Lens decision... (Canon)

[iCe]

I've got a 70-200 (old school non-IS) f2.8 L and I'm thinking that I want to add something in the way of a larger L prime to the bag. Nothing that I am looking at is cheap and I should add that I probably won't pull the trigger on anything this year. Might never... maybe

Qualifiers-

I don't like the results I get with the 70-200 and a 2x. Not sharp at all...

This is what I'm looking at:

300mm f2.8L $4k give or take some dinero
400mm f2.8L $7k give or take some dinero
500mm f4.0L $5.5k give or take some dinero
600mm f4.0L $7.2k give or take some dinero

I'm leaning toward the 500 f4.0 (Isn't it interesting to see that the 400mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4.0 are so close in price?). I can't swing the 300 and the 500 at the same time and I don't feel like the 300 will be enough of a jump...

So, if you already had a 70-200 f2.8L and could only add one of the listed lenses, which one and why?

[Chimper]

The choice you make depends upon how you intend to use it.

For Sports: 400mm f2.8 (300mm f2.8L if you can't manage the weight of the 400mm)
For General Wildlife: 500mm f4L
For Birds: 600mm f4L

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by iCe

I've got a 70-200 (old school non-IS) f2.8 L and I'm thinking that I want to add something in the way of a larger L prime to the bag. Nothing that I am looking at is cheap and I should add that I probably won't pull the trigger on anything this year. Might never... maybe

Qualifiers-

I don't like the results I get with the 70-200 and a 2x. Not sharp at all...

This is what I'm looking at:

300mm f2.8L $4k give or take some dinero
400mm f2.8L $7k give or take some dinero
500mm f4.0L $5.5k give or take some dinero
600mm f4.0L $7.2k give or take some dinero

I'm leaning toward the 500 f4.0 (Isn't it interesting to see that the 400mm f1.2 and the 600mm f4.0 are so close in price?). I can't swing the 300 and the 500 at the same time and I don't feel like the 300 will be enough of a jump...

So, if you already had a 70-200 f2.8L and could only add one of the listed lenses, which one and why?

I would go with the 400/2.8L, it has the best MFT of any of those.

Both the 500 and 600 fall off at the edges.

[iCe]

Originally Posted by Chimper

The choice you make depends upon how you intend to use it.

For Sports: 400mm f2.8 (300mm f2.8L if you can't manage the weight of the 400mm)
For General Wildlife: 500mm f4L
For Birds: 600mm f4L

Great... I need to buy all three then Weight isn't an issue...

Good links John. Thanks.

I need to win the lottery

[Jim Victory]

I think Greg is hit nail on the head. What do you intend to use it for?

I have the 300 f/2.8L IS and the 600 f/4L IS because the 300 works well for sports and the 600 for both sports and wildlife. I had the 500 but wanted more reach for wildlife so I upgraded to the 600.

The 400 f/2.8L IS is the ultimate sports lens but it weighs as much as the 600. I can hand carry and shoot the 300 all day but I need support for the 600.

With a 1.4x TC you can get almost to 300mm with your 70-200. With a 1.4x TC you can get to 420mm on the 300 and 600mm with a 2x TC with good results.

Since you shoot the 1DsMKII I think you would be happier with the 500 because of the FOV you would get. Your looking at 500 MM where with a 1DMKII you would be looking at a FOV of 650mm and with a 20D/30D it would be 800mm. The 500 can also be handheld for short periods of time.

When framing a subject at a distance the greater FOV will make it easier to lock focus on you subject. This is especially true with birds when you trying to focus on their eyes at a distance.

[Chimper]

Originally Posted by iCe

Great... I need to buy all three then Weight isn't an issue...

Good links John. Thanks.

I need to win the lottery

No kidding. I have the 400mm and 600mm. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have the 500mm for traveling by plane or longer hikes.

Is B&H a publicly traded company? Maybe I should buy their stock.

[Russell]

I used just a 300mm f2.8 and a 2X and 1.4X for a long time with great results. However, now I use a 500mm f4.5 and often mate it with a 1.4X or 2X.

I borrowed a 600mm f4 from Canon last year and that thing is huge! If I had to pick a lens and only one, I'd go with the 500mm in terms of weight and price.

Good luck!

[zeroendless]

Sport or animal/birds?

400 2.8 IS is made strictly for sport shooter, weight as heavy as 600IS. It's not suitable for wildlife or small birds.

300 2.8 IS is used for sport as well as nature. For wildlife it's perfered for those like to hike, hunt and aproach with handheld or large mammals. Too short for small birds. It's light and very sharp with 1.4x, VERY usuable with 2x (notificable slower AF) . I have more keeper with 300IS+ 2x than 500IS + 1.4x for bird in flight.

It's a tough chioce when it come to 500/600 if money if not an issue

For small bird, one need 600 for reach. Though it's 100mm different in focus distance, image from 600 is about 40% larger than 500. But 600 is heavy, 3lb makes a lots of different when you have all the package together (tripod, head, flash bracket). You find youself lost interest pursuing subject in distance.

Also, the MFD is 15 feets on 500 compare to 18feets from 600. If you subject is at always at close distance, you'll have problem getting the shots. If travel on air, 500 is a better choice due to smaller size. If you do a lot of hiking, again, 500. If you do occasion handheld (3-5 minutes/rest interval), 500 wins. If you shooting from car, you better have larger front compartment for 600, it's not easy to move around due to physical length.

I read many advices and choices people make between these 2. Users that been there never regret picked 600 over 500. Those that have both use 600 about 70-90% more than 500. Only if they don't have to travel....

Since you ask, if you have 300, go for 600. for 70-200, may be the 500 will do.

Jim mentioned the FOV factors with lens. There are many users still perfering 1.6CF over FF for wildlife and sport due to image density.

Have fun, good hunting... join the club. and we'll talk tripod/head

[iCe]

Originally Posted by Jim Victory

I think Greg is hit nail on the head. What do you intend to use it for?

I have the 300 f/2.8L IS and the 600 f/4L IS because the 300 works well for sports and the 600 for both sports and wildlife. I had the 500 but wanted more reach for wildlife so I upgraded to the 600.

The 400 f/2.8L IS is the ultimate sports lens but it weighs as much as the 600. I can hand carry and shoot the 300 all day but I need support for the 600.

With a 1.4x TC you can get almost to 300mm with your 70-200. With a 1.4x TC you can get to 420mm on the 300 and 600mm with a 2x TC with good results.

Since you shoot the 1DsMKII I think you would be happier with the 500 because of the FOV you would get. Your looking at 500 MM where with a 1DMKII you would be looking at a FOV of 650mm and with a 20D/30D it would be 800mm. The 500 can also be handheld for short periods of time.

When framing a subject at a distance the greater FOV will make it easier to lock focus on you subject. This is especially true with birds when you trying to focus on their eyes at a distance.

Good stuff... My dilema is that I like to shoot sports (my nephew and daughter are still in high school and are both in athletics) and wildlife (much, much more inclined to shoot wildlife).

I wasn't kidding... I need all of them... Of course "need" is a relative term I suppose I could just buy one a year.

If B&H is public I definitely need some of their stock. Those boys have a lot of my money. Of course I have a lot of their camera equipment so I guess it's a fair trade.

[zeroendless]

If weight is the ultimate reason... there's another lens you can consider.

400mm DO f4, 1lb lighter than 300 F2.8L IS

Mr Morris just posted his extensive 400 DO field report with trip to Ecuador
http://www.birdsasart.com/bn205.htm

[iCe]

Ah... good stuff. I guess I was typing when I should have neen reading. I need to digest this. Thanks Daniel and Russell.

Ballheads... I've got a B1. I've been looking at Really Right Stuffs stuff. I use their plates and I like their quality. They are selling ballheads now. I like the B1. It hasn't given me much trouble. I think it has locked up twice in 10 years and it's easy to fix. Since I started travelling with it loose it hasn't locked.

Ackk... decisions decisions...

[Russell]

If you get one of the big guns, I suggest some sort of gimbal head like the Wimberley or Kirk heads. You'll be glad you did.

Thanks,

RG

[iCe]

Jim mentioned the FOV factors with lens. There are many users still perfering 1.6CF over FF for wildlife and sport due to image density.

Yes. Absoulutely... Had I done more research I probably would have purchased a 5D rather than the 1DsMKII. Don't get me wrong. I love the MKII and it has survived my travels very well. I put it thru it's paces in Canyonlands NP, Arches NP, and Chaco Canyon... But... it's not the hardware that makes a great image...

[iCe]

Originally Posted by Russell

If you get one of the big guns, I suggest some sort of gimbal head like the Wimberley or Kirk heads. You'll be glad you did.

Thanks,

RG

Not if, when and what. Probably the 500mm f4.0. I think we were typing at the same time. I have an Arca Swiss B1. It's been a good head though it's never had to carry the kind of weight a 400/500/600 L lens has... More things to consider.

Thanks a ton

[Glen_A]

Originally Posted by iCe

Yes. Absoulutely... Had I done more research I probably would have purchased a 5D rather than the 1DsMKII. Don't get me wrong. I love the MKII and it has survived my travels very well. I put it thru it's paces in Canyonlands NP, Arches NP, and Chaco Canyon... But... it's not the hardware that makes a great image...

The 5D has less pixel density than the 1DS MKII so your better off with what you have specially if you need to crop. However the 20D/30D/Rebel XT have a higher pixel density than the IDS MKII. So for really far away shots you might want to consider a 20D/30D. Read Bob Atkins article that covers this info http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...5d_or_20d.html