Supertelephoto Lenses: 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, 800mm.

[Richard Lane]

Hi Guys and Denise,


I know this has been discussed before, but as we get closer to the new releases I could use some help in selecting my next lens which will hopefully be one of the new Version II Super-telephoto Lenses.


I keep going back and forth in my head of which one I would like to get. As you are probably aware, I have a 300mm f/2.8L IS Version I. I will not be upgrading this lens to Version II, as I can't see how much better Version II could get.


I like shooting action photography; Field Sports, Surfing, Motor-Sports BIF, and Air Shows. I have a 7D and a 1D-MKIV. Originally when I purchased the 300mm I only had the 7D and I was planning on getting the 400mm f/2.8L however I thought it was too heavy, so I opted for the 300mm and I find that I frequently use it with the 1.4X extender. Well now some things have changed. The MKIV is my primary camera and the new 400mm f/2.8 is much lighter and I think the 400mm would be a better focal length for the MK IV and I really enjoy the extra f-stop of the 400mm f/2.8 (especially at night) vs. the 420mm f/4L (300mm + 1.4X).


I think the 600mm would be too long for Air Shows and field sports. It would work for surfing but it's heavy to deal with in the sand and if I shoot too tight then I give up some of the wave and it's easier to cut off limbs when the surfers are doing tricks. Where I live, the waves are not that big, so I think the 500mm would be fine. If there are huge waves that break far out, then a 600mm would be better. When there is a storm, the longer 600mm would be better, but I could still use the 1.4X on the 500mm, although you lose a stop. I would also love to travel more at our National Parks and shoot wildlife.


So, the choices would be the version II 400mm f/2.8L, 500mm f/4L, 600mm f/4L, 800 f/.6L. I don't think that one of these lenses would cover everything that I like to do. I can't afford two of them, but maybe in a few years I would get a 2nd one. Although I love the bokeh on the 800mm, I'm thinking that it won't be practical enough for my needs.


Here is my thinking; I'm leery of owning a 300mm f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, or a 400mm and a 500mm, or a 500mm and a 600mm. I think that the focal ranges have to be further apart than 100mm, since these things are so expensive, but I'm keeping an open mind about it. The 600mm would really help with the Osprey shots that I am dying to get and I could see the 600mm being great for Bald Eagle shots that seem to fly and nest high up, unless they're fishing.


If I bought the 400mm f/2.8 I would probably sell my 300mm f/2.8. But if I buy the 500mm f/4L than I would probably keep my 300mm f/2.8L. My concern is that the 400mm is probably still too heavy for BIF. I don't really use a tripod much, except for when I absolutely have to, like fireworks or long shutter speeds. So, I'm not sure that I will like carrying a tripod around with a 600mm. I don't mind a Monopod and I use mine all of the time. Since the new 600mm is lighter than the older version, I'm assuming that a monopod would be ok for it, however it's still pretty long.


The other option would be to sell the 300mm and buy a 400mm and then in a few years possibly go for a 600mm.


Of course the 300mm or the 500mm would be better for traveling on a plane or a hike, because they are certainly lighter and more manageable.


Owning the 400mm and 600mm would be more costly and they are both heavier. I'm also trying to think ahead and realize that I may own one of these lenses for 10 years and Canon may come out with a FF Sports Body and then the longer focal lengths would be more appreciated in the long run.


I don't seem to shoot a lot of little stationary birds unless they happen to cross my path. When I look at some of my shots, I realized that I have cut off some wing tips of the larger birds on many of my 600mm shots when I use the 300mm + 2x. I'm also taking into account the surrounding landscape. The shorter 500mm will capture the larger birds and/or wildlife plus their environment, which can really add to the shot. It seems that some slight cropping would be a lot better than a cut off subject.


I guess we might as well throw the possible 200mm-400mm f/4- 5.6 into the mix.


I'm also taking into consideration the use of the teleconverters, especially the 1.4X below:





Bare Lens 1.4X 2X


400/2.8 560/4 800/5.6


500/4 700/5.6 1000/8


600/4 900/5.6 1200/8


200 to 400/4 560/5.6





If you look at the 400mm above with the teleconverters it looks like a pretty good compromise because I would have the fast f/2.8 when I needed it and then with the 1.4X it would be close to the 500mm f/4, and with the 2X it would be close to the 800mm f/5.6L. I'm assuming that if I used the 400mm with the 2X then it would probably be for static shots mostly and the 2X would be acceptable in those situations. My only concern would be the weight of the 400mm plus teleconverters, as it's probably not too hand-holdable for more than a few shots.


If you're still with me then I thank you for your patience. I'm attracted to the 300mm and 500mm combo for its weight and versatility, but I think the 400mm and 600mm would be a better long term goal, but then I'm losing flexibility for Birds in Flight and traveling.


Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!


Thanks,


Rich

[Daniel Browning]

I

[Joel Eade]

I believe the new 600 plus the series III converters is most versatile but I shoot mainly birds. The weight is almost the same as the current 500 which I know I can hand hold. I also have version I of the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8L which I will keep. It just seems to me with birds you need all the focal length you can get, so for me the 600 seems right. (assuming the sharpness and AF will come close to matching the 800)


For action sports the 400 2.8 is the standard ultimate lens, I would think you could use a monopod or tripod if weight is an issue. Carrying around and hand holding the 400 2.8 without a monopod would be a serious workout.

[HDNitehawk]

Longer focal length will be better for birds as Joel pointed out, but will the 600mm give you the longest reach with acceptable IQ? I studied the chart when the lenses were released and what I saw was very interesting. The new 500mm II with the 2x extender is showing a better chart than the current 500mm naked:








[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-47-09/IMG_5F00_9608.JPG[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-47-09/ef500lisiiu_5F00_extender2xiii_5F00_mtf.gif[/img]


If the new 500mm performs as well as the charts indicate, you will be getting acceptable at 1000mm. The 600mm at 1200mm is not to shabby as well but would be getting closer to what someone might find acceptable. If that were the case that the 600mm was not acceptable at 1200 but the 500mm was acceptable to you at 1000mm then the 500 would be the better choice.


Actually a comment you made about the 300mm, you said you wouldn't upgrade because you see no room for improvement. Owning the 500mm I can tell you it is on par with the IQ you get out of your 300mm. You might think about getting the old version and saving the extra $3000 or so. I find the 500mm very acceptable with the 1.4x at 700mm but not acceptable with a 2x.





Good Luck

[ddt0725]

My vote is for the 500mm for the reasons you point out in your post ..."lighter for travel and hiking. The shorter 500mm will capture the larger birds and/or wildlife plus their environment, which can really add to the shot. It seems that some slight cropping would be a lot better than a cut off subject." Plus with the extenders, the IQ is still awesome!


Good luck with your decision! I am sure whichever one you choose you will be delighted with it!


Denise

[Daniel Browning]

Canon

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Know what you shoot the most and pick the lens that best suits that type of photography. Everything else there

[Daniel Browning]

Know what you shoot the most and pick the lens that best suits that type of photography. Everything else there's lensrental.

Canon 1D Mark IV: $5,000


Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS: $5,000


Picking the lens that best suits your type of photography: priceless


There's some lenses money can't buy. For everything else, there's lensrental.

[HDNitehawk]

Of course, we have to make do with whatever scraps Canon gives us, so looking at the MTF charts is better than nothing.

So true, we have very little to base our decisions on as to whether it is a worthy upgrade. It seems the promise is there, whether it pans out or not will be seen later. With these lenses there will be far fewer copies than with most models, so getting information after their release may take a while.


Renting one for a few days would be an option to check out the differences, but I bet if your not on the list now to rent one it may be a long time after release before you get your hands on one.

[Richard Lane]

Thanks for all of the responses so far, the problem is that I agree with all of you!


Lately, I've been shooting a nice variety of; Surfing, BIF, Motor-Sports and Airplanes. However, in reality Air shows and motor-sports are only a few times a year. I have really been enjoying the relaxation that goes along with the bird photography. Football season is also right around the corner. I would hope that Canon would be wise enough to release the 400mm before football starts again next month. So, I would say that the majority of my shooting would be sports, surfing and BIF, with a goal to add wildlife/travel in the future. So, to summarize I would think that 400mm or 500mm would be better for those things.


Below are the Specifications from Bryan's Reviews: Thanks again Bryan!





<span>Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens 8.49 lbs (3850g) 6.4 x 13.5"(163 x 343mm) DI 52mm2011


<span>Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens 11.85 lbs (5370g) 6.4 x 13.7"(163 x 349mm) DI 52mm1999


<span>Canon EF 500mm f/4.0 L IS II USM Lens 7.04 lbs (3190g) 5.7 x 15.1"(146 x 383mm) DI 52mm2011


<span>Canon EF 500mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens 8.54 lbs (3870g) 5.7 x 15.2"(146 x 387mm) DI 52mm1999


<span>Canon EF 600mm f/4.0 L IS II USM Lens 8.65 lbs (3920g) 6.6 x 17.6"(168 x 448mm) DI 52mm2011


<span>Canon EF 600mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens 11.83 lbs (5360g) 6.6 x 18.0"(168 x 456mm) DI 52mm1999


Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM Lens 9.86 lbs (4470g) 6.4 x 18.1"(163 x 461mm) DI 52mm2008





I've never used the 500mm f/4L but it seems that some people here handhold it. I will tell you that I'm pretty strong and I thought that the old 400mm f/2.8L was too heavy to handhold, but the new 400mm, 500mm and 600mm seem doable.


When I look at the weight of the new 400mm f/2.8L II it seems to be inline with the older 500mm f/4L, and although the 400mm II diameter is wider than the 500mm version 1, the 400mm II is shorter which may aid in hand-holding, but when you add an extender to the 400mm then the length will probably be about equal.


If I was shooting birds only which I'm not, then I would consider keeping the 300mm f/2.8L + 1.4x (420mm f/4) and then buy a 600mm f/4L II. I think that would be very versatile.


I will tell you that thenew 500mm f/4L II at (7 lbs) intrigues me for it's compactness and versatility, however I would also benefit from the f/2.8 of the 400mm II.


If I didn't need f/2.8 and I had to choose just one super-telephoto then it would probably be the new 500mm, however I'm torn because I would appreciate the 400mm f/2.8 and I can't see owning both of them. I think if it comes down to dealing with weight (I could use the monopod) and reach ( add the extender) then the 400mm II would meet my needs, whereas there's nothing that I could do to make the 500mm or 600mm be an f/2.8 lens. The other point is that I can't make the longer lenses shorter, but I could always make the shorter ones longer.


Sorry, if I seem a bit redundant, but you guys are helping me sort things out.


Rich
<div><span>
</div>