Ultimate Supertelephoto for Travel

[Kayaker72]

I am about to head down to Florida and hope to snap a few (thousand) bird photos with Mike (Busted Knuckles). I am kicking around the idea of renting a lens for the occasion. Typically I take my Sigma 150-600S and it does do a great job. But it is always fun to play and I "might" be able to afford a white lens with some girth in the next year. This has me thinking and looking at my usage of the Sigma 150-600S, I take a good amount of pictures with it (~30%) in remarkably few events that usually involve travel. Matter of fact, the only events that didn't involve travel where two trips to take pictures of loons over the summer. Everything else came from trips that required air travel.

So, the question is ---- What is the ultimate Supertelephoto lens for travel?

[Minerve101]

So, the question is ---- What is the ultimate Supertelephoto lens for travel?

I was very happy with the performance of a rented Canon 300 f/2.8 with 1.4X and 2X teleconvertors. It seemed to me about the most weight I would want to use over several hours, and just doable to carry on a plane.

[jamsus]

100-400 L II ?

I really did everything with it, and i dont have a full frame camera... i can only imagine the possibilities with one. With a 1.4x teleconverter you can reach an interesting distance for wildlife.

[HDNitehawk]

Traveling with a Super Tele is totally different than traveling with the zooms mentioned.
So no fair comparison there to draw.

When I travel with the 500mm I have a Pelican bag it fits nicely in to. It is carry on and I have never had an issue.
But any of the big whites is a chore to travel with.

When it comes to Supertele's of course the smallest is the easiest to carry.
Maybe the 400mm DXO II would be the option?


But IMO you are asking the wrong question. The question should be what is the ultimate lens for birding, whether or not it is difficult to travel with is beside the point. If it does matter are you building your trip around ease of travel, or having the ultimate experience while you are there? (considering it that way maybe from my perspective it would be the 500mm or 800mm will always be the ultimate big white for travel). All the lenses can travel, so how much work are you willing to put in to getting the ultimate lens there?

[DavidEccleston]

I'd say it depends on your travel. If you're always in or near a car, you can take a heavier lens. If you're going to hike, you'll want something lighter.

I'm going to assume you'll still take your 150-600 with you, as the large expensive lenses tend to primes, which can limit your framing and opportunities. Your experience with the 150-600 on previous trips should point out which prime focal length works best, so you'll get the same framing, but perhaps sharper, and thinner DOF. Maybe you could rent one of the newer DO lenses, as they're much more portable.

Another option is to perhaps rent the 200-400mm + 1.4x. This would let you leave the 150-600 at home, so you only have one heavy lens. This would give much the same focal length as you're used to... but with Canon's focus, top tier sharpness (I would assume...). The downside is it's only a moderate aperture advantage compared to your existing lens vs. something like the previously suggested 300mm f/2.8

[Kayaker72]

Thanks everyone. I did leave the question intentionally vague as I wanted to see a variety of responses. Perhaps push me to think about this differently. I do agree with HD's point. If the purpose of the trip is photography, then it is more about having the best gear for what you are shooting and you do what you have to in order to get the gear there.

But, for me travel is always about compromising between performance and portability. I should probably say I am very impressed with my Sigma 150-600S. I think the universal consensus has basically moved off of it as a good option, perhaps favoring the 150-600C for a consumer level supertelephoto, the 100-400 II for a more prosumer level, and Canon's big whites for ultimate durability, AF and IQ. But it has really served me well and I am getting a lot of shots I am happy with from it. In general, I disagree with the consensus I've heard (usually from people who have never used it).

While I know that Canon's big whites test as having better IQ, I have actually never had an issue with the IQ from the 150-600S. The issue I know I have is with aperture. To get good IQ, I am almost always (98% at 600 mm) at f/7.1 to f/8. I am almost always increasing ISO (spikes at ISO 640, 1000, 2000 and 3200) and compromising on shutter speed
(40% of my shots are 1/500 with another 35% at shutter speeds even slower than 1/500). Looking at those numbers, I am compromising too much shutter speed and I really want 1/1000 or faster. So, even dropping a stop would be nice and give me additional flexibility on shutter speed and ISO.


Looking over the options, what gets me is the number of good options that exist in this market now. Good, but I would not call any of them "great". Each comes with a compromise, and this is where I get back to most of my shots being taken while traveling. The lenses with the best IQ, AF, etc are even larger and heavier than my 150-600S, which has a well earned reputation for size and weight. Of course, and I am aware of the physics involved, but to get smaller/lighter you are giving up aperture, build quality and, often, AF speed. I have always been generally aware that I use the entire focal length range of the 150-600S, but looking at my 2017 numbers, I am even surprised I am at 600 mm only 60% of the time. The other 40% is pretty evenly distributed over the rest of the focal length range. Put all that together, I would say my perfect lens would be something like the 200-600 f/5.6 that has occasionally been rumored assuming Canon doesn't make too many compromises on IQ/AF, etc. Granted, that is not that different from the 200-400 f/4 TC, which is even bigger and heavier than my 150-600S.


I am going to kick this around a bit more, and I may end up testing a couple of combinations. First, I really do need to see if there is a difference with my 150-600S on the 5DIV. Maybe the improved sensor performance, I'll feel comfortable at higher ISO. After that, I need to consider some options, my current thoughts:

300 f/2.8 II (with TCs). One of the lenses that has always tempted me. A bit short for what I want, but f/2.8, amazing IQ, and crazy fast AF.
400 f/4 DO II. This may be in my future as it may be an excellent travel lens. This is high on my list for renting.
400 f/2.8 II. I know this is thought of more of a sports lens. But as I've shot, sure for birds I am usually focal length limited, but for anything larger I am more often light limited. Size, weight and $$ are the issues with this lens. But f/2.8.
500 f/4 II. This is the lens I have always thought I would end up with.
200-400 f/4 TC. As mentioned above, if I were to replace the 150-600S, this is likely the logical choice. But, size/weight/$$. But I am very tempted to rent this one as well.


I think the next thing for me to think about is something I know some of you already do. No lens does everything. On important events, perhaps I should have a supertele on one body and something wider on a second body.

This is how I spend my winters. ;)

[Kayaker72]

Another question, for those of you that have used big white lenses. Knowing that I am more of a handheld wildlife shooter and that is the primary purpose of the supertelephoto lens for me, which would you recommend?

[Jonathan Huyer]

Another question, for those of you that have used big white lenses. Knowing that I am more of a handheld wildlife shooter and that is the primary purpose of the supertelephoto lens for me, which would you recommend?

I can walk around with my 500 f/4, and hand hold for short periods of time without straining my wrist and arm too much. I use a Black Rapid strap and it works fairly well. I'm sure that I would not be able to do that with the 600 f/4. When I was taking photos from a ship in Svalbard, that is the setup I used as you can see below. I used a dual Black Rapid system, and had a 70-200 lens on the second camera (only partially visible at the bottom of the frame).

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-8HpnSDc/0/0ba799c4/L/i-8HpnSDc-L.png

The 500 f/4 is still a fairly hefty lens to have to hold up, so if you're not careful then you could end up causing some long-term damage to nerves in your wrist (or something similar to that) by trying to support it for longer than you should.

[Busted Knuckles]

The local lens rental shop has a 400 2.8 for 250.00 for the friday a.m. to monday p.m.. I have the 2x mk3. 800 5.6 though i doubt it is hand holdable

[Dave Throgmartin]

The 400 f/5.6 is a lot cheaper than most of those mentioned, but does a really nice job even wide open if you can get the shutter speed high enough.

Dave

[peety3]

If you're going to rent from LensRentals, have it shipped "Hold At Location" to a nearby FedEx Office location.

My vote is the 600/4 and a 1.4x. 840/5.6 is a really nice punch for long shots (better than the 800/5.6 and still lighter than it too), while keeping the 600/4 option for when the sun isn't so high. Or the 400DO II if you want some amazing portability (aside from size) - I don't know about the II version, but the old version I think had "inverse" chromatic aberration, so it took a 1.4x really, really well. Or for something a little different, try the 200/2 and a pair of TCs; 200/2, 280/2.8, 400/4 is super-cool, and the 200/2 will blow you away.

[HDNitehawk]

The 500mm II I can hand hold for short periods, still a monopod is prefered.
I could hand hold the version I for short bursts, pull it up hit and release. Long holds were difficult.
With the 600mm II has about the same weight as the 500mm I and the length is about the same as with the extender.
The added length makes it even more difficult as the center of balance is farther away from your body.

I wouldn't buy the 600mm thinking I was going to hand hold it very often.

In Johnathan's picture if I didn't have my monopod I would use it just as he is, but I would be looking for a way to brace against the boat or looking for a stool to sit on for maximum support. Also how you posture makes it easier to hold to. I hold my elbow in close to the body to provide better support. I think of it like shooting a firearm, the more stabilized your elbow is the better the results.

[Kayaker72]

As I have mulled this over, I keep coming back to the 500 f/4 II and 400 f/4 DO II. The 500 f/4 II is the same size as the 150-600S extended (15.3"), and it is half a pound heavier in use weight (7.5 vs 7 lbs). So I expect I would be able to hand hold it just as I do the 150-600S now (as others have mentioned). Plus, it gives me 1 2/3 to 2 stops more light in the range (>400 mm) I am targeting, which is what I want.

The 400 f/4 DO II is smaller, lighter, and less expensive by ~$2,000. Add an extender on it and it will be giving me a 2/3 to 1 stop advantage in the >400 mm range and ~2 stops at 400 mm.

I have the utmost respect for the 400 f/5.6 and 100-400 II. I think they are sharper than my 150-600S at 400 mm and have a 1/3 stop aperture advantage. I would circle back to those lenses if size/weight/$$ became my biggest drivers. And there is something to be said for putting myself in better positions so I do not need 500-600 mm. I consider the 600 mm f/4 to be the ultimate supertele. But I wonder how much I would use it. I like handholding vs shooting from a mount. I take most of my supertele photos while traveling and photography is usually only part of the purpose of my travel. And the 500 f/4 II and 400 DO II are not behind in IQ, just in focal length.

So, I am still in the evaluation process. This is a big enough purchase and I enjoy evaluating, so I have the 400 f/4 DO II coming for my meet up with Busted Knuckles in Florida and the 500 f/4 II for a Presidents Day weekend shoot locally.

BTW, thanks for the tip to pick up lenses at a local FedEx Office. That is what I am going to do.

Thanks everyone....

[Joel Eade]

I'm late to the party but for what it's worth......

I would agree with Peety .....ultimate would be the 600 f/4L and the 400 DO II .... fabulous IQ and both will take the 1.4 or 2.0 tele-extenders well but you might want to do an AF micro adjustment to really maximize performance. You probably won't be disappointed with the 500 though, it's been my "weapon of choice" for years. I would strongly recommend you have the tele-extenders available when birding.

[peety3]

A few "stories" about our Alaska cruises.

2010: I rented the 500/4 v1 but had no monopod. I used the tripod on occasions and had a ton of fun. It didn't feel heavy until the trip home. :)
2012: I rented the 400DO v1 and had no monopod. I also rented a 1Dx and a 1.4x TC, used exclusively on the 400DO. That sucker was FUN! I felt like Quick Draw McGraw: I shoot YOU! I shoot YOU! I aim anywhere I want with a flick of my wrist and I shoot YOU!
2014: I rented the 200-400 and really liked it. It gave me some versatility, and although I learned to think of it as a 200-560, I eventually got tired of the only 2x zoom range and the not-all-that-impressive aperture (given the physical size/weight). On the premise that most of us shoot zooms at either ends of the zoom range and rarely in the middle, it made carrying a 70-200 almost redundant. Not totally, but almost.
2015: I rented the 600 and a 1.4x and fell in love. Paired with a 100-400 and a 16-35, I rarely felt that the 35-100 hole was a problem. I got really comfortable carrying the 600 on my left shoulder, sometimes even hands-free (I probably put a lot of stress on the EF mounts, but I found that the 1Dx/1.4x/600 combo had enough length to fit on my shoulder, and the collapsed monopod still put the center of gravity down low enough that it would stay put). One time I did try the 600 on a Wimberley head on a monopod: too much weight and too squirmy to carry.
2017: 600/1.4x again, only this time on a 5DsR. Damn. Erectrifying, if you know what I mean. I ended up with a 70-300 on my 1Dx (wife "claimed" the 100-400; I may rent a second 100-400 next time) and a 24-70 or 14/2.8 on a 5D3.
Next time, I think I'd leave the 1.4x home and just crop if necessary; the 5DsR isn't as forgiving if you push the ISO so keeping the lightway open helps. If I do skip the 1.4x, I'll probably stick to the 70-300 and also punt to the 16-35 and leave a lens home or perhaps bring a Zeiss Milvus 100/2 Makro "for something completely different".

[neuroanatomist]

Another question, for those of you that have used big white lenses. Knowing that I am more of a handheld wildlife shooter and that is the primary purpose of the supertelephoto lens for me, which would you recommend?

We've typically gotten together for winter raptors, where patience is key and that means the supertele is on a tripod. But on many occasions, I walk around carrying the 600/4 II (usually with the 1.4xIII) on a Blackrapid strap (the left-handed version), and shoot handheld. I generally bring along a monopod and use that if I'll be standing in one place for a while.

This was on a blustery November day at Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19556.0;attach=126 417;image

You may get a chance to compare your rented 500/4 II head-to-head with my 600/4 II on that President's Day weekend shoot... :)

[Kayaker72]

I'm late to the party but for what it's worth......

I would agree with Peety .....ultimate would be the 600 f/4L and the 400 DO II .... fabulous IQ and both will take the 1.4 or 2.0 tele-extenders well but you might want to do an AF micro adjustment to really maximize performance. You probably won't be disappointed with the 500 though, it's been my "weapon of choice" for years. I would strongly recommend you have the tele-extenders available when birding.

Ha....it's all good. This party is still going. I appreciate the input as well.


A few "stories" about our Alaska cruises.

2010: I rented the 500/4 v1 but had no monopod. I used the tripod on occasions and had a ton of fun. It didn't feel heavy until the trip home. :)
2012: I rented the 400DO v1 and had no monopod. I also rented a 1Dx and a 1.4x TC, used exclusively on the 400DO. That sucker was FUN! I felt like Quick Draw McGraw: I shoot YOU! I shoot YOU! I aim anywhere I want with a flick of my wrist and I shoot YOU!
2014: I rented the 200-400 and really liked it. It gave me some versatility, and although I learned to think of it as a 200-560, I eventually got tired of the only 2x zoom range and the not-all-that-impressive aperture (given the physical size/weight). On the premise that most of us shoot zooms at either ends of the zoom range and rarely in the middle, it made carrying a 70-200 almost redundant. Not totally, but almost.
2015: I rented the 600 and a 1.4x and fell in love. Paired with a 100-400 and a 16-35, I rarely felt that the 35-100 hole was a problem. I got really comfortable carrying the 600 on my left shoulder, sometimes even hands-free (I probably put a lot of stress on the EF mounts, but I found that the 1Dx/1.4x/600 combo had enough length to fit on my shoulder, and the collapsed monopod still put the center of gravity down low enough that it would stay put). One time I did try the 600 on a Wimberley head on a monopod: too much weight and too squirmy to carry.
2017: 600/1.4x again, only this time on a 5DsR. Damn. Erectrifying, if you know what I mean. I ended up with a 70-300 on my 1Dx (wife "claimed" the 100-400; I may rent a second 100-400 next time) and a 24-70 or 14/2.8 on a 5D3.
Next time, I think I'd leave the 1.4x home and just crop if necessary; the 5DsR isn't as forgiving if you push the ISO so keeping the lightway open helps. If I do skip the 1.4x, I'll probably stick to the 70-300 and also punt to the 16-35 and leave a lens home or perhaps bring a Zeiss Milvus 100/2 Makro "for something completely different".

Ok...that was fun. Great to get your impressions of everything and you touch on many topics. First, in a good number of the articles I am reading about the 400 DO, there is just a level of excitement, almost a love for the lens. This always catches my eye and that is one of the reasons that I will be giving it a try in 10 days. Plus, it just checks a lot of boxes.

The 200-400 f/4 tc. This seems to be a favorite of Bryan's. Not that I've ever asked, but he takes a lot of great pictures with it. Combine that with how often I see the lens mounted at different events, it has made me consider it. But....I suspect I'd end up where you did. It is an amazing lens and I am sure I would like shooting with it, but for that money/size/weight, I think I would want something else. Plus, for what I do, it may make more sense to have a second lens covering that range.

Which gets us to another point to touch on, the overall construction of the kit. Do you want a zoom supertele if you already have a 70-300, 100-400, or 70-200 with you? Do I go to a two camera system as a large number of you have for photo expeditions. If so, I need to think about pairs, and not a single lens and I already own the 70-200 II and 70-300 L and happen to have not sold my 5DIII yet.

Also, you seem to rent, not buy. Just playing with the 600 f/4 II, A 10 day rental would be ~$675 and a 5 day would be ~$425 for an average of $550. Three of these per year is $1,650/yr. I like the idea that we are renting our lenses even when we buy them because they do hold value. Say I buy the 6000 f/4 II for $11,500 and get 60% when I sell it, so my "renting" costs $4,600. Then it is 2.8 years and I am passed the breakeven point and I've saved money buy owning it.

Huh....that is a thinker.....

Quick math and 400 DO II, 500 f/4 II are in the 2.6 to 3 yr range breakeven point as well. If only renting these once a year changes the break even point to between 7.8 and 9 yrs. Of course, renting let's a person try a number of different lenses. A bit like dating versus marriage. Ok, not really, but you know what I am getting at.... ;-)


W

You may get a chance to compare your rented 500/4 II head-to-head with my 600/4 II on that President's Day weekend shoot... :)

I hope so. Let us know if you can make it. I am seeing a bunch of pics of snowys and have yet to go out and chase them. It would be great to meet up.

[Dave Throgmartin]

I'm not the target market here so take it for what it's worth... I can't imagine buying the 200-400 rather than a 500. The 500 would be a no-brainer better pick.

Dave

[HDNitehawk]

I would be interested to know how often a user of the 200-400 uses the tc. If not often it is dead weight you are always carrying.

[Joel Eade]

My perspective is the 200-400 is probably a premier choice for larger animals like on a safari for example but it will most likely leave you wanting more focal length in many birding situations.

There are many places where the birds are very approachable....if you are living close to one of these places I am sure you could do great with the 200-400.

I have seen many amazing images made with the 200-400 and would have no reluctance about IQ BUT if birds are your main interest I would go for the 500 or 600 f4 if possible and of course the 400 DO is a killer for flight images due to it compact size and lighter weight.

I don't get to travel much and mostly I image birds from a set up in my yard and even in this controlled situation 500mm is way better than 400mm. For small birds I will often add the 1.4 TC to reach 700mm.

[peety3]

Also, you seem to rent, not buy. Just playing with the 600 f/4 II, A 10 day rental would be ~$675 and a 5 day would be ~$425 for an average of $550. Three of these per year is $1,650/yr. I like the idea that we are renting our lenses even when we buy them because they do hold value. Say I buy the 6000 f/4 II for $11,500 and get 60% when I sell it, so my "renting" costs $4,600. Then it is 2.8 years and I am passed the breakeven point and I've saved money buy owning it.

For me, it's more a case of renting a super once every 1-2 years. Over the seven years we've been doing Alaska cruises, the IIs came out (so if I'd bought back then, I wouldn't have a II).

Every so often, I just open up the LensRentals website and go through their lenses for rent, and open up a browser tab with every lens I might want to buy. I then go through a "tab sorting exercise" to decide what order I'd buy them in (you know, if I won the lottery but insisted on always using the same credit card just as fast as I could keep paying it back down to $0 so I could get lots of FF miles...), and too many supers are in the running for me: 300/2.8 (silly to not own something faster than f/4 if I'm going to buy a 600/4 someday), 600/4 (because our not-yet-created children are going to play soccer, dammit!), 400/2.8 (because once you have the 300/2.8 and 600/4, the 400/2.8 comes next and the 300/2.8 collects dust except for those times when 400mm is too much, right? - but the 400 is too much to buy before the 300 and 600), 400/4 DO II (because I'll deal with the few shortcomings if it means I have a lightweight super, and my wife will probably want this one), and then the 200-400/4/1.4x (because a 24-105 and 200-560 combo would kick ass). Considering that there's also a 200/2 on the list, a shit-ton of Zeiss (85/1.4, 100/2, and 135/2 specifically for my headshot photography, plus 35/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/2Macro, and maybe a 15 or 21mm), some tilt-shift (the 90 and maybe the 135 specifically for my headshot photography), and of course the 85/1.4 IS, 24/1.4II, I can't bring myself to buy a 600 (but should I buy a 300/2.8 first???) and therefore delay so many other smaller-ticket items (and we haven't even cracked the wishlist of more Profoto lighting stuff...)

In the grand scheme of things, I'm a believer that as much as I plan (dream) out my future lens purchases, the only thing that matters is what lens should I buy next. We're definitely off-topic here, but business aspirations aside, it's the 24/1.4II. We've already got the 14/2.8II, 35/1.4II, 50/1.2, 85/1.2II, 100/2.8L Macro IS, and 135/2. We frequently go to Jazz Alley in Seattle, which allows non-flash photography freely. When we sit close, 14 to 35 is too big of a gap, and the light is IMHO too low for a 5DsR to survive on a 24-70/2.8. From a business perspective (I hope to launch a side business doing headshots in a rented studio space as soon as 6 months from now), I want the 85/1.4 IS for the focus speed and optical quality I'm led to expect; I use the 100/2.8L Macro as primary, but want to have an 85 and 135 prime handy, with a 70-200/4 as versatile backup. After that, it's either a 200/2 to give me a long portrait option, or start going for the Zeiss Milvus 100/2, 135/2, and 85/1.4 to see what it does for my headshot work.

[Kayaker72]

I thought I'd share some impressions of the 400 DO II after using it last week in Florida, primarily comparing it to my Sigma 150-600S lens.

AF Speed: 400 DO II: Great. 150-600S: Good.
The AF speed is fast. I know large slow birds is not considered extreme, but that is mostly what I shot. It was noticeable both in how many more keepers I had with egrets and herons in flight but also that I would lock on in the first or second shots whereas with the 150-600S, I am used to it taking several frames before the AF really locked in. This is not so much of a big deal for static subjects, but huge for BIF.

AF Accuracy/Precision: 400 DO II: maybe great?. 150-600S: Very good.
I had trouble dialing in the AFMA on the 400 DO II, but I wonder if it was AF inaccuracy. While I use FoCal for my shorter lenses, with my 150-600S, I've always been able to head outside, pick a subject, and play with it for ~5 minutes and dial it in. It was not as simple as a process with the 400 DO, even if I played with aperture. It took me a long time to feel confident. This could be AFMA varying with distance? Or it could be a AF precision issue? I am really not sure. But towards the end of the trip, I set up a pseudo-control tests shooting the back of a package label, and still had some inconsistencies.

IQ: 400 DO II: Great. 150-600S: Great.
I was surprised by how even these were. The 400 DO II had great colors, captures light well, and gave me plenty of sharp images. It is a bit sharper than the 150-600S, but it is so I am not sure really matter.

EDIT to remove bokeh reference....upon further review, there may be a difference, but shifting background light may be the main culprit.


Portability: This is true transport. I travel enough, transport is important to me.

Size: 400 DO II is 9.5x5" and the 150-600S is 11.8 x 4.8 ". This gives a bit of extra room in my bag (see pics)....but not really much usable space.
Weight: 400 DO II is 5 lbs and the 150-600S is 7 lbs. In transport, does 2 lbs matter? A little. But my bag on this trip was 27.5 lbs. Is 25.5 lbs better? 7% better, so a little. In a smaller bag, of course, this would mean more.


2659

2660


Usability:

The 400 DO II was a joy. Well balanced on the 5DIV (w and w/o TCs). The weight really makes a difference, and having the center or weight closer to the camera, especially compared to the 150-600S when extended, was significant.
150-600S. I didn't miss the zoom on this trip, but I know there have been trips where I thought I would need 600 mm, but ended up taking many of my shots at 200 or 300 mm. For uncontrolled circumstances, zooms are great.


1.4x and 2x TCs


The lens takes extenders really well.
IQ. Very little to no perceptible loss in IQ with the 1.4x TC. The IQ with the 2x TC is still very good, but I would say some loss in contrast, which is typical. But I was really happy with a 800 f/8 lens.
AF speed. Barely noticeable loss in AF speed at 1.4xTC, and a slight loss, but still fast and very usable AF speed with a 2xTC.
Put in more practical terms, this is an amazing 560 mm f/5.6 lens and a very good (and hand holdable) 800 mm f/8 lens.



Fun Factor (this is why we shoot, right?)


The 400 DO II is light and portable, it feels great mounted to the 5DIV. It AFs quickly, and gave sharp and constrasty images. It worked as a 400 f/4, 560 f/5.6, and 800 f/8 lens. All easily handholdable! This was a lot of fun.



I didn't hate going back to the 150-600S, which says a lot. It holds its own in many ways. But for BIF, hands-down the 400 DO II was superior.


There are two more things I am looking at as I look at my shots:

bokeh.....there are some odd things going on in the 400 DO II shots. At this point, I clearly prefer the out of focus rendering of the 150-600S at the same apertures. I want to look at a few more side by side comparisons.
T-stop. We do not often talk about T-stops. But in my pseudo-controlled tests, I shot in M with the same aperture and shutter speed but let ISO float. I am noticing that, same shutter speed and aperture, the 400 DO II had significantly lower ISOs. More on that after a few more direct comparisons.


The 500 f/4 II is coming this Friday...the evaluation continues!

[Kayaker72]

Ok...a quick follow up....

On Bokeh, there still may be a slight difference, but I can't conclude anything for sure as the background light was shifting.

A quick example:
2661

2662

Top image being with the 400 DO II @400 mm, 1/1000, f/8, ISO 640. Bottom image 150-600S, @401 mm, 1/1000, f/8, ISO 1000. So, this is a better example of what I think may be going on. While the OoF rendering seems smoother with the bokeh balls less intense with the Sigma. Also, the transition in the railings is smoother. But, the light in the background was changing. The shadow cast by the lens is more intense, color temp warmer (granted I was AWB). After looking at about a dozen examples, I still might prefer the 150-600S (at same apertures), but I think it is mostly changes in background lighting. A good reason for truly controlled conditions when testing.

But, on the railings, a quick example: 400 DO II @ 400 mm, 1/1000, f/4, ISO 200

2663


While the 150-600S doesn't do f/4, at equivalent apertures this effect is diminished, but I want to say that the 150-600S is smoother at same apertures.

But, as for T-Stops of these lenses, I went to DXOmark, and they didn't rate the 150-600S, so I can't do a comparison. But, I did swap these lenses out twice (so two sets of data). In both, the 150-600S was ~2/3 of a stop higher ISO compared to the 400 DO II at the same aperture. I think the lighting shift would be more random and it wouldn't be consistent as by the same margin and in both tests. If so, this, of course, compounds the f/stop problem. For example, at 560 mm, I shoot f/7.1-f/8 to get sharp images. The 400 DO II + 1.4TC is sharp at f/5.6. So, there is 2/3-1 stop difference in f/stop. If there is another 2/3 stop difference in T-stop (as I measured that at same f-stop), then the real difference is 1 1/3 to 1 2/3 stops in terms of light hitting the sensor.

I'll run more controlled tests (indoor, constant light) with the 500 f/4 II over the weekend as maybe the background light was brighter for the 400 DO by 2/3 a stop for both sets of data.

[Kayaker72]

Just so not all the pictures with the 400 DO II are boring.....

5DIV 400 DO II, 400 mm, 1/1600, f/4, ISO 250
2664


5DIV 400 DO II, 400 mm, 1/1600, f/4, ISO 250
2665


5DIV 400 DO II, 400 mm, 1/1600, f/4, ISO 500 (highly cropped)
2666

400 DO II plus 1.4 TC @ 560 mm, 1/1250, f/5.6, ISO 2500
2667



400 DO II plus 1.4 TC @ 560 mm, 1/1250, f/5.6, ISO 250
2668

[HDNitehawk]

What is the blue flare above the lens in the second picture?
Bokeh is subjective, but a blue flare is a big negative.

[HDNitehawk]

The 500mm IS I had really bad bokeh in certain situations. When shooting in or around grass (birds on the ground) the bokeh would have an awful appearance because of the lack of separation. I don not know what it is about blades of grass but it always seemed to have trouble. The new 500mm II in the same situation isn't as bad.

I wonder if some of what you are seeing is because of the DO build. It is short, compact and light and the bokeh is one of the trade off's.

In the second and third picture in your set the bokeh comes in to play. For my taste the Bokeh doesn't distract. It would have been nice if the back separation was a bit greater but it is a wild bird and you get what you get. To put it in to perspective though, for those two pictures if Bokeh wasn't the topic of discussion I wouldn't have even noticed the bokeh which is the really the idea.

We may be getting in to bokeh peaking, which is probably a rare strain of pixel peeping only much worse.

[Kayaker72]

What is the blue flare above the lens in the second picture?
Bokeh is subjective, but a blue flare is a big negative.

That is a great question. I am not sure. Given my amazing attention to detail, I probably missed a super rare bird flying past.

In scrolling through the previous images, I can see it start and move left to right. Just appeared atop the lens in the image I selected.

Here is the previous shot...

2669

So, I wouldn't call it flare.

BTW, these were with the 150-600S. Not the DO.

I'll try to not bokeh peak too much, but the 400 DO II may suffer from the same issue you had with the 500 Mk I. Overall, as I scroll through images, I am very happy with the 400 DO II. I am sure I will post others. But if I am spending $7000-$10,000, I am going to put these lenses through their paces.

[Kayaker72]

We may be getting in to bokeh peaking, which is probably a rare strain of pixel peeping only much worse.

So, of course, I had to go look. I posted some shots in the Birds thread, but that background was very distant. Here are some trickier examples:

2670

2671

2672

2673

2674

I'd be curious as to your thoughts, but looking at this, I would actually call it a good performer. I can look at a few spots and they might be a bit nervous, but nothing too bad. Overall, I am good with the rendering under even light (first three were on a cloudy day).

But, looking at shots from a sunny day, those are some ugly bokeh balls. So, I am wondering if high contrast, higher light levels will be an issue? I'll have to go look to see how my 150-600S did in similar circumstances.

Still very happy with the DO, but I like to know each len's strengths and weaknesses.

[Busted Knuckles]

I had a blast with it. Likewise need to more critically at the photos.

Somewhat had the "why isn't google earth realtime moment" coming to grips thay the 1dx couldnt full spead autofocus with 2x tc on it.... f8.

We get accustomed to tech advancing beyond our expectations and then get surprised that physics stilk apply and it wasn't that long ago what we take for granted didn't even exist

[HDNitehawk]

This is a shot right after I bought then 500mm II.
The grass isn't to bad.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8663/16143143290_a0fd9790e9_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qAvQ5J)20150117-CQ2A2535 (https://flic.kr/p/qAvQ5J) by hdnitehawk01 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/55888666@N08/), on Flickr

With the old 500mm it would have been worse, kind of like the rail shot you posted.
This is the closest one to showing what I am talking about that I had on flicker,
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5162/5311453292_0983d41829_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/96mA1U)Cardinal 1 (https://flic.kr/p/96mA1U) by hdnitehawk01 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/55888666@N08/), on Flickr

The tiny branches are close and are unpleasing to my eye. It is a separation issue, but the new 500mm handles it better.

I will be curious about your perception of the 500mm.

[Kayaker72]

I had a blast with it. Likewise need to more critically at the photos.

Somewhat had the "why isn't google earth realtime moment" coming to grips thay the 1dx couldnt full spead autofocus with 2x tc on it.... f8.

We get accustomed to tech advancing beyond our expectations and then get surprised that physics stilk apply and it wasn't that long ago what we take for granted didn't even exist

Ha...yeah, ultimately these are just tools. Just working through the mystic of the "Big Whites".....there are limitations. Granted, they are amazing glass.

And then there is the thing located about 6 inches behind the lens. I am playing with the 500 II right now. I was working on AFMA it and would have these blurry shots (hand held, similar to what I've done with the 150-600S in the past) making it tough to even see the focus plane. So, ok, I know it is better to use a tripod, but this HAS worked with my 150-600S and 5D...oh wait. I am using a 5DIV now. And I seem to recall all those references to needing better technique with higher MP bodies. That talk started with the Nikon D800/800E which were 36 MP. So I wondered if it applied to the 30 MP 5DIV, backed out away from 100% viewing and....there's the focus plane.

Amazing, but the photographer is more often the limiting factor...not the gear.


This is a shot right after I bought then 500mm II.
The grass isn't to bad.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8663/16143143290_a0fd9790e9_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qAvQ5J)20150117-CQ2A2535 (https://flic.kr/p/qAvQ5J) by hdnitehawk01 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/55888666@N08/), on Flickr

With the old 500mm it would have been worse, kind of like the rail shot you posted.
This is the closest one to showing what I am talking about that I had on flicker,


The tiny branches are close and are unpleasing to my eye. It is a separation issue, but the new 500mm handles it better.

I will be curious about your perception of the 500mm.
Rick..is that a roadrunner? Great shot. I do not know if I've ever seen one.

I'd put the 400 DO II between the MK 1 and 2 in terms of bokeh. Looks like it has a bit more of a challenge going into bright light, which is exactly what I read in some reviews :)

Still forming my impression of the 500 II. Bokeh does seem smoother. Definitely bigger and heavier. I broke out my monopod that I have never used before. I can hand hold it, but pixel peeping the keeper rate wasn't great. Much better with the monopod. The images that have come in sharp are amazingly sharp.

I think one of the important distinctions for travel telephotos are ones that you can handhold all day and those that you might occasionally handhold but you will likely use some sort of support. I had been thinking that I could hand hold the 500 II, as it is just a bit heavier than the 150-600S, which I handhold almost exclusively. But the weight distribution is different. So, my current thinking for super telephoto lenses:

Handholdable:

400 DO II
400 f/5.6
100-400 II
150-600C
150-600S (on the big/heavy side)


Primarily used with support (occasional handholding)

400 f/2.8 II
500 f/4 II
600 f/4 II

[HDNitehawk]

He is a Road Runner. That is an older shot.

I have been neglecting my photography the last year for the greater good. I have a few hundred acres of land and a few years ago started working on a building that was to have a weekend living quarters built in. The wife got hold of it and turned it in to a full fledged house and I have moved out of the City to the land. When weather started getting colder the lady bugs swarmed the house and were trying to find a place to get in and winter. On multiple days the Road Runner would come to the house to eat Lady Bugs. It is my plan that he will be a regular subject soon.

[Michael G. Clark]

Thanks everyone. I did leave the question intentionally vague as I wanted to see a variety of responses. Perhaps push me to think about this differently. I do agree with HD's point. If the purpose of the trip is photography, then it is more about having the best gear for what you are shooting and you do what you have to in order to get the gear there.

But, for me travel is always about compromising between performance and portability. I should probably say I am very impressed with my Sigma 150-600S. I think the universal consensus has basically moved off of it as a good option, perhaps favoring the 150-600C for a consumer level supertelephoto, the 100-400 II for a more prosumer level, and Canon's big whites for ultimate durability, AF and IQ. But it has really served me well and I am getting a lot of shots I am happy with from it. In general, I disagree with the consensus I've heard (usually from people who have never used it).

While I know that Canon's big whites test as having better IQ, I have actually never had an issue with the IQ from the 150-600S. The issue I know I have is with aperture. To get good IQ, I am almost always (98% at 600 mm) at f/7.1 to f/8. I am almost always increasing ISO (spikes at ISO 640, 1000, 2000 and 3200) and compromising on shutter speed
(40% of my shots are 1/500 with another 35% at shutter speeds even slower than 1/500). Looking at those numbers, I am compromising too much shutter speed and I really want 1/1000 or faster. So, even dropping a stop would be nice and give me additional flexibility on shutter speed and ISO.


Looking over the options, what gets me is the number of good options that exist in this market now. Good, but I would not call any of them "great". Each comes with a compromise, and this is where I get back to most of my shots being taken while traveling. The lenses with the best IQ, AF, etc are even larger and heavier than my 150-600S, which has a well earned reputation for size and weight. Of course, and I am aware of the physics involved, but to get smaller/lighter you are giving up aperture, build quality and, often, AF speed. I have always been generally aware that I use the entire focal length range of the 150-600S, but looking at my 2017 numbers, I am even surprised I am at 600 mm only 60% of the time. The other 40% is pretty evenly distributed over the rest of the focal length range. Put all that together, I would say my perfect lens would be something like the 200-600 f/5.6 that has occasionally been rumored assuming Canon doesn't make too many compromises on IQ/AF, etc. Granted, that is not that different from the 200-400 f/4 TC, which is even bigger and heavier than my 150-600S.


I am going to kick this around a bit more, and I may end up testing a couple of combinations. First, I really do need to see if there is a difference with my 150-600S on the 5DIV. Maybe the improved sensor performance, I'll feel comfortable at higher ISO. After that, I need to consider some options, my current thoughts:

300 f/2.8 II (with TCs). One of the lenses that has always tempted me. A bit short for what I want, but f/2.8, amazing IQ, and crazy fast AF.
400 f/4 DO II. This may be in my future as it may be an excellent travel lens. This is high on my list for renting.
400 f/2.8 II. I know this is thought of more of a sports lens. But as I've shot, sure for birds I am usually focal length limited, but for anything larger I am more often light limited. Size, weight and $$ are the issues with this lens. But f/2.8.
500 f/4 II. This is the lens I have always thought I would end up with.
200-400 f/4 TC. As mentioned above, if I were to replace the 150-600S, this is likely the logical choice. But, size/weight/$$. But I am very tempted to rent this one as well.


I think the next thing for me to think about is something I know some of you already do. No lens does everything. On important events, perhaps I should have a supertele on one body and something wider on a second body.

This is how I spend my winters. ;)


When using Canon DSLRS. it is best to avoid the '+1/3 stop' ISO settings (125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, etc.) Due to the way the sensor is set at whole stop settings and the exposure/development is 'pulled/pushed' you wind up losing 1/3 stop in the highlights and increasing the noise in the shadows. It's basically the same as exposing to the left and then pushing to the right in development.

If not burning the highlights and getting the widest dynamic range possible is your primary concern, use whole stop ISO settings (100, 200, 400, 800, etc.).

If shadow detail is the primary concern, use '-1/3 stop' settings (160, 320, 640, 1250, etc.). You give up 1/3 stop of DR, but gain detail in the shadows the same as if you "ETTR" by 1/3 stop.

In several tests done by various folks, under certain conditions ISO 125 can be noisier than ISO 1250!

[Kayaker72]

When using Canon DSLRS. it is best to avoid the '+1/3 stop' ISO settings (125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, etc.) Due to the way the sensor is set at whole stop settings and the exposure/development is 'pulled/pushed' you wind up losing 1/3 stop in the highlights and increasing the noise in the shadows. It's basically the same as exposing to the left and then pushing to the right in development.

If not burning the highlights and getting the widest dynamic range possible is your primary concern, use whole stop ISO settings (100, 200, 400, 800, etc.).

If shadow detail is the primary concern, use '-1/3 stop' settings (160, 320, 640, 1250, etc.). You give up 1/3 stop of DR, but gain detail in the shadows the same as if you "ETTR" by 1/3 stop.

In several tests done by various folks, under certain conditions ISO 125 can be noisier than ISO 1250!

Hi Michael....similar to Mark (clemmb), welcome to the forum!

I am familiar with the theory. However, my understanding is that it this has been minimized with recent camera sensors, for a few examples looking at generations of the 5D (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20II_14,Canon%2 0EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark% 20IV_14).

I actually recall having read that this phenomena was gone and you can see the 5DsR and 1DX exhibit (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X_14,Canon%20EOS%201 D%20X%20Mark%20II_14,Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R_14) almost no effect of the push/pull from the whole ISO. Interestingly, even though the 1DX II has lower read noise (on chip a/d), it is exhibiting a muted version of the push/pull effect.

Lots of interesting stuff as you look at this, for example, the 5DIII (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III_14) is an example of the push/pull effect you mention. But, then some other cameras, look like they just push from base ISO (Nikon's D5 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D5_14), Canon 1DIII/5DI (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20Mark%20III_14,Canon% 20EOS%205D_12)). Then, I wonder if Nikon/Sony are taking advantage of ISO invariance with the D850, and others, as they have a totally different pattern.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D850_14,Sony%20ILCE-6500_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3_14

Bottom line, if you really want to optimize you camera, you should really understand its characteristics. While each brand has some general patterns, it does vary camera to camera within each brand. I do think more modern cameras have really minimized this effect to the point where I am not too concerned with my 5DIV.

If you would like to discuss further, let's start a new thread as this is a great topic and I can see going back and forth, especially if you have some links I haven't seen before.

Thanks,
Brant

EDIT:Made several changes, biggest, I had originally recalled this being linked to the placement of A/D converter, I think that is incorrect so I eliminated that reference. This just seems to be something brands do, mixing it up even within their own lineups.

[Kayaker72]

So, the 500 f/4 II has been returned. I was sad to see it go. That is a heckuva lens.

A few pics:

5DIV, 500 mm, 1/1250, f/4.5, ISO 250


2681



700 mm, 1/2000, f/5.6, ISO 200

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4757/39513446235_a11eb14ea5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/23cEJWp)6S0A6073 (https://flic.kr/p/23cEJWp)
by
kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/)
, on Flickr


700 mm, 1/3200, f/7.1, ISO 12,800 (I was testing things and liked the pose)
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4663/38598801480_428706732c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/21NQWVf)6S0A6165 (https://flic.kr/p/21NQWVf)
by
kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/)
, on Flickr


700 mm, 1/1250, f/5.6, ISO 1600
2683



700 mm, 1/2000, f/5.6, ISO 1250
2684


So, my home set up needs some work, but those were taken out my office window at my bird feeder about 35 ft away (exif is 10.4 m, seems a bit long). If correct, playing with the math, the 700 mm (500 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC)
is 311 ppi. So, that is about the limit if I keep my home set up as is. But being able to take a break from work (I am home office when not traveling), open my window and shoot some pictures is a very nice afternoon break. Thus, the potential for 700 mm is opening up opportunities.

Some other general observations:
AF Speed:

[*=left] 500 f/4. Just really fast.



AF Accuracy:



[*=left] Very impressed. Very few shots needed to be deleted for an AF miss. I took the time with the 500 f/4 II to mount it to a tripod and use the LensAlign to dial in the AFMA bare and with TCs. I think this made a huge difference compared to what I experienced with the 400 DO II. Granted, once I finally dialed in the 400 DO II, it was pretty remarkable as well.



IQ:



[*=left] Excellent. As good as I've seen. While the bird shots at my home set up benefited by the extra reach, there is no doubt I am seeing an extra level of sharpness compared to the Sigma (which I still regard as a sharp lens...this is just better). I am seeing detail to the ridges around the birds eyes instead of just the ridges themselves.



Portability: True Transport


Size: 500 f/4 II: 15.3x6.7 inches. Sigma 150-600S: 11.8x4.8 inches. I can close the zipper on my GuraGear 22L Kiboko, but I would be buying a new pack. It barely fits. This is the first lens that makes my 150-600S look small(ish).
Weight: 500 f/4 II: 7.5 lbs. 150-600S: 7 lbs. Not much of a difference in the bag. The balance of the 500 f/4 II is something in the field.



2685

2686




Usability:



[*=left]For walking around, the 500 f/4 II was great. Incredibly well balanced, which makes it feel so light. I had my blackrapid strap anchored to the foot. I walked, drove, and shot snowy owls for 4 hours. When first testing the lens, had a few issues hand holding, but a few small adjustments to my technique and it is actually very hand holdable. I could stay on target with minimal movement for longer than it takes to fill up the 5DIV buffer, let it clear, and then fill it again.



With TCs:



[*=left]Very similar to the DO II. It may even take the TCs better. But 1.4TC is fast AF with great IQ. Very slight dip in contrast and AF speed with the 2xTC, but still very usable, probably still better at 1000 mm than the 150-600S at 600 mm.



Fun Factor:



[*=left]Ok...this opened up a type of photography I have wanted to do, but have been unable. I positioned my bird feeder to be able to shoot from the house. My 150-600S was ok, but if I ever posted an imaged, it was only 1-2. The quality just wasn't there. Playing with the calculator, part of that was just pixels on target. But with the 500 f/4 II + 1.4TC and the 5DIV, this is something I can do now. But it is 311 ppi, less reach, fewer MP is just not an option. So new ability = fun.
[*=left]Compared to the DO, they are fun in different ways. I am looking for the right analogy, but the DO II is like a great high end sports car. It is light, sporty, quick, and easy to handle. It just makes you smile. The 500 f/4 II is more like a luxury sedan. Elegant, efficient, powerful, and ultimate, superb handling. The 400 DO II, you hop in and out of a car, you react quickly to birds movements, and barely notice the lens. The 500 f/4 II, you can do all those things, but it is slower. You have to think about the lens. But it works great.



So, this has been a lot of fun. Next up is time to get a bit serious. The T-stop issue with the 150-600S has me questioning it's place in my kit. I had intended to keep it, as I have really enjoyed that lens and it has accounted for several of my favorite images each year I've owned it. Yet, since I bought it, the 100-400L II was released. I already own the 70-300L, which is a great little lens, and I do wonder if the 100-400 II and the 70-300L being in the same kit. I like each lens have its own distinct purpose. And, I am looking at these Big White Lenses.

So, my quick plan and likely my next post, is to look at all the scenarios which I would use these lenses, and decide which lens would be best for that scenario. The trip to Florida is now an annual event as is chasing Snowys and eagles. I can rent lenses for trips, but I will continually make trips to photograph wildlife (Yellowstone in early Sept this year). I shoot loons and turtles from a kayak, and I would love to be able to take morning/afternoon breaks, open my office window and rattle off some shots of birds at my feeder.

So, I probably could justify about 5 different lenses.... hmmmm.... ok...have a good weekend everyone.
Brant

[HDNitehawk]

Interesting car analogy, my comparison would be the 500mm is more like the new Ford Raptor, it is a quick rugged beast that gets results in brutal conditions, it is not pretentiousness in that it does what it claims it will do, it is at home in the woods or a foot ball game, most of all it is just fun to play with.

[Kayaker72]

I had the opportunity to borrow John's (Neuro's) EF 600 II a bit ago for a quick photoshoot. While I didn't get to use it over multiple days, really, what I wanted to get a sense of was size/weight, how handholdable it was, and what it felt to walk around with it on my Blackrapid strap.

My basic impressions are really pretty predictable, but it is nice to have them confirmed:

The 500 F4 IS Mk1 was widely considered to be handholdable. Guess what? The 600 f/4 II is about the same weight. It is very much handholdable. I even find the disclaimer of "not for extended periods of time" to be both true and misleading. It is true in that I wouldn't want to handhold it for 10 minutes without a break, but that is true with just about any lens. I easily held it on target for multiple bursts as I followed some cardinals foraging on the ground. Probably ~1 minute. That is all I want, therefore, it is a handholdable lens, IMO.
Walking around. Both it and the 500 f/4 II are both so well balanced that walking around with them is pretty easy. I did notice the extra weight and size of the 600 f/4 II cause a bit more movement/sway while walking compared tot he 500 f/4 II, which barely moved. Not a big deal, but the 500 f/4 II was easier to walk around with.
Weight. Yep, it is a bit bigger and heavier than the 500 f/4 II. Noticeable, but not unwieldy. It really is only 1.8 lbs heavier than the 500 f4 II. Actually, I think John's reaction was telling as we swapped the 150-600S for the 600 II, his perception was that it was "about" the same weight, when it is 2.35 lbs lighter. None of these lenses are a 70-200 f4 IS. You notice all of them and the balance of the Canon's really helps in the handling.
Size. The 600 II is ~2.3" longer w/o the hood and 3.3" longer w/ hood mounted compared to the 500 f/4 II. The diameter of the lens is only 0.14" wider than the 500 f/4 II without the hood, but 0.85" wider (almost 8") with hood. This is actually somewhat significant as carryon luggage is typically limited to 9" depth, and you need a bit of space for the padding/luggage. John did confirm that the max diameter seems to have been measured at the nut, so he can fit the 600 II into his Storm IM2500 (which I also have), that can fit in most overhead bins. But that was without the normal padding of the storm. The 500 f/4 II fit into the Storm with padding and into my Gura Gear Kiboko 22L (tight, but see pic above), which I have barely fit into the overhead bins of smaller airplanes.



With that, I'll continue my general impressions with the same format used for the 400 DO II and 500 f/4 II.


AF Speed:


[*=left]Really fast. Actually, again John's impression is telling, he noted right away how slow the 150-600S was in comparison.




AF Accuracy:





[*=left] Very impressed.




IQ:





[*=left] Excellent.




Portability: True Transport




Size: 600 f/4 II: 18x 6.85 inches without hood. 500 f/4 II: 15.3x6.7 inches. Sigma 150-600S: 11.8x4.8 inches. Didn't even try to fit it in my current larger bag (kiboko 22L). I'll be buying the Firstlight 40L for a new large bag.
Weight: 600 f/4 II: 8.65 lbs (without hood). 500 f/4 II: 7.5 lbs. 150-600S: 7 lbs.




See above


Usability:





[*=left]For walking around, the 600 f/4 II was great, just a bit more movement and heavier than the 500 f/4 II. But, really, with any of these lenses, I was fine walking around.




With TCs:



[*=left]Did not try, but I know it works well.




Fun Factor:



[*=left]In terms of walking around, the 500 f/4 II with a 1.4 TC mounted might be more "fun". Just a bit lighter, smaller, etc. But really, this was a bit more reach for a bit more weight. Still a lot of fun, and the 600 II is probably the best tripod mounted birding lens out there. So there is fun in that, even though I didn't mount it to a tripod.





So, I am almost done. I have purchased the 100-400 II and am comparing it with a TC against my 150-600S. I am also planning a final "what lens meets my needs" evaluation, and hope to order something this week.

Thanks,
Brant

[Always Looking]

Thank you for sharing your reviews and comparisons Brant. Someday I'm hoping to purchase a super-telephoto and your input is helping me make my decision.

I happen to own the Mindshift Firstlight 30L and I'm very pleased with the bag (I realize you are getting the larger 40L). The only real downfall I have with the bag is the weight (empty). I'm sure there are lighter bags, but I'll deal with the added weight to have my gear protected. Bag is a little over two years old and looks like it's new, very well made and good access to outside pockets (laptop, paperwork, etc.). Granted practically every airplane I've been on was a 737 (or equal) since I got the bag, but there were no issues with fitting the bag in the overhead bins.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Scott. It is good to hear someone is interested in this rabbit hole I've chosen to go down.
:)


So, I have a fundamental problem in that I haven't had much time to shoot lately. Work, personal life, family, etc is keeping me pretty busy. But I have had time at different random moments internet a number of different things...

So, I thought it would be interesting to look at how other photographers have built their kits. What do they use.

I actually started with a few people from different forums:


Bryan--- https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/My-Current-Cameras-and-Lenses.aspx
From CR-Grant Atkinson: https://www.grantatkinson.com/my-gear
David Lloyd (Nikon shooter): https://davidlloyd.net/about/



And a few others....But then I decided to check out Canon Explorers of Light (EOL) and the equivalents in the EU. As I am looking at a wildlife lens, I tried to focus on wildlife photographers. For the EOLs, it was easy as I simply looked at each photographer under their "Wildlife" genre. For EU, for some, it was more of a guess, so I may have missed a few there. But, 5 in the US, 5 in the EU, what I hope is a reasonable sampling is summarized it in the following table:

2705

A couple of things jumped out at me:



[*=left]15 mm fisheye?? This is the second most popular lens. Wow.
[*=left]Zooms vs Primes. You have to think, these are the types of people Canon is going to be consulting when planning.

[*=left]Technically, more primes were owned. But look a bit more closely.
[*=left]I do not see a single "holy trinity" of primes, yet most has some version of the holy trinity of zooms (gray).
[*=left]Primes are mostly what I would consider "specialty" lenses: macros, TSE and, of course, supertele. I am sure this would change if I looked at portrait photographers, for example.
[*=left]There is a difference in favor between most US EoLs and EU photographers.
[*=left]Very interesting as this is the direction I have settled in as well: Zooms for most work, primes for specialty purposes.


[*=left]Everyone in the US has the 100-400 II. Most owned lens.
[*=left]Could be that the webpage hasn't been updated, but there are selective about new lenses, lots of old gear. What was interesting, is I was seeing newer bodies (1DXII, 5DIVs, and 5DsRs). But there were some Mk 1 versions of the superteles. All the 16-35 f/2.8's was the version II, not III, etc.
[*=left]There is a real efficiency to most of the kits. Right there around 8 lenses.




As for the supertele lenses I have been looking at:

2706

Couple of interesting things:

Technically, the 500 f/4 is used more by the photographers I looked at, but really...pretty close between the 500 f/4 and 600 f/4.
I was surprised to see people still using the 800 f/5.6 as I've considered it pretty well established that the 600 f/4 II plus 1.4TC is actually a bit better. But, 3 photographers in EU still list it.
Really surprised to see only two people using the 200-400 +TC and only one using the 400 f/2.8 II.
Not a single 400 DO II


So, if you are interested:
Searched by wildlife under genre---EOLs: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/explorers-of-light
EU: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/ambassadors/explorers/andy_rouse.do

Almost done with my rabbit hole. But, off to go kayaking as the thunderstorm threat has passed.

[Kayaker72]

A quick pivot from the 400 v 500 v 600 mm lens selection to talk about the Sigma 150-600S vs EF 100-400 II.

So, a quick comparison, mostly of the 100-400 II with 1.4 TC against the Sigma 150-600S.

Size/Weight
Let's get this out of the way.


In use weight 100-400 II plus 1.4xTC: 4.25 lbs
In use weight 150-600S: 7 lbs


Big Edge: 100-400 II plus TC



Size of 100-400 II: 3.7" x 7.9"; 1.4 tc: 2.8" x 1.7"; combined extended with hood ~15"
Size of 150-600S: 4.8" x 11.8"; extended with hood ~19"


Big Edge: 100-400 II plus TC



IQ--Sharpness/contrast
Painfully similar. Bryan's test charts really mirror what I see in my test shots. But, these are two nice lenses.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

In his tests, I give the center to the Sigma, but the edges to the 100-400 II w/TC. In practice, both are producing great images.

Push

IQ-Bokeh
I have loved the bokeh from my 150-600S, and at first, I thought it was better than the 100-400 II + 1.4TC. But, after I adjusted for focal length.

Push

Focal Length
Theoretically, they are pretty similar, 600 mm vs 560 mm (with TC). However, neither lenses is truly as advertised. Playing with the distances to target that Bryan lists in his spec page, I think the Sigma is 575 mm. I am not sure how this was calculated, but Bryan has estimated the 100-400 II at 383 mm at the long end, not 400 mm. So, 383 x 1.4=536 mm. Again, using calcs based the target size and distance on the product spec page, I calculate the 100-400 II to be actually 392@ "400 mm", and 534 mm at "560 mm."

So, really, this is comparing a 575 mm lens (150-600S) to 534 mm (100-400 II + 1.4 TC) lens. And that played out in my testing. I initially thought the bokeh was better on the 150-600S because I was comparing each lens at their extremes. When I compared equivalent framing, the bokeh was very similar. This similar framing was achieved with the Sigma set to 534 mm.

The 8% loss of resolution with the 100-400 II + 1.4TC compared to the Sigma 150-600S is not inconsequential. Really, when you want reach, you want as much as possible.

Edge-150-600S.

EDIT---I am playing around with this difference in reach. As I write these things down, sometimes it takes a second to sink it. Yes, there is a difference and I regularly noticed the high contrast targets being larger with the Sigma. But in looking at some side by side shots, there may not be much difference in resolution. More later.

AF Speed
I ran a couple of tests:

Outdoor, variable light, oscillating between two targets, first about 30 ft (~10 EV), second about 50 ft from me (~13 EV), alternating between two for 60 pics.


[*=left]400 mm (AI Servo): 100-400 II (no TC): Avg 0.97 secs between shot; 150-600S: Avg 0.93 sec between shots
[*=left]600/560 mm (One Shot): 100-400 II w/ 1.4 TC: 0.83 sec between shots; 150-600S: Avg 0.87 sec between shots.



Good Light---push
Ok...this surprised me. The 150-600S feels slower, and I think it may be when you first get it going, but alternating targets, it did great. Very comparable. Second, the 1.4xTC did not seem to harm the AF performance of the 100-400 II. I will say it occasionally hunts with the TC, but speed going back and forth between targets was not impacted. Third, One Shot seems faster than AI Servo. Just a bit.

Indoor, artificial light (~6-7EV)



[*=left]560/600 mm: 100-400 w/ 1.4TC: 1.6 sec between shots; 150-600S: 1.9 sec between shots.



Edge: 100-400 II w/ 1.4TC

Lose 3-6 stops of light, get artificial light and AF speed is twice as slow compared to outdoors.


F-Stop vs T-Stop
The 150-600S @ 600 mm is f/6.3, but I use it at f/7.1 to get sharp images. The 100-400 II is f/8 at 560 mm and is sharp there. But, yet again, same aperture and shutter speed, the 150-600S is needing ~1/3 to 2/3 stop higher ISO to get the same exposure. So, again, the T-Stop of the 150-600S is probably 0.5-2/3 stops higher than the 100-400 II.

100-400 II only---advantage

100-400II w/tc, v slight advantage as I can use the 150-600S at f/7.1

IS
Played with it and I am looking at a pretty solid 4 stop IS with the 100-400 II w/ and w/o the TC. (EDIT)---the Sigma holds it's own here, may even be a bit better. I will say, that the IS in the 100-400 II really steadies the image in the viewfinder. The Sigma only a little (almost mode 3, but Sigma doesn't have mode 3), but in terms of the actual image, I was running into issues at 1/25-1/40 of a second for each lens (560 mm vs 600 mm).

Push

Ease of Use
This is really the size/weight combined with IS, but I can more easily hold the 100-400 II on target than the 150-600S. The IS

Advantage 100-400 II

MFD
I underappreciated how fun the MFD of 3ft with the 100-400 II would be. The 150-600S is actually really good with a MFD of 7.5 ft, especially compared to the Big Whites. But a 3 ft MFD is another world.

Both impressive, but 100-400 II more so.

Where I am at:
I have actually always thought I would get the 100-400 II as soon as I upgraded to the 5DIV. The reason is pretty simple, to get greater than 400 mm I would need to add a 1.4TC to the 100-400II, that would make it an f/8 lens. On my 5DIII, f/8 was limited to center point only and really pretty slow/inconsistent AF at that. But, f/8 is every point on the 5DIV. I've played with it, great AF across the range. So, after my purchase of the 5DIV last fall, this was really part of the plan. That said, the 150-600S has been my second most used lens and each year has produced some of my favorite pictures. The size/weight are an encumbrance, but manageable. What I have really run into an issue with shutter speed/ISO balance if light is limited at all given this whole T-stop/F-stop issue I've discovered.

The 100-400 II will be much better natively, getting f-stops that are f/4.5 to f/5.6 with T-stops only 1/3 to 1/2 a stop higher. But add the 1.4xTC, and this essentially becomes a 1/3 of a stop issue between the lenses, so a bit better but not much.

So, this gets back to what has always been obvious, size/weight vs reach with the MFD of the 100-400 II a factor. If I was only to have one combination, I might actually stick with the 150-600S. Reach is why you get a long lens, 8% more resolution is a noticable difference (500 mm to 600 mm is only 20% increased resolution and think of the size/weight/$$ difference there) and could be worth the size/weight trade off.

But, given that I am looking at the 500 f/4 II or 600 f/4 II, and one of those will be my "long" lens, that factors in whether or not I am keeping the 150-600S. My current thought is that if I get the 500 f/4 II, I sell the 150-600S. If I get the 600 f/4 II, I at least consider keeping the Sigma.

OK, hopefully you are finding this interesting. I'll get back to picking the 500 or 600 in the next post.

[HDNitehawk]

Some other things to think about with the 500 vs the 600.

You gain 20% of reach, for instance to get the same framing with the 500 at 100' you will be at 120' with the 600.

The 600mm weighs 22.9% more.

The 600mm mfd is 21.6% farther away.

At B&H the 600mm will cost you 27.7% more.

It might sound silly, but in all those areas you loose ground to gain the 20%.

MFD would be important if you were liked to take pictures of birds in the back yard where you can control the distance to your perch, or in the wild if you are able to get to the MFD. To me there I see no advantage to the 600mm, and to the contrary you the 500mm would be the better tool. Primarly because of Bokeh, if you are closer to the subject it increases the ratio that your background is from you and the lens can do a better job with the blurr.

Of course the 500mm is better for packing and carrying because of its size and weight.

With the 600mm in the field if you are shooting birds and you can not control distance, the 600mm rules over the 500mm.

So really I think it comes down to use, both are excellent lenses.
From my point of view it boils down to this.
If birds in the field are your thing the 600mm is the way to go.
If big game and general wildlife is your thing then I give the advantage to the 500mm.


But if I were you I would not buy either one. It is such a tough decision maybe you should wait for the 800mm II to come out :p.

[DavidEccleston]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your detailed comparisons, so thanks from all of us.

In terms of resolution increase though, I don't think you want to think in linear terms, but area, so you need to square the increase. 600/500 = 120% per axis, horizontal and vertical. 1.2*1.2 = 1.44 = 144% of the resolution. Similarly, 8% is likely 1.08*1.08 = 1.1664 or and additional 16.64%.

[Kayaker72]

Some other things to think about with the 500 vs the 600.

You gain 20% of reach, for instance to get the same framing with the 500 at 100' you will be at 120' with the 600.

The 600mm weighs 22.9% more.

The 600mm mfd is 21.6% farther away.

At B&H the 600mm will cost you 27.7% more.

It might sound silly, but in all those areas you loose ground to gain the 20%.

Ha....seems like Canon has it dialed in....20% difference in every way including the budget.





But if I were you I would not buy either one. It is such a tough decision maybe you should wait for the 800mm II to come out

:p
.

:p

You probably would be surprised that the rumors of the next gen 500/600 mm lenses (possibly with DO) did give me pause.....but....my delay is more about work than anything like that. Its a good year, but that means a busy year.


I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your detailed comparisons, so thanks from all of us.

In terms of resolution increase though, I don't think you want to think in linear terms, but area, so you need to square the increase. 600/500 = 120% per axis, horizontal and vertical. 1.2*1.2 = 1.44 = 144% of the resolution. Similarly, 8% is likely 1.08*1.08 = 1.1664 or and additional 16.64%.


Thanks. I'll link to a Art Wolf article soon. He made the same point, it is more about area than linear resolution. But, I've also heard the argument that it is about linear resolution..... :confused:


I can see it both ways, and, of course, they are related. But, doing some actual shots at my birdfeeder today....Still need to look at them more closely, but I think the 16% more area on sensor (or 8% linear resolution) is noticeable.

___________
Ok....just soliciting thoughts, all the ancillary gear, does this sound about right:

Tripod: RRS TVC-34 Mk 2
Gimble: RRS PG-02
Ballhead: RRS BH-55
Leveling base: RRS universal (should I get the hook?)
52mm drop in CPL (any other filters for a big white?)
RRS LCF foot to replace the one from Canon
Traveling pack-Mindshift Firstlight 40L (actually already bought this)

Already have the 1.4xTC, 2xTC and Storm 2500 case.

Anything else you would recommend to support a big white? A lens coat maybe?


Thanks,
Brant

[HDNitehawk]

"Anything else you would recommend to support a big white? A lens coat maybe?"

Yes get a lens coat.

I am not sure why you want the ball head. One should be careful, lens flop with a big white could be expensive. Occasionaly I have used the Acra that I have, but would never use it for an extended period.

You missed what I consider the most important support item.

I use the shortest heavy duty Gitzo, it has been years since I bought it so I am not sure what model it is. But if I had to pick again I would get the shortest one when folded provided it is tall enough. I also use the big foot.

I use the monopod probably 95% of the time when I need support. You can leave it on and carry it like it is a handle. Easier to cast over your shoulder than your tripod. Sets up faster. Generally the monopod's support is more than adequate. The tripod only gets used when I am sitting up at a spot for an extended period. I would buy the monopod before I bought any of the gear you listed.

I do not know anybody else's thoughts, but I have never liked the 52mm drop in CPL's results. I own it, and think I wasted my money.

I also have these items, and a few other Wimberly bars that I can configure:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/240877-REG/Wimberley_F_1_Telephoto_Combo.html

And This

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498744-REG/Canon_1950B001_OC_E3_Off_Camera_Shoe.html

Together they get your flash off the shoe and on top of your telephoto.

Finally, you need a new 1Dx II. I do not have one myself, however if you get one and all the gear listed so far you can shoot anything from birds at the back yard bird feeder to the Superbowl. :D

[Kayaker72]

Canon should totally give me a sideline pass to the Superbowl for all this gear :)

Ok....I'll post a bunch more background soon, but I think I am there.

Ranking the lenses for my anticipated uses (sadly, not the superbowl):



Backyard birding. This is not something I do much of but would like to get into a bit more. My stands and bird feeders sit about 30 to 35 ft away from where I would primarily set up. And about 20-25 ft away from a secondary set up. Lens rankings

600 f/4 IS II
500 f/4 IS II
Distant....150-600S
A 400 mm lens






Loons and other wildlife while kayaking. Usually two trips a year, the 150-600S gives me just about enough reach, but more would be better. It is all hand holding while sitting in a kayak. I tend to rotate 45-60 degrees to either side, so some of the handholding can be awkward. Rankings:

400 DO II
500 f/4 IS II
150-600S
100-400 II plus TC



While I can handhold the 600II, I am not liking the idea from my kayak, especially going side to side. It would probably work, but I found the 150-600S awkward, the 600 II would be another 34% in weight, and more difficult to stow. The 500 II w/ hood reversed will fit into my set up I have for the 150-600S w/ hood in position (both ~15 inches). So, I'll have to deal with the hood, but it can work.


Supertele (>400mm) for travel. I'll almost certainly have a zoom with me to augment, but this is where the majority of my shots with the 150-600S have come from. Trips could include birding in FL and Idaho (eagles), Yellowstone, I hope to someday do a safari, bears, elk, deer, puffins, etc. Lens rankings would actual vary for each one of these depending on location and subject, but traveling by air to potentially remote locations in general, I would rank:

500 f/4 II
600 f/4 II (I can get the math to work with it fitting in an overhead bin, but I am still worried about smaller planes)
400 DO II



So, somewhat interesting, each lens took first depending on the category. But, both the 400 DO II (backyard birding-want more reach) and the 600 II (from a kayak) each fell out of a category whereas I would rank the 500 II placed first or second in each.

I think we have the winner.

[Kayaker72]

The 500 f/4 II and a few odds and ends are purchased as of earlier today. I'll try to add a bit more of the research and analysis I did for those that are interested.

But, as an important point when purchasing major gear, I ended up making this purchase directly through TDP and Bryan. In addition to this thread, I've been emailing Bryan about this now and again. Toward the end of last week, he reminded me how major purchases can be made through him.

I was pleasantly surpised today when it all came together and the deal through Bryan was the best deal I found (honestly, after he made the offer to look into it I was going to go through him if he was close...and he ended up lowest).

So, as a reminder, for major purchases, it is worth the time to email Bryan at info@the-digital-picture.com to see what type of price he can get you.

[HDNitehawk]

I would hope that you came to this realization through the process.
After climbing the mountain to get enlightenment the answer to the question:
What is the "Ultimate Supertelephoto for Travel"?

You would now come to the realization that when it comes to the big white lenses there is no universal answer for all.
The white lenses are all the "Ultimate" and the right one is the one that fits your needs the best.


On another note, I hope you do not tip over often in your kayak. If it were me in a kayak I would be looking for floaties for that 500mm.

[Kayaker72]

I would hope that you came to this realization through the process.
After climbing the mountain to get enlightenment the answer to the question:
What is the "Ultimate Supertelephoto for Travel"?

You would now come to the realization that when it comes to the big white lenses there is no universal answer for all.
The white lenses are all the "Ultimate" and the right one is the one that fits your needs the best.

Yeah, but wouldn't it have been great if there was a single "ultimate lens?" :p

This has been a fun project. I will actually miss it. Basically as I've traveled or if my wife picked something I did not care to watch on TV, I would read different things. I'd actually say there has been a lot of enlightenment along the way. But not just with the Big Whites, which are remarkable, but in general lens usage.

So, I am going to try to summarize everything in a couple more posts for those that find this interesting or may be picking up a Big White lens at some point and time. But, in reading reviews, evaluating which lenses are being used for different subjects, and making this very complex, I did come to a few very obvious (my favorite type) conclusions:


Any lens can be a wildlife lens
Nothing beats distance to subject. Get as close as possible as safely as possible.
Because of that, my profound love for National Parks is heighted.
Birds, you need all the reach you can get, but there is such a thing as enough.
Lenses really just capture a given amount light for a given field of view. They are tools with a certain size and weight. This is a draconian admission from someone how likes to think certain lenses have a bit of magic.
But, there are details, sharpness, bokeh, contrast, AF speed etc that can certain make some lenses special.


So, I have done a bunch of research and a more analysis of different focal lengths that I would like to present. But Rick's comment fit nicely with the research part, so I will focus on that first, and the additional analysis in another post when I have time.

Big Whites can be used to photograph anything, of course, but in looking at it, really people use them to photograph sporting events, wildlife, and aviation. I am still interested in those tickets to the superbowl, but for me, the niche really would be wildlife.

So, in focusing on that, I quickly realized that all sorts of lenses were used by professionals for wildlife. It all depended on distance to subject and what composition the photographer was attempting to capture. The next harsh realization: Most of my favorite wildlife images were taken with something other than a supertelephoto lens.

That still stings a little. Especially considering what is waiting for me on my credit card.

So, I think the best way to arrange this is by lens or focal length. My impressions after much review as well as links that I hope are interesting.

BTW, at times I will link various reviews. I assume that, as this forum is part of TDP, that you will be able to easily find those reviews.

UWA or General Purpose Focal Lengths

Absolutely used for wildlife. Matter of fact, may be some of the most common lenses for wildlife fall into this range. I did not observe a trend toward a specific lens (other than the 16-35 f/2.8 II), but more that every wildlife photographers had UWA and general purpose lenses of f/2.8 or f/4 varieties. Probably a slight preference for the true UWA lenses, which tells you how close the animals were to the photographers.

In general, these images were typically wildlife set in their environment, and here you can see the convergence of landscape/wildlife photographers, at least to me, landscapes with wildlife is more interesting. But some people also were getting very creative, especially with remote triggers.
Will Burrard-Lucas has some good stuff:

When you can get close to your subjects: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4CYbCGhLA
Using motion triggers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrbo-zCdQs8
And, who doesn't want a beetle cam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8rtkgvEqGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8gG1ioMjc

Mac Stone has also used UWA/General purpose focal lengths for wildlife. One example:
https://www.audubon.org/news/-how-photographer-mac-stone-got-shot-burrowing-owls

Mid-Telephoto Lenses (70-200 mm)

Looking through images, I think a lot of my favorite wildlife shots were taken with mid-range telephoto lenses. I've always loved this image of Jonathan's, which I recall being taken with a 70-200 II:
https://www.huyerperspectives.com/Nature/Alaskan-Brown-Bears/i-hqtXG6w/A

Especially for mammals, I probably read more about low light than I did about reach. One of the great benefits of this range of glass is that wide apertures are more affordable and practical.

But, a bit more specific.

70-200 f/2.8 II
I saw this recommended on a lot of safari sites. In fact, Art Wolf calls the 16-35 II and 70-200 f/2.8 II his "workhorse lenses."
https://artwolfe.com/gear/

All I can say is that this is the second lens I would own if I could only own two lenses. It is amazing. If the field of view fits your composition, the optics and the f/2.8 will give good light in a lot of situations.

EF 200 f/2.0
I thought this was interesting. If you read the article, the photographer simply wanted to create unique images in an area where they knew they could get close to wildlife (Yellowstone). So, 200/2 on a crop body to maximize bokeh.

https://thephotonaturalist.com/2017/06/05/yellowstone-2017-2-wildlife-photography-with-the-canon-200mm-f2-lens/

Tele/SuperTele Zooms


100-400 II
Not sure what more there is to say than this was in 5 of 5 "Wildlife" Explorer of Light's bag. This actually may be the "ultimate travel supertele." It takes the 1.4xTC well. If I was limited to 3 or 4 lenses, this would be #3 or 4 (tough competition against the 16-35 f/4 IS). But, better photographers than I seem to like it a lot:
https://blog.parkcameras.com/2017/06/andy-rouses-essential-lens-canon-ef-100.html

It also gets ranked as the best zoom at 400 mm:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/
And is apparently built pretty darn well:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever/

Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Sport
I think there is a natural inclination to think that the 200-400 f/4 TC as premier telephoto zoom. But, especially for safari recommendations, I probably saw this recommended more often than the 200-400 f/4 TC. A side note, I first became interested in the 150-600S while on a whale watch with a photographer that turned out to be from the Wildlife Federation. He was shooting with the 120-30S and it was his goto lens. Usually with TCs, thus he was interested in the, at the time, rumored 150-600S. And I've checked, DXOmark rates the T-Stop just fine.
https://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm/
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-120-300mm-F28-DG-OS-HSM-S-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009


Sigma 150-600 Sport
I have owned this lens since it first came out. I have taken many photos that I really do love with this lens. Since the contemporary version came out, it seems to be a bit of a forgotten lens, and for all intents and purposes, it does seem like the contemporary is optically equivalent. I still think bokeh is better on the sport and the sport is just a bit better at 600 mm, which is where I tend to use this lens. I have found having a zoom critical. As a quick example, on a whale watch, I figured the whales would all be at distances. Nope, I was between 200-500 mm the entire time. Had I brought a fixed lens, I would have missed many shots. Instead, I have these:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8876/28237836196_a79ac31167_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/K2hhUL)Small-5957 (https://flic.kr/p/K2hhUL) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/), on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8728/28237835496_4be3f2922a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/K2hhGG)Small-6265 (https://flic.kr/p/K2hhGG) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/), on Flickr

Same boat ride, I was shooting puffins and wanted 20,000 mm focal length. Same trip, I was shooting bears almost exclusively at 600 mm. Yet, I've read 600 mm is too much for Brooks Falls. Bottom line, this is a good, useful lens. The T-stop issue I discuss earlier is a concern. But for an enthusiast photographer, it is a good lens. I suspect I am replacing it with two lenses, the 100-400 II and 500 f/4 II.

A review:
https://www.kruger-2-kalahari.com/sigma-150-600mm-lens-review.html

EF 200-400 f/4 1.4TC

As I said, there a lot of general support for the 200-400 f/4 + 1.4TC:
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photography-gear/lenses/lenses-wildlife-photography/

Of course, that is pretty general, but many pros are using this lens. It is one of the lenses in Bryan's bag, and one that I tend to see a lot of pictures.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sample-Pictures.aspx?Equipment=764

Also interesting to me, I see several serious pros where they have the 100-400 II and the 200-400 f/4 TC. That is it. No 500 mm f/4, no 600 mm f/4. As one example, I cam across Richard Bernabe because I found several references to him and the 500 f/4 II....well, that isn't what is in his bag anymore:
https://www.richardbernabe.com/photo-equipment/


Super Telephoto Lenses (>300 mm)
When you look at guides for wildlife, they almost always recommend getting something >300 mm. Whether it be a safari, a trip to Yellowstone, or just general guides, get something with at least 300 mm. And, I think that it is a very valid point. But, at least I find it a bit funny, but as you dive into a subject your perspective changes. As I mention above, as I looked through different images, many of my favorite shots were shot <300 mm and some professional wildlife photographers do not have anything beyond 400 mm.

EF 300 f/2.8

200/2 on crop? Well, on a FF the 300 f/2.8 would give you even better bokeh for similar framing as the 200/2 on a cropped sensor. Lots of mentions of people loving this lens overall. Many using it as a goto wildlife lens, but I also saw several mentions of moving off of it both for wildlife and BIF.

EF 400 f/5.6
As I am trying to get to the 500 vs 600, I can't dwell on each lens. The pictures that Stuart takes with his copy were enough for me to evaluate further. There is a lot of love out there for this lens. I even found several references to people that own several other lenses that cover the 400 mm range but still own this lens. Why? Well, if you want light weight and f/5.6 is enough, do not need IS, it is hard to beat this lens.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/94381946@N07/38865959664/in/dateposted/

EF 400 f/4 DO II
This was the first lens that I was able to test. I have been interested in it since it's release. Great lens. I had a lot of fun shooting it. Being able to so easily walk, hop in an out of a car, and use a supertele was great. It performed really well as a 560 f/5.6. This lens seems to be very vogue, with a ton of reviews out there, which is not common for the superteles. But I get it. A few that I found interesting:
Ari Hazeghi is very vocal in a couple of forums I found, works with Art Morris, and has been a strong advocate for this lens for BIF, granted, he just shifted to Nikon:
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/canon-400mm-f4-is-do-mark-ii-review-battle-of-the-light-lenses/
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/one-year-with-ef-400-do-is-ii/

I also like Grant's review:
https://www.grantatkinson.com/blog/canon-ef-400-f4-do-is-usm-field-review


EF 400 f/2.8 II
There is just not much out there on this lens. I found maybe two people using it. I would think others would be all over it for the bokeh. I can only think the thin DoF comes into play, but I've played with some numbers, they seem to work. Maybe there are just better options?

EDIT: So, Craig from CR seems to have gravitated to the 400 f/2.8 II for the dof/bokeh. And this makes a lot of sense to me, really, at the end of a shoot, it is really a handful of the "best" images that we are after, right?

https://www.canonrumors.com/when-i-go-on-safari-whats-in-my-camera-bag/

EF 500 f/4 II or EF 600 f/4 II

I think I will talk about these in comparison to each other, as that seems to be a pretty common decision point. I was able to use both, first and foremost, I have to say they are more alike than different. I think this is critical. These are both amazing supertelephoto lenses. When I reviewed the Canon "Wildlife" photographers for USA and EU, it was really split with half having the 500 f/4, and the other having "more reach" either as the 600 f/4 or 800 f/5.6. As Rick pointed out, you get 20% more reach with the 600 for 20% higher cost/weight/size. And 20% is something, but also, it is only 20%. Going through this, I had focused on 20% more reach (or 44% more area), which can be offset with your feet. Bryan made a good point and had me focus on bokeh...and I have to agree, I can see a bokeh difference with the 600 mm, as you'd expect.

Two great write ups comparing the two both come down to---get the 600 mm:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=20151
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/03/02/comparing-the-canon-500mm-f4l-is-ii-and-the-canon-600mm-f4l-is-ii/

I get a kick out of these reviews, as they both lay out about many categories, the 500 mm is best in all but one of the categories, but then recommend the 600 mm because reach/bokeh is the most important. And there is truth to there as gathering light from a given field of view is the primary function of a lens. if you want a long lens, you want the best/longest. Then there are these again in favor of the 600 mm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IQIh5FIi6g
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/ef600ii_review/

But, then there is a lot of sentiment in general threads in favor of the 500 f/4 II. I read through several, but generally, I found it very interesting that whatever people had, they loved. A few people sold the 600 mm because of size/weight. Most seemed to think it was just fine. A few people sold the 500 mm f/4 because they wanted more reach, but generally 500 f/4 or 700 f/5.6 was enough. I wouldn't even say this was definitive, but those wanting more tended to be birders, those content with the 500 f/4 tended to be birders and maybe focus on larger mammals. A few examples:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4224133
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1547697/0


In terms of kit construction, there is something to be said for setting an extreme with something like the EF 600 f/4 II for reach and bokeh. I almost went with the EF 600. But, for me, it came down to the earlier post of comparing what was best for my intended uses (BTW, Bryan travels with his 600 mm in big and small planes, for what it is worth) and also I think a good rule of thumb would be for my travel kit to fit in one bag. I like to be organized. I recently purchased the Firstlight 40L, and I am pretty sure I can fit my 5DIV, 16-35, 24-70, either the 100-400 or 70-200 (probably not both), and a 500 mm lens in it as well as an odd/end here or there. I might be able to fit something close to that in with the 600 mm f/4 II, but suspect I would lose at least a lens if not two. Given that I want to travel with that kit in one bag, and given the fact that I very much appreciate other lenses usefulness for wildlife, that was another factor. Finally, I did use both. Scrolling through my images, the 500 f/4 II did what I wanted it too. Usually with a 1.4tc attached, but it did it. Will it in the future? We'll see.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MindShift-Gear-FirstLight-40L.aspx


A few more links that may be of interest:
A similar look at different canon lenses and how used for wildlife:
https://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/best-canon-lenses-for-landscape-and-wildlife-photography/

Lenses, cameras and gear recommended for wildlife photography:
https://shuttermuse.com/essential-wildlife-photography-gear/
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photography-gear/photo-accessories/gear-for-wildlife-photography/
http://www.goynp.com/gear.php

Pictures of Yellowstone and general info on each:
https://photographylife.com/a-day-in-yellowstone




On another note, I hope you do not tip over often in your kayak. If it were me in a kayak I would be looking for floaties for that 500mm.

:)

I've already used the 150-600S for years and it really isn't a problem. Only 0.5 lbs more. Believe me, if something happens, I'll save the lens first.

[HDNitehawk]

Very detailed and nicely done, Bryan would be wise to take your research and post it in a linked page in his review section.

So what will the be your next task? Possibly finding the "Ultimate DSLR Wildlife Body"?

There is so much discussion about bodies and their specs, but once you make the leap to the big white lenses the camera body becomes an accessory to your glass.
Right now the the bodies I own have a value of about 20% of the cost of all my lenses.

I found the 5Ds R put the resolution of the new 500mm to the test.
The 7D II with its speed was not as quick as a 1 series AF.
The AF drive of the 1 series will make the 500mm quick, but you do not have the resolution of the 500mm.
And one shouldn't forget the high speed frame rate of the 1D series and when it matters.
At day break and sunset noise becomes an issue. With some bodies you have a few stops extra to play with. About 8 minutes a stop is what I have found in the morning and evening. So many variables. Where does it end.

Researching this since 2009, at some point my solution was to go with multiple bodies. For the most part with what I shoot I leave the 5Ds R on the 500mm.

[NFLD Stephen]

Thanks a lot for this Brant! I've been reading this thread as you went along even though I didn't have much to add I did find it very interesting. I've considered getting a supertele at various points but end up not being able to justify the cost for my anticipated usage. Right now I'm content with the 100-400 II but maybe someday I'll pull the trigger.... Until then I'll live vicariously through you, so make sure you post lots of pictures and a follow up review once you've settled in with your new baby!

Stephen

[Kayaker72]

:D

Rainy day here in New Hampshire, but the UPS driver was nice enough to drop off a EF 500 f/4 II.


2708


2709

2710

And...very first photo:

2711

[Kayaker72]

Very detailed and nicely done, Bryan would be wise to take your research and post it in a linked page in his review section.

So what will the be your next task? Possibly finding the "Ultimate DSLR Wildlife Body"?

There is so much discussion about bodies and their specs, but once you make the leap to the big white lenses the camera body becomes an accessory to your glass.
Right now the the bodies I own have a value of about 20% of the cost of all my lenses.

I found the 5Ds R put the resolution of the new 500mm to the test.
The 7D II with its speed was not as quick as a 1 series AF.
The AF drive of the 1 series will make the 500mm quick, but you do not have the resolution of the 500mm.
And one shouldn't forget the high speed frame rate of the 1D series and when it matters.
At day break and sunset noise becomes an issue. With some bodies you have a few stops extra to play with. About 8 minutes a stop is what I have found in the morning and evening. So many variables. Where does it end.

Researching this since 2009, at some point my solution was to go with multiple bodies. For the most part with what I shoot I leave the 5Ds R on the 500mm.

Thanks....

As for next task, I am thinking I take a lot of pictures :D

As for "best bodies"....I think you are dead on. I did not summarize, but looking through the EOLs, everyone had 2-3 bodies. It interested me that some of their glass was old, but all the bodies were new. I'll try to dig it up, but I did see a reasonable attempt to evaluate the "best" wildlife body. I didn't feel the need to dwell as the conclusion was the 5DIV. :cool:

But, ultimately, I am seeing 1DXIIs, 5DsRs, 5DIVs, and 7DIIs in a lot of the kits from pro wildlife photographers. As for myself, I think I'll either rent or buy a second body about the time I do something pretty major and will not want to be changing lenses. But, for now, a one body system has been working just fine for me.


Thanks a lot for this Brant! I've been reading this thread as you went along even though I didn't have much to add I did find it very interesting. I've considered getting a supertele at various points but end up not being able to justify the cost for my anticipated usage. Right now I'm content with the 100-400 II but maybe someday I'll pull the trigger.... Until then I'll live vicariously through you, so make sure you post lots of pictures and a follow up review once you've settled in with your new baby!

Stephen

Thanks Stephen. That is exactly what I did for years. There are a lot of pictures to take out there and only a few need specific lenses like a super tele. It is a fun hobby and it is good that there are a lot of ways to evolve and grow.

[Joel Eade]

:D

Rainy day here in New Hampshire, but the UPS driver was nice enough to drop off a EF 500 f/4 II.









And...very first photo:

Razor sharp right out of the box it appears ;) The "old" 500 has been my bird lens for a long time. Congrats, I'm sure you'll love it.

[Jonathan Huyer]

:D

Rainy day here in New Hampshire, but the UPS driver was nice enough to drop off a EF 500 f/4 II.


Sweet! Congrats! Looking forward to much more.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Joel and Jonathan!

I think BillW is also still using the 500 Mk1. Safe to say, between the three of you, I've seen a lot of great images on the forum taken with that lens.

So, I promised some analysis, again for those interested. Most of this start with some basic geometry (doesn't mean I didn't mess it up, but in the 9th grade I would have nailed it). But imagining two right angle triangles formed by the direct line in the frame center and a second line that goes to the frame edge that intersect at the focal point, you create two similar triangles. Using geometry and the similarities of these triangles, I created the following formula in excel:

Horizontal size of subject = tan((2*atan(18 mm/focal length in mm))/2)*distance to subject *2
Vertical size of subject = tan((2*atan(12 mm/focal length in mm))/2)*distance to subject *2

So you can place with this data in a lot of ways, one, as soon as you know the size of the horizontal and vertical subject at a given distance, you can calculate the pixels per inch (ppi) of that subject for different resolution sensors. I hear different resolutions that are desired, but typically 300 ppi for high quality is a good standard for resolving details and then the human eye can resolve 75 to 150 ppi depending on the distance.

For example, for my 5DIV:
2712

Another way of looking at this is, this is what "20% more reach" is actually buying you. For small birds where you want to resolve as much detail as possible (300 ppi), a 500 mm lens you need to be 26 ft or closer and a 600 mm lens, 31 ft or closer. And 20% of 26 ft is 5.2 ft...so the math is working.

My bird feeder is ~30 ft away from one of my vantage spots and ~20 ft from another, so this actually worked in slight favor of the 600 f/4 II.

But, lenses are not as advertised. Bryan at the bottom of his spec page for each lens lists the distance to target and size of the targets. Well, rework the formulas and solve for the focal length and you get this table:

2715
EDIT. I updated this from the original table. It dawned on me that Bryan measures subject to camera sensor, which includes both the distance from sensor to focal point and focal point to subject. This new table backs out the sensor to focal point (ie. focal length) from Bryan's distance for the above formulas.

I am entertained that Bryan is measuring things down to the mm, but those calculated focal lengths for the 500 f/4 II and 600 f/4 II seem about right as manufacturers have a tendency to round up. For consistency, look at the effect of the 1.4xTC, it is somewhere between 1.36 and 1.37x for everything but the 100-400 II (not sure why). I think Bryan is being very consistent in his set up so these numbers mean something at least relatively. Another calibration point for me is that you can look at the pics taken with the 150-600S @600 and the 400 DO II @ 560 on page 3 of this thread, and the 400 DO is only very slightly wider framing. That is consistent with 532mm vs 542 mm above. Of course, I could photograph a ruler or something at a known distance and look at the PPI and figure this out, but this is looking good enough for me.

Big takeaways:

The 500 II lens and 600 II lenses are actually 490 and 585 mm, respectively.
Each lens is a bit less than advertised, but the 100-400 II with TC is suffering the worst.
The 1.4xTC is actually about 1.365x
Despite all this, the 600 mm is still essentially 20% more reach.


So, using these calculated focal lengths, I wanted to see the range of each lens for different subjects.

2716

Instead of PPI, I thought about filling different percentages of the frame with this table. Essentially, using cropping to zoom as we often do. I tend to not like to drop below a subject filling up 1/3 of the vertical frame. Less than that and the IQ really takes a hit, IMO. Then, you do not want to fill the entire frame with a subject, as that is just a bad picture/composition. So, I picked 30-80% of the vertical frame. And, of course, my subject heights are approximate. I just wanted to ballpark, but I did make an effort to find different real subject heights.

A few things that interested me

Optical zooms are remarkably versatile, as we all know....but
Zooming by cropping with a prime can be almost as effective as an optical zoom. Of course, final IQ comes into play here especially if you want to make a big print you will want to minimize cropping, but with sharper lenses and higher resolutions cameras...this gets interesting. As an example, the 100-400L for a 10 ft high standing bear covers distances of 52 ft to 700 ft. The 400 DO II: distance of 204 ft to 739 ft.
Again, here is your "20% reach" for the 500 and 600 mm lenses. Again, for a 10 ft high standing bear, the 500 f/4 II will cover distances from 255 ft to 931 ft. The 600 f/4 II: 305 ft to 1,111 ft. Different, yes. And I am sure some will appreciate the real world difference. But staring at this and wondering about my usage, I did wonder if I'd prefer having the shorter end instead of the longer. Granted, if I have a second body with a 70-200 II on it, if a walking bear at 250 ft suddenly stands, I can switch lenses. Anyway, like I said, the 500/600 are more alike than different, in my current opinion.
In addition to bokeh, I then the reach of the 600 mm is likely most acutely felt for small birds.
BTW, resolving fine details with 300 ppi disappears pretty rapidly....I need a 220 MP sensor! :rolleyes:
Finally, notice how 80% for the 100-400 II @ 100 is 3 ft, 400 DO is 10 ft, 500 f/4 II is 13 ft, and 600 f/4 II is 15 ft? The MFD for each lens is 3.2 ft, 10.8 ft, 12.3 ft, and 14.8 ft? Coincidence???? :confused:


So, there you go. I wanted to share some of the calcs I did in coming to this decision. So far there haven't been a lot of birds at my feeder and I fly out for a trip tomorrow. But I am liking the addition of the 500 f/4 II to my kit.

Thanks,
Brant

[Joel Eade]

It will surprise you with a 2X converter as well but you may need AF micro adjustment to really the get the most from it.

[Jonathan Huyer]

Terrific analysis... and obviously the sign of someone who has full-blown "L-Disease" :) (BTW you're in great company here). I bought the 500 primarily for bears (in case you hadn't already guessed). On our latest trip, one guy had a 600 and he missed a few shots due to having too much reach and as such he couldn't keep the whole bear in the frame. My rule of thumb is about 30 metres for a full-frame shot with the 500, and your table seems to bear that out (pun intended).

[Busted Knuckles]

Well done. Now to do the calc w/ the 5dSr :). Just kidding.

When Brant and I did some shooting w/ the 400 and a 2x I found it too long on several occasions. Found the caterpillars where moving too fast.

[Busted Knuckles]

:D


Big time :) . Congrats.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Everyone.

Back home this week. So far birds haven't been too cooperative. I have rattled off these:

2717

2718

But this chipmunk was fun...

2719

2721

2722

Thanks for viewing! Brant

[Kayaker72]

One last bit.

So, this trip is a bit up in the air as a second wedding has since popped up, but originally I was supposed to head out to Idaho to see a nephew get married and then head to Yellowstone NP. We'll see what happens, but that prompted a desire for this kit:

5DIV
EF 500 f/4 II
16-35 f/4 IS
24-70 II
70-200 f/2.8 II
100-400 II
600 EX-RT
1.4TC (under the 16-35 f/4 right now, not sure that will last, but it fits)
G7x II
Filters (77mm and 82 mm of CPLs, 6 stop, and 10 stop NDs)


There is also a spare battery, battery charger and the rain cover is under the 100-400 II all in a Firstlight 40L. Weight: 31.6 lbs.

The zippers actually close.... :o

This actually took me some time to figure out, but there it is. Usually I can see deciding between the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 100-400 II and going with a smaller flash.

2723