Supertele choices

[HDNitehawk]

John

I was looking foward to the 500mm II loosing a pound a half. Then Canon messed with us and introduced a FF 1D X to replace the 1D IV.

One thing to concider with the 600mm II, yes it is the same weight as the old 500mm (or close to), the old 500mm is very hand holdable. But if I use the extender which gives it the same length (or close to) as the 600mm II the center of balance gets thrown further foward. Thus it will be harder to hold because of its length, but still hand holdable.

On my trip to Yellowstone I really paid attention to the length of the 500mm and the pictures I was taking. All big game pics. At times the 500mm was to much focal length, sometimes it was just right sometimes not enough. But my overall perception for big game, is that when the 500mm wasn't enough, because of the distance the quality of the big game pics using the 600mm would have only be slightly improved. Not enough to make it completely worth while.

But then I had to think, if I go with the FF 1D X later would I want the 600mm. Unfortunately I say yes, and it shatters my hopes of getting a lighter lens.

Here are my thoughts;

If you are mainly shooting birds, go with the 600MM

1D IV owners on the forums are salivating over the new 1D X. A 1D IV might not be the way, but you might pick up a good used one from one of the upgrading members.

I am hoping for a 7D replacement that will have a 1D type auto focus that will make the 500mm a viable option again. You think one is in the works?

Birds, the 600mm with any body is the only answer.

Wildlife primarily and the 400mm F/2.8 is, NO. The 400mm F/2.8 and shooting sports YES. Carrying that heavy thing to the field, NO.

I think since you made the 1D X splash, probably go 600mm. Forget the 1D IV idea. Or wait and hope Canon gets us a 7D replacement.

Final option I know where you can get a 500mm F/4 for $6400.