Canon 600mm vs. 400mm with x1.4 or 500mm?

[mark_sam]

Any thoughts about instead of getting a 600mm lens as compared with a used

400mm and a x1.4 extender? Will the 1.4 significantly compromise sharpness?

Any of you come up with a 400 or 500mm combo that is not as big as the 600mm

to lug around but still gives you "tack sharp" photos? Just mulling over the

possibilities and wondering when you really need the "reach" how you all are

doing it, as inexpensively as one can as still get excellent quality. Thanks

[JohnMWright]

Which 400mm?

 

The 400 f/2.8 is tack sharp, so is the 500mm... the 400mm f/4 DO is good but not quite as good.

 

I'd do the 500mm... excellent lens and a lot less weight than the 600mm. And have a 1.4x in the bag too.

 

At those focal lengths, there really isn't any such thing as inexpensive.

[bryan_lardizabal]

I've read many threads on this and the general consensus with DSLR's nowadays seems to favor the 500mm and using a 1.4x converter for extra reach. As far as image quality with a converter goes, it is very sharp on my 400mm f5.6L, so its probably better on the 500mm due to the fluorite elements. The 400mm f2.8 costs more for the extra stop, which may be a factor if you're shooting in low light at 400mm but if you add a 1.4x converter you're at 640mm f4.

[mark_chappell]

I generally agree with the previous posters: the 500 IS is superb and considerably lighter

(and less expensive) than either the 400/2.8 or 600/4. But you haven't told us what you

want to do with the lens. It's possible your subjects would make having the option of f2.8

very desirable, even if at "only" 400mm. Do you think you'll be shooting in dim light?

[m_barbu1]

Primes by themselves typically trump any lens with a teleconverter, with respect to image quality. Depends on whether or not you value that the most.

[ed_hurst]

Bryan - forgive me if I have not quite followed your logic, but the 400mm f2.8 with a 1.4x converter gives you 560mm f4 not 640mm f4.

[bryan_lardizabal]

"400mm f2.8 with a 1.4x converter gives you 560mm f4 not 640mm f4"

 

 

Yes, I stand corrected, you're right at 560mm. Hey it was 10pm and for some reason I had the 1.6x crop factor in my head, which with a 1.4x converter actually gives you (400 x 1.4)x1.6 = 896mm equivalent field of view on my 30D.

[alan_myers]

Hi Mark,

 

Frankly, both the 1.4X and the 2X will work very well with most any of Canon's super tele lenses. An exception might be the 400/4 DO, I'm not certain how well it's special optics work with a converter.

 

I use 300/2.8 and 500/4 with both the Canon teleconverters. There's only very little loss of IQ with the 1.4X with either lens, almost imperceptible in fact.

 

The 2X has a little more effect on IQ, but still not a lot, and less so with the 300 than the 500. The latter lens and 2X makes for a slightly warm image, and is pretty challenging to keep steady even with IS, so any loss of IQ might be as much "user error" as anything!

 

The 500m is a pretty long lens on any of the 1.6X crop cameras.

 

Recently I read that the 600/4 is being replaced by 500/4 in quite a few sports photogrpahers' arsenals, because of the 1.3X factor of the 1D-Series cameras they are using.

 

If only getting a single super tele lens, the 400/2.8 might be top choice, especially for sports. But, as noted, it's bigger and heavier than the 500, enough so that a dedicated tripod is almost a requirement.

 

Cheers!