400 f2.8 and 500 f4 (1 Viewer)

The price of 400 f2.8 IS II is the same as 500/4 II. I wonder, will it be better to have 400 f2.8 if I am buying 800 f5.6 anyway

I use the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS and it is my favorite lens, as well as my most used lens!
I team it up with a 300 F2.8 L IS as I can, just, carry both with the necessary accessories. This makes for a very flexible, though heavy, setup. It gives me 300mm, 420mm, 600mm, 800mm and 1140mm including the use of extenders.
However, if I had the money, I would go for the 600mm Mk2 with a 300mm F2.8 (Mk2?) at the shorter end. This combination would offer better results with (Mk3) extenders as well as improvements at their native focal lengths. I think this would be a better setup for the money involved as well as being lighter which may allow you to carry both at the same time.
Just food for thought?

Mark K said:

The price of 400 f2.8 IS II is the same as 500/4 II. I wonder, will it be better to have 400 f2.8 if I am buying 800 f5.6 anyway

Click to expand...

The choice of lenses for bird photography is probably totally different for other specialist areas where a supertele comes in to play as the subject matter tends to be small, even close by.

The benefit of the 500mm is an advantage in weight and bulk over the 400mm, 600mm and 800mm.
For hand holding it does make a difference.

The 400mm has a much better minimum focus difference but I doubt the optical performance with a 2.0TC will be anywhere near as sharp as the 800mm 5.6 lens naked and the AF speed much slower too. The f2.8 lens is possibly useful for low light but nowadays a 5D3 or 1DX has made that advantage much less so IMO. Naked, it should AF extremely quickly though, particularly good for sports I would have thought.Another consideration is that the depth of field on these super telephoto lenses is very shallow. For bird photography I find that unless the subject is side on I can't use f2.8 on my 300mm unless I am prepared for out of focus areas. It can on the other hand be useful for subject isolation in shots were it's desirable.
The other advantage the 400 has over the 800 is it's weight but it's still a very hefty beast.Hand holding will probably limited to keep fit enthusiasts and hod carriers.

The 500mm is the supertele Jack of all Trades but in being so compromises versus all the others who each in turn have their own advantages.
It seems to be the compromise that the majority decide to accept and consequently holds it value better when buying a new one.
cheers Dave

Dear Dave
I eventually reallise that I may need the more than one primes as suggested. Just got the older version of 120-300 as a starter, coupling with my 1.4, 1.7 with weight very similar to 500 f4. Once I master the basic skills I will move on to 600 f4 though I clearly know other lenses have their own pros/cons each. For unknown reason, 500f4's price stays very high and 600f4 II is a good one which gives me temporarily reason not to have 800 at the moment.
Thank you for your expert advice, and happy birding to all

Interesting lens with which to acquire basic skills!

I would not want to carry both ,a 600f4mkII and the converter's + a 70/200 f2.8 would be my choice as a better compromise .


Rob.

Rob
I tried the converter and 70-200 f2.8...great combination and great performace

Hi Mike, would be better if you had any friends who owns telephoto white primes and tried it out on the field, decide which one you prefer based on performance, weight, size, easy to carry, monies, etc...

I never had any experiences with big white telephoto lenses but what I did is instead of buying lenses like Sigma 50-500mm, etc... I just jump straight on EF500mm and start learning from there. Given the skills you have with your camera etc, it would not be too hard to get used to the big whites. I did this to reduce my lost on reselling value of other lenses just to upgrade. Unless of course you found some super deals. Another food for thought.

Cheers,
Robin

robinsslee said:

...if you had any friends who owns telephoto white primes and tried it out on the field,....

Click to expand...

If only! All my purchases of Canon's big whites have been based on careful perusal of threads like this. Only when I visit WWT sites such as Slimbridge and Welney have I seen big whites - and both of these are a fair drive from home. The local shops certainly don't stock them, and whilst Calumet may have their HQ in Milton Keynes, I get the impression that their stock is for sale - not demo. It's one reason why Birdfair and Focus-on-Imaging were so important.

However, last Sunday at my local reserve, a guy turned up with an Eos 1DX mounted on an EF 600 F4L, latest version, I expect.

Dear Malcolm...months after stating my thread..I have come to the conclusion that if only one single lens is needed, that will be a 600/4, with converters. I did purchase a Sig 120-300, as an inexpensive alternative to 300/f2.8 plus more versatility.

I found most photographers with big telephoto lenses are friendly chaps or perhaps I am lucky to knew few pro photographers with variety of big lenses all from visiting reserves, etc... :t:

Malcolm Stewart said:

If only! All my purchases of Canon's big whites have been based on careful perusal of threads like this. Only when I visit WWT sites such as Slimbridge and Welney have I seen big whites - and both of these are a fair drive from home. The local shops certainly don't stock them, and whilst Calumet may have their HQ in Milton Keynes, I get the impression that their stock is for sale - not demo. It's one reason why Birdfair and Focus-on-Imaging were so important.

However, last Sunday at my local reserve, a guy turned up with an Eos 1DX mounted on an EF 600 F4L, latest version, I expect.

Click to expand...