Long tele lenses - most bang for buck?

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello All

I am planning my long tele purchases and thought that a 300 and 400 f/2.8 would be a good combination.

As I have my trusty old 70-200 I would not worry with a 200 prime but I thought the above lenses would be a good set when used with either 1.4x or 2x T/C's:shrug:

I know the 500 f/4 is light but lens weight has never bothered me much. I have also read somewhere that the 400/2.8 is the heaviest tele that Canon has:shrug:

400/2.8 + 2x gives 800mm f/5.6

Your thoughts?

Much appreciated:thumbs:
 
I'd prefer a 500 F4 and the 300 F2.8. I think the 300 and 400 would be too close together in the focal range to be worth it, unless you have a reason for 400mm at 2.8?
That'd be the more traditional option for nature/wildlife anyway.

The 500 F4 makes a great 700mm F5.6 with a 1.4 while barely touching image quality and can be used handheld (you'd have to be he-man to use the 400 2.8 like that).

What would you use the 400 2.8 for? I guess thats the question you need to ask yourself.
 
:agree:
 
Another vote for the 500mm f4L IS. I use mine with the 1.4 X TC a lot for bird shots and it's very debatable if there's any discernable drop in image quality at all. Even used with the 2XTC it gives excellent images.

So - 500mm, 700mm and 1000mm options at your disposal can't be bad. I have to smile a bit at the suggestion that it's a light lens - carting this lens around is a serious commitment.

I'd also take a 300mm 2.8 tomorrow - funds permitting - which they don't. :gag:
 
yeh i didn't mean the 500 is light (i've still got shoulder aches from a 4 hour walk with mine 2 days ago!) but it is hand-holdable if the need arises.
 
Another vote for the 500/4. You can almost get the 500/4 and the 300/2.8 for the same price as the 400/2.8.

I regularly use my 500 with a 1.4 and have quite a few very decent shots with the 2x. I think the other thing is that you may not be worried about weight as you haven't tried a truly heavy lens. I can hand hold the 500 for short bursts for birds in flight, I don't think I could hold a 400/2.8
 
Have a 300 2.8 cant wait to buy a 1.4 converter and bang it on!! :naughty:

Your 300 and 400 together would be a waste of money IMO their is much better performance from a prime with a converter than a zoom with a converter. What we talking 2-3 grand a lens!!! :eek: you could buy a good flash system and/or lens wide angle for that sort of money.
My bet would be the 300, 500 and 1 or both converters :)
 
Werecow said:
I'd prefer a 500 F4 and the 300 F2.8. I think the 300 and 400 would be too close together in the focal range to be worth it, unless you have a reason for 400mm at 2.8?
That'd be the more traditional option for nature/wildlife anyway.

The 500 F4 makes a great 700mm F5.6 with a 1.4 while barely touching image quality and can be used handheld (you'd have to be he-man to use the 400 2.8 like that).

What would you use the 400 2.8 for? I guess thats the question you need to ask yourself.
Click to expand...

StewartR said:
:agree:
Click to expand...

Thanks guys

As for what I would do with them, the answer is (1) I haven't really figured out any exact needs and (2) I would like to be able to do anything and everything.

I originally thought the 300 and 500 would be the better deal but then got clever and thought the 400/2.8 would give more/better TC options...:shrug::bonk:


:thumbs:
 
CT said:
Another vote for the 500mm f4L IS. I use mine with the 1.4 X TC a lot for bird shots and it's very debatable if there's any discernable drop in image quality at all. Even used with the 2XTC it gives excellent images.

So - 500mm, 700mm and 1000mm options at your disposal can't be bad. I have to smile a bit at the suggestion that it's a light lens - carting this lens around is a serious commitment.

I'd also take a 300mm 2.8 tomorrow - funds permitting - which they don't. :gag:
Click to expand...

Cheers Cedric.

LOL @ funds thing - isn't that a common problem...:bonk:

I have read in many places that the 500/4 is a light lens BY COMPARISON vs 600/4 and even 400/2.8 and I think Ian C confirms this.

I suppose light compared to lens X could also mean 100 grams less...:thumbs:
 
IanC_UK said:
Well i have a 600 F4L and my next purchase will be a 300 2.8 :) the 400 2.8 is a fantastic lens, but weighs more than my 600 and thats a beast to carry !
Click to expand...

Cheers Ian:thumbs:

Confirmation from someone with first-hand experience.

Thanks
 
grumpybadger said:
Another vote for the 500/4. You can almost get the 500/4 and the 300/2.8 for the same price as the 400/2.8.

I regularly use my 500 with a 1.4 and have quite a few very decent shots with the 2x. I think the other thing is that you may not be worried about weight as you haven't tried a truly heavy lens. I can hand hold the 500 for short bursts for birds in flight, I don't think I could hold a 400/2.8
Click to expand...

I suppose in a way you are right because I have never handled any of those beasts in the field.

I suppose I am in for a rude awakening if I compare any of those big boys with my 70-200:naughty:

If I can walk a full day with that on a body I would like to believe that I can do some brief hand-holding with a big one:shrug:

On my next visit to my sister in Pretoria I think I should go and rent one of each for a day...
 
Ally said:
Have a 300 2.8 cant wait to buy a 1.4 converter and bang it on!! :naughty:

Your 300 and 400 together would be a waste of money IMO their is much better performance from a prime with a converter than a zoom with a converter. What we talking 2-3 grand a lens!!! :eek: you could buy a good flash system and/or lens wide angle for that sort of money.
My bet would be the 300, 500 and 1 or both converters :)
Click to expand...

Cheers m8:thumbs:

Your suggestion was my first plan and I think I will stick to that:D
 
Another vote for the 500F4 I use mine a hell of a lot, with 1.4 and 2x, I'm a big bloke and reasonably fit for my age but handhloding is a real chore, it can be done in short bursts, the trouble is so many people bang on about weight it's difficult to judge, some are moaning because their 40 d and kit lens is to heavy to carry all day, whereas others like myself will quite happily carry a 20 / 22 kg ruksack and tripod all day long whether thats across Dartmoor or in central London.

I have have the 300 f2.8 on order and it should arive next week, I've tried it and it has blown me away image quality is absolutely superb, and twinned with the 500 it will make a great pairing:thumbs:
 
Agger said:
Another vote for the 500F4 I use mine a hell of a lot, with 1.4 and 2x, I'm a big bloke and reasonably fit for my age but handhloding is a real chore, it can be done in short bursts, the trouble is so many people bang on about weight it's difficult to judge, some are moaning because their 40 d and kit lens is to heavy to carry all day, whereas others like myself will quite happily carry a 20 / 22 kg ruksack and tripod all day long whether thats across Dartmoor or in central London.

I have have the 300 f2.8 on order and it should arive next week, I've tried it and it has blown me away image quality is absolutely superb, and twinned with the 500 it will make a great pairing:thumbs:
Click to expand...

So true - that part about the 40D + kit lens:D

I am sure that I will not do a 3 mile jog with the thing but really:bonk:

:thumbs:
 
Thanks all for your input:thumbs:

300/2.8 and 500/4 it will be then.

Now to find the bucks and get it done.

At least the decision on what has been made:thumbs:
 
LOL it makes me laugh so much when people say the 100-400 or 70-200 2.8 are heavy :) i hardly even notice them when i use them now, try carrying a 400 2.8/500/600 round for a day lol ;)

The 500 i would say is hand holdable for moving shots, but would be difficult to hand hold for stationary subjects without a good hand holding technique and plenty of spinach ;)
 
You could hand hold the 500, against largish critters in short bursts - but it's extremely knackering. As for trying to hold a single AF point over the eye/head of a small bird whilst hand holding - you'd have no chance at all. I can only consider it a tripod lens, or occasionally a bean bag or other convenient support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top