 ii is usm are for me marginally hand hold able (and thus less good for difficult birds in flight). I have no experience with the 200-400.

The 300is ii usm and to a lesser degree the 500 ii usm are hand holdable and the 300 for sure takes extenders really well. The MTF would indicate that the 500 does so very well as well.

So Id go for the 300 or the 500 unless you are in very good shape in which case any of the great white sharks would work for you. If I were to buy a 500 I'd consider camera canada as they have a deal on the 500....

 

[Jack Douglas]

Interesting and valuable comments here for anyone thinking about buying. I'm hobby and can almost afford some of these toys but a little thought about other things in life that are important really creates self restraint in me.

I'd like to travel a little to places where photography would be really exciting. These places can be dangerous, with theft a big issue not to mention one's personal well being. Then there is the issue of lenses and cameras that must board a plane and be lugged around with you constantly if you can't trust the security of the cheaper accommodation or only accommodation that's available. Even taking my 300 2.8 II worries me.

Then as a tourist there is the issue of varied activities and having heavy/bulky gear that wears you out. The 300 with converters is as far as I’m prepared to go because I’ve now verified after a year that I can handle it for some hours hand-held. I realize that a 400 2.8 would have been a BIG mistake, for me, as would the 600 since I don’t want a tripod most of the time. Many folks here have said much the same.

As we all know my 6D is not great for BIF and I regret that but the purchase was made with eyes wide open - an eventual back-up camera with either a new release 7D II as the next addition or maybe a 5D III or a 1DX.

Similar dilemma. The 1DX is worth drooling over but my friend bought it and yes it is bulky and heavy - man I don’t want that weight!! So I bought a used 1D2 for peanuts to play with. Pretty good AF and fast shutter - ooh nice. Weight added to 300 X2 NOT nice AT ALL. Like the straw and the camel for me. Takes a hike that’s enjoyable and makes it much less enjoyable. However, I have a medical pain/fatigue issue so I’m handicapped and a healthy younger person may not have the same breaking point as I have. Still the principle is applicable.

Likewise I’ve bought a 40 D for peanuts so I could see how I might react to a crop with the 300 and converters. The 7DII will have to be a LOT better or a crop is not what I’ll buy. AF is just too slow and the accuracy is poor, but it’s old technology.

The concept of finding a great deal on something similar that can be easily sold while breaking even, is a good way to get your feet back on the ground so that there is more objectivity displayed relative to a potentially irrational purchase.

I’m as happy as the day I bought it - 6D, 300 X2 has been an awful lot of fun for a pretty reasonable price.

Jack

 

[Loswr]

Have you handled a larger great white? I'd suggest that you do and decide if you want a hand holdable or not.

I find the 600 II to be handholdable as a bare lens, less so with an extender. I'd owned my 600 II for over a year before I tried out a 300/2.8 II - that made the 300 II seem tiny and light.

 

[eos650]

I'm in the market for a 400mm f2.8L IS II. I had planned to buy it mid April, once I got my tax return. Unfortunately, on April 1, everyone decided to abide by Canon's MAP and raised the price several hundred dollars.

The 400 will make my life easier, but I can certainly wait a bit longer. My other equipment is up to the task for most of what I do. It just means I have to be a bit more selective about where I shoot from and do a bit more work in post.

 

[jdramirez]

Have you handled a larger great white? I'd suggest that you do and decide if you want a hand holdable or not.

The 400 is ii us m and 600 ii is usm are for me marginally hand hold able (and thus less good for difficult birds in flight). I have no experience with the 200-400.

The 300is ii usm and to a lesser degree the 500 ii usm are hand holdable and the 300 for sure takes extenders really well. The MTF would indicate that the 500 does so very well as well.

So Id go for the 300 or the 500 unless you are in very good shape in which case any of the great white sharks would work for you. If I were to buy a 500 I'd consider camera canada as they have a deal on the 500....

Sometime soon I'm going to the b&h super store in nyc, so I'll see how they feel.

 

[NancyP]

Plan a local birding or sport weekend, and rent a Big White, say, the 500 f/4 I or II, mid-weight to heavy. If you don't have a suitable gimbal head, lens plate, tripod, rent those as well. Can you handle the hand held weight of the Big White? Can you walk around all day without getting tired? Do you like using a Big White on a gimbal head?

If the answer is yes, consider renting one by one the other Big Whites under consideration. By the end of it all, you may have paid 1/10 the price for one of the Big Whites in rental fees, but you will have a clear idea of which one is for you.

I get the GAS for Big Whites occasionally, specifically for the 600 f/4 L IS II. I put off the day of getting serious (I could budget for one, fortunately, given a little time) until I can easily do 15# biceps curls endurance sets and easily perform a stiff stair-climbing routine with 25# or more weights. I am a scrawny older woman, and not there yet. I also tell myself that fieldcraft matters more than having the most expensive lens - TRUE! In the meantime, I shoot with my beloved 400mm f/5.6L Small White, handheld - the lens Art Morris of Birds As Art calls his "toy lens". It is a snap to carry this around all day, and the image quality is excellent.

See how you can "beat", or at least keep at bay, Big White GAS?

 

[mrsfotografie]

I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

I did net fifteen bucks the other day from selling a print... So yeah... buy it now.

+1, if a financial return on investment is the point of photography, then my photography is completely pointless.

 

[jdramirez]

Generally I shoot sports. I like the movie Big Year, but I don't really care much about birds.

The 70-200 has been leaving me wanting lately... which is the reason for the gas.

And I pulled back on the throttle for the 400mm f2.8L... I looked at that price tag again and it was like cold water in the face...

 

[Northstar]

I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.

I did net fifteen bucks the other day from selling a print... So yeah... buy it now.

+1, if a financial return on investment is the point of photography, then my photography is completely pointless.

+1

The money I started saving when I quit playing golf has quickly been eaten up by my GAS

 

[Northstar]

Generally I shoot sports. I like the movie Big Year, but I don't really care much about birds.

The 70-200 has been leaving me wanting lately... which is the reason for the gas.

And I pulled back on the throttle for the 400mm f2.8L... I looked at that price tag again and it was like cold water in the face...

JD...I have the 300 2.8 is and like you, mainly shoot sports.....the addition of this lens is huge for field sports and night games. It's my money maker.

Look what I see..... ;D :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2-8-L-IS-USM-Lens-with-Hood-Caps-Case-/121364494388?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c41e33834