Which lens ? 400 f2.8 500 f4 or 600 f4 ? that is the question

Agger

Agger

Suspended / Banned
Messages
526
Name
Lord Lucan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Everyone, I'm in a position to be able to purchase one of the following lenses;)

Canon 400mm f2.8

Canon 500mm f4

Canon 600mm f4

My question is which one:eek:

It will be used primarily for wildlife in this coutry, as I live in Gloucester I am local to the Royal Forest of Dean, Westonbirt, Slimbridge etc, as well as having access to "open" land for other wildlife.

The lens would be used with 1.4 and 2 x extenders on Canon 10/20/40d

Please aid my decision, I would really like to hear from others who have faced this dilemma, but will take advice from anyone who wishes to answer:shrug:
 
Will you lose AF when you use the last two lenses with the 2xtc? If so how do you feel about manual focusing at 1200mm?
 
I take your point ;) I face that problem at the moment, although I usually use stealth to get closer to my subject:thumbs: agree about 1200mm focus though would be a bit hit and miss, so maybe that a minus for the 600mm :shrug:

Kev M said:
Will you lose AF when you use the last two lenses with the 2xtc? If so how do you feel about manual focusing at 1200mm?
Click to expand...
 
you can get AF back with a little bit of sticky tape at > f5.6 on a non pro body, but it'll be slow(er).

I'd consider what I was trying to shoot and where. f2.8 has lots of advantages, but 600mm is sooo long.
However it weighs a TON.

Whatever combination you'll need a tripod, and will probably find that the lens with the 40D on the back is nose heavy unless you add extra battery packs
 
well I'd probably knock the 500 off the list. personally, I'm not sure an extra 100mm is worth a stop but a 200mm gain for the loss of one stop seems more of a fair trade.

Somehow the choice of 400 2.8 or 600 4 feels easier to make too. Out of those two, the 600 would probably win out for me, would be pretty good with a 1.4 too I imagine.
 
Hi Paul, I have used the tape trick with a 100-400 and it worked fine, sometimes needs a contrasty subject, but it's worth a thought.;)

It's the 2.8 of the 400 that is causing me grief:'( I know how useful that is. most of my lenses are primes and most f2.8 or lower :thumbs: The 600 is a monster and would need a wimberley (which I have) and a suitable tripod I have a Manfrotto 190 but could upgrade if I needed to:shrug:

As for it being nose heavy with the wimberley you don't need to worry about that as long as you set it right :thumbs:

All good thoughts and worth thinking about, keep em coming Please :clap:



oldgit said:
you can get AF back with a little bit of sticky tape at > f5.6 on a non pro body, but it'll be slow(er).

I'd consider what I was trying to shoot and where. f2.8 has lots of advantages, but 600mm is sooo long.
However it weighs a TON.

Whatever combination you'll need a tripod, and will probably find that the lens with the 40D on the back is nose heavy unless you add extra battery packs
Click to expand...
 
you might do better if you changed your thread title to include canon and 500mm 600mm or something similar as those with the long lenses might notice then ;)

just edit your first post then 'go advanced'.
 
The 400 is also a big beast. I nearly bought one but its as big and heavy as the 600 pretty much. I plumped for the 500/4 in the end as it is basically hand holdable for a short while, light enough to walk long distances with and a cracking lens.

I think generally

400 - low light and sports
500 - general purpose wildlife
600 - good for bird portraits but more challenging for in flight shots

They're all great lenses but I'd save a grand and get the 500. That can go towards a sturdy tripod (I have a 190 MF4 and only use my 500 on it very rarely, now mainly the Gitzo - I wouldn't trust it with either of the bigger lenses) and also think about a 1 series body so you can AF at f/8. I've been amazed by my 500 + 2x - quality is still good.
 
many thanks for the replies ;) please keep them coming especially those of you who have faced this dilemma.

I take on all points and concerns and they are valid, I like the 10/20/40d because of the 1.6 FOVCF which helps , however I can se the advantages of a Pro body, I'll maybe await until after the latest Canon recall:nono:

I had also thought about the weight factor, 500 is lightest of the 3, with the 400 and 600 very similar, really like the 2.8 the 400 oferrs though :love:
 
right so

400 f2.8 will give you - 400 f2.8, 560 f4 (with 1.4x), 800 f5.6 (with 2x). The 400 takes either converter extreamly well, with hardly any image degradation or AF speed loss. I know anumber of guys use them for sport and wildlife, downside is they are heavier than the 600 f4.

600 f4 will give you - 600 f4, 840 f5.6 (with 1.4x), 1200 f8 (with 2x). the 600 takes the 1.4 very well, when you put the 2x on you loose a bit of contrast and AF speed, again very heavy.

The 400 2.8 gives a nice combination of lengths and will use converters better than the 600 will, but you max out at 800mm.

Dont forget to budget for tripod, head, camo cover , and very large lens bag.

You wont regret buying any of them.

Dont forget about the 800mm next year !!.
 
Whichever you buy can I be your friend and pop around for a cuppa and a try out?
:drool:
 
grumpybadger said:
600 - good for bird portraits but more challenging for in flight shots
Click to expand...

Don't think the air stewards would let you pull that one out on the plane to take some cloud pics would you :lol:


:coat:
 
Many thanks for that all very valid, I am thinking of the 400, although I have the 100-400 its f5.6 at 400, so the 2.8 would be ideal for me I think:thinking: I know it's heavy but I'm used to that and carry my kit everyday with me just in case:shrug:

Agreed I will ned to budget for the extra's, I have a wimberley and a 190 tripod which I might need to upgrade, the lens caot and bag (that'll be a Lowepro lens trekker) should round it all of nicely :thumbs:

Can anyone tempt me into something else :thinking:

mho said:
right so

400 f2.8 will give you - 400 f2.8, 560 f4 (with 1.4x), 800 f5.6 (with 2x). The 400 takes either converter extreamly well, with hardly any image degradation or AF speed loss. I know anumber of guys use them for sport and wildlife, downside is they are heavier than the 600 f4.

600 f4 will give you - 600 f4, 840 f5.6 (with 1.4x), 1200 f8 (with 2x). the 600 takes the 1.4 very well, when you put the 2x on you loose a bit of contrast and AF speed, again very heavy.

The 400 2.8 gives a nice combination of lengths and will use converters better than the 600 will, but you max out at 800mm.

Dont forget to budget for tripod, head, camo cover , and very large lens bag.

You wont regret buying any of them.

Dont forget about the 800mm next year !!.
Click to expand...
 
It really depends what you mainly intend to use the lens for. If it's going to tend to be birds, the 400mm isn't going to be long enough for all but the larger species.

When it comes down to small birds, there's often just no substitute for the most reach you can get, and is a big argument in favour of the 600mm f4L. However, the 600mm can sometimes be just too long for closer stuff. I had to make just the choice you're making now and plumped for the Canon 500mm F4L IS. I've never regretted it and with both Canon converters I get effective 700mm and 1000mm lenses respectively.

Don't forget that you'll need a substantial tripod whichever lens you choose and also a gimbal head to use the lens effectively. You'll also need a soft long lens bag - the hard case the lenses come in is only good for storage and a travel case.

Don't be deluded into thinking that a long lens is any magical answer to great wildlife shots - the best shots are obtained by getting closer, whichever lens you choose.
 
Interesting read on the choices between the 500 and 600 lenses....

HERE

Also have a look at the Sigma 300-800mm F5.6. Its' a tad slower and no doubt a heavy brute, but thats a great zoom range. I nearly opted for it. :D

CLICKY
 
Kev M said:
Will you lose AF when you use the last two lenses with the 2xtc? If so how do you feel about manual focusing at 1200mm?
Click to expand...

It depends - on a 1 Series body any of those three lenses would still retain AF with the 2X converter.
 
oldgit said:
Whatever combination you'll need a tripod, and will probably find that the lens with the 40D on the back is nose heavy unless you add extra battery packs
Click to expand...

As long as you use the longest Wimberley plate, the P50 (or equivalent) there shouldn't be a problem Paul.

205337.jpg


With this plate I find I can balance the camera/ lens combo around it's centre of gravity, regardless of whether I use the 20D or 1D bodies, and even using the converters and with a flashgun mounted in the camera hot shoe. You do need a lot of travel to cater for all possible variations.

The safety stops at either end are a must to stop the whole lot sliding out of the mount if you forget to tighten up in a blonde moment.
 
Apologies if other members have posted a 'weight' response, but i'm pressed for time and scanned this thread!!

In order of heaviest to lightest, you have the 400 2.8, the 600 4 and then the 500 4 - something to consider when trekking any distance!

The clostest i have got to any of these lenses is IanC's 600mm monster so i cant advise from experience, just numbers and data from my favourite sites.

Personally, if i had the funds and the need, i'd go for the 500mm.
 
It's a really difficult choice so good luck whatever you choose. Any lens is long enough if you can get close enough. I've got some of my best shots with the 70-200 2.8L and even the 180L Macro, but getting that close is often out of the question. :shrug:
 
Many thanks for all the replies, the question of weight keeps coming up :shrug: Maybe I'm missing the point but I carry all my kit everday to work and home on foot, about a mile each way, no biggy, I regularly walk miles with my kit at the weekends, just last weekend I walked for about 3.5 hours continuosly around Oxford.

My kit is quite comprehensive and weighs circa 35 / 40 lb, I'm 54 overweight, but I have the right frame of mind, it also comes down to familiarity and attitude.

I'm not expecting to carry any of the lenses that far as they will all be tripod mounted and carried in a Lens trekker to location with the tripod being hand carried, I will use stealth to get close to my subject, and the lens for those frame filling moments:thumbs:

I see and meet lots of people who are younger fitter and have just as much kit, but they are not committed to using in it in the same way that I am:thumbsdown:

With any of these lenses, you would struggle to carry backup although it's possible and I would expect a minimum of 100-400 as a backup, coupled to a body c/w grip it all becomes more of a static setup, and thats what I would expect, shooting from a hide :thumbs:
 
The other weight issue is that it is possible to handhold the 500 for short periods of time. I've done it to pan bird in flight shots. Also sometimes you may miss the shot whilst you are setting up a tripod - it depends how you work.

I have 2x1D, 500, 70-200, 24-105, 17-40, binoculars and flash in a bag I can walk for miles with. I really wouldn't want to add another 2-3 kg to it though! As has been said, it depends what you are shooting. The other thing is that I am quite comfortable carrying my 500 on a tripod on my shoulder to move around a shooting location.

You should budget for another tripod. I wouldn't trust a 400 or 600 on the 190.

I would really try and get the chance to hold them before deciding as weight and portability is very different.

Paul
 
But, I should add, all three will give stunning pictures if used properly.

And the 500 will fit it some generic camera bags whereas the others really need dedicated long lens cases, which limits the options for carrying other stuff.

Paul
 
If I was in your situation (And one day I hope I will be) id probably opt for the 600mm f4 or the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 :)
 
What I'm saying is I carry all of the below without a problem all day on an outing, BUT I would'nt expect to carry anywhere near that when carrying either a 400 f2.8 500 or 600 f4, I would carry back up, but that would be limited, also I would be shooting from a hide, so I could set my kit up, and "rest" between photo opportunities.

It's the weight of the lens thgat will be almost certainly decide on others not getting exactly what they want without weighing (sorry) up the pro's and con's.

I agree with most of what has been said, and I would'nt expect to handhold or want to any of the three lenses I'm thinking of buying.

Definately agree about the tripod so I'll get me a Giittos on order later today.

Please keep your advice coming I really do appreciate it ;):clap:


Canon 10d with grip
Canon 20d with grip
Canon 40d with grip

Tokina fisheye
Canon 17-40mm f4 L
Canon 85mm f1.2 L
Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro
Canon 135mm f2 L
Canon 200mm f2.8 L
Canon 100-400 f4-5.6 L
Canon 1.4 L extender

Kenko extension tubes
Canon 580 Ex flash
Canon cable release
Lee ND grad .3 .6 .9 with filter holder
16 GB memory mostly 2 GB extreme 3

Spares = batteries for camera and flash, various cleaning bits and bobs, Giottos rocket blower, sensor cleaning kit

All housed and protected by Lowepro

Next acquisition will be either 400mm f2.8 L , 500mm f4 L or possibly 600mm f4 L complete with lens trekker
 
LOL. Hats off to you, that's commitment - more kit than I'd want to carry. ;)

Just hold fire on the lens case until you're absolutely sure which lens you're getting. I have the Lowepro long lens case and it will take the 500, camera body and either converter -assembled, whereas with the 600 it wont. A minor detail perhaps, but you don't always want to be assembling the gear in wet or dusty environments.

There is another bag which will take it all assembled. No doubt mho or IanC_UK will pop up and enlighten you as they both use the other bag and I can't remember who does it. :thinking:

Contrary to what you read in some reviews, don't doubt the ability of these lenses with either of the Canon converters.

Here's a couple of 1000mm shots (500mm and 2XTC)

OY8N7633-01.jpg


OY8N8517-01.jpg


The Sparrow was about 25 feet away and the Sandpiper about 50 feet, and they're both crops, the Sandpiper more so obviously. Both were taken on the 1DMK2N. I'd actually have filled the frame better using the 20D.
 
Erm... don't think so - doesn't sound familiar. :thinking:
 
Many thanks CT for the bag advice, I'll do some more looking before I decide;)

Great pics BTW especially with a 2x extender :clap:
 
Kinesis Photo Gear

http://www.kgear.com/

Best Lens cases on the planet

if you order between 1-7 Nov you get 10,15 or 20% discount

Shipping is approx $50, then there is TAX and VAT and parcel farces brokerage fee.

they are expensive but worth it.

my lens case for the 600 is long enough for me to get the lens + hood fitted + converter + camera all together so it a quick out in one go when i need to use it.
 
Gracias Mark. It was driving me daft. :D
 
Works for me to, many thanks Mark (mho) ;)
 
Bet its the work internet connection. This network seems to be falling down by the day. Google times out every other time I try. :(
 
How about renting each one in turn....i know LCE do the 500mm. Then you can decide with some experiance of each,which one is going to most suitable.........

Just my 2p

Dave.
 
Some very valid points in this thread which will always help.;)

My reasons for choosing the 500 F.4 IS were that the 500mm can be handheld "if only for a short time" when visiting airshows/motorsport events.:)

The 400mm has the 2.8 which is the only plus side for me on that lens although like the other lenses if gives supersharp pictures, That lens is far too big and heavy for a 400mm IMO so unless you have a dedicated purpose to shoot at 400mm in low light its a very expensive heavy lens.:(

The 600mm was on my shortlist and as CT has stated for birding and really long shots there is nothing better...... period..:thumbs:

They all retain AF with the converters on the 1 series body so getting the 500mm was the only choice for me, Its very much the better allrounder lens by far.... again IMO.;)

Its all about what your going to use it on. For birding get the 600mm, All round the 500.. Unless you have a dedicated subject forget the 400mm for its size and weight alone.:)

A couple of sample shots, first one @ 700mm = 1.4X converter

woodpecker=4.jpg


Second shot @ 500mm

dunnock.jpg
 
Many thanks for the help Tim, I think I've made my mind up, I'm just going to look at a couple sometime soon (before December) then I'll order one from Ian (Kerso)

Great captures BTW especially using extenders, I have been very impressed by the way that the longer lenses cope with extenders:thumbs:






busterboy said:
Some very valid points in this thread which will always help.;)

My reasons for choosing the 500 F.4 IS were that the 500mm can be handheld "if only for a short time" when visiting airshows/motorsport events.:)

The 400mm has the 2.8 which is the only plus side for me on that lens although like the other lenses if gives supersharp pictures, That lens is far too big and heavy for a 400mm IMO so unless you have a dedicated purpose to shoot at 400mm in low light its a very expensive heavy lens.:(

The 600mm was on my shortlist and as CT has stated for birding and really long shots there is nothing better...... period..:thumbs:

They all retain AF with the converters on the 1 series body so getting the 500mm was the only choice for me, Its very much the better allrounder lens by far.... again IMO.;)

Its all about what your going to use it on. For birding get the 600mm, All round the 500.. Unless you have a dedicated subject forget the 400mm for its size and weight alone.:)

A couple of sample shots, first one @ 700mm = 1.4X converter
Click to expand...
 
Many thanks to all for all the very valuable thoughts, I am looking at a 500mm f4 this weekend with a very strong chance of taking it with me, I look forward to posting some photo's very soon;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top