Which Canon Super Telephoto Lens to Get?

[david_huff1]

<p>I am a work-in-progress amatuer photographer and I use a 5D Mark II. For my longer range nature shots I have been using the 100-400mm lens with 2x II extender. Having just returned from Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons (and some frustration over light, softness and reach), I believe it is time to make the leap to super telephoto. I would welcome your view on which to purchase:<br>

(A) EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM;<br>

(B) EF 500mm f/4L IS USM; or,<br>

© EF 600mm f/4L IS USM?<br>

My preference would be the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM because of the lower light advantage, however, questions about the true gain over my current lens set-up as well as the appeal of the 600mm reach with the 2x II extender is causing me pause. (Price is not my primary consideration.)<br>

Thanks in advance and I welcome your view.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>The prime that gets you closest to your preffered focal length. Look in your EXIF if that is showing you are using the 100-400 + 2x at 800 then get the 600 and a 1.4. If you are not at full reach all the time the 500 is a very good compromise for focal length, quality and usability. Don't buy the 400 with the intention of always using extenders on it, get the 400 if you need a 400.</p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>If price isn't a primary consideration, I would go with the 600mm and a 1.4x extender. Get better reach and IQ than your 100-400 with the 2x, and retain the 2x when needed. With the 5DMII you can user higher ISOs. Is the one stop advantage of the 2.8 going to make that much difference for you and your type of photography?</p>

<p>EDIT: I see Scott has similar thoughts, but beat me to the submit button.</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>I second Scott's suggestion to figure out which focal-length you need/want the most and go from there. If cost isn't a factor, I'd suggest buying the 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm large-aperture, non-DO primes (I'm only saying that slightly tongue-in-cheek - if you can afford them, they <strong>are</strong> the best...).</p>

<p>Personally, I've only ever used the 400mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 (and the 300mm f/2.8). All are outstanding lenses (as is, I assume, the 600mm). I can tell you that the 400mm f/2.8 is <strong>substantially</strong> heavier than the 500mm. I can carry and hand-hold the 500mm (or 300mm) all-day, but the 400mm is tiring.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>There's also the 800mm f/5.6, and, if money really isn't a problem, the 1200mm f/5.6.</p>

<p>I haven't used any of them. I'd suggest renting to try them out before buying.</p>

<p>Also, switching up to a 1D series camera will allow you to autofocus at f/8, which could be useful for some of the lens/tc combinations you're contemplating.</p>

[eric_washburn]

<p>Of the three lenses you mention, only the 500 is reasonably hand-holdable for short periods, unless you are very strong. If you anticipate using a tripod all the time, of course, this is not a factor. If you don't have one already, you'll probably also want a strong tripod and a gimbal-type mount, such as the Wimberley and, again, this is especially true for the 400/2.8 and the 600 when shooting wildlife, though some people can get by with a monopod, especially when shooting sports. If price is not a consideration, you might also be interested in the relatively new 800/5.6, increasingly used by the renowned bird photographer Arthur Morris. It won't autofocus with your 5DII when used with an extender, but (when used by itself) you'll only be losing 40mm of reach, compared to the 600/1.4x combo. Opinions will vary, but many people will tell you that a 2x extender usually gives unsatisfactory results.</p>

[zml]

<p>Both 400 and 600 lenses fall into the <em>too heavy for normal use for wildlife </em>category. In additon the 600 is not easily transportable (friggin' heavy and long whereas the 400 is just friggin' heavy...) I use the 400 very often but I don't shoot wildlife so it lives on a monopod and I curse each and every time I need to carry it on my shoulder (1D + 400/2.8 = 17 lbs...)<br>

As the others have already said, rent 'em all before buying: it'll be the best $200 you ever spent...</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>If money is no issue, I would get the 300mm F2.8 for trails and long walks, and the 600mm for sitting next to the lake with a tripod. Since getting the 300, almost all my other lenses are collecting dust. Works great with the extenders and you can handhold it with no problems.</p>

[mary_kossik]

<p>I agree with Diana, the 300mm and then the 500 or the 600. Check some of the sites for the comparison between the 600 and the 500 with the 1.4tc. There is some talk on the Yellowstone photography site about the 500 vs. 600 too you might want to check out. I had the 500 before the 300 and I LOVE the 300 f2.8. Hardly touch the 100-400 anymore. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I stopped using 2x converters several years ago, much preferring 1.4x, although I currently use a TC16A which is extremely good. When I was still using film I opted for a 400/2.8 (manual focus in my case) opting for the speed and knowing that a 1.4x is all I would ever need for a few shots. Now that I have a digital sports body with 1.5x crop factor I rarely use converters at all.</p>

<p>In your case it sounds like a 600mm will be more beneficial since a 2x is not a really good idea. I also like the idea of a 300/2.8 to go with it when you simply do not want to take the heavier lens. I have hiked with a 300/2.8 or 200/2 but even those can get heavy depending on what else you are carrying. You could consider a 300/4 as your lightweight hiking lens. </p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>If this was my choice, I'd take the 500mm f4. Its a reasonable weight (for a 500mm!), and lighter than the 400mm. Also, I'd get the 1.4 extender over the 2X. The images I've seen from the 500mm are incredible.</p>

[SteveH]

<p>My wife and I have both the 400 f4 DO IS and the 500mm f4. The 500 is significantly sharper than the DO, and will even produce exceptional results with the 1.4 extender. We also have given up on the 2x extender - too much light loss, and loss of sharpness. The 400 is most useful for flight shots because of it's light weight and good sharpness for this use. For all purpose longish distance wildlife photography the 500 is probably your best bet. </p>

[User_1172872]

<p>The following may be of interest:<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml</a></p>

[hawkman]

<p>What in nature do you want to shoot? Birds, animals, landscapes? answer depends. </p>

[david_huff1]

<p>Thank you all for your comments, and especially C U's link to the 500 v. 600 article which I found very helpful. After listening to your comments and studying further, I am now leaning towards the 500, but still have an open mind.<br>

Arash - I look to shoot landscapes primarily, but also enjoy animals and to a lesser extent, birds.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I may be asking a question on David's behalf here, but for landscapes would heat shimmer cause by ground heat be an issue with a 500-600mm lens? Would this be any different to shooting with a 400mm and cropping?</p>

[hawkman]

<p>David, in the best choices would be 500 f/4 IS. <br>

Mike, yes with distant landscape haze and thermals are a problem, it requires special skill and creative talent to make a pure landscape shot with a 400mm or 500mm lens due to narrow fov, but some people have the talents. Actually for pure landscape I'd pick 100-400 because it is much more portable so it is possible to hike with it, it's hand-holdable and also verstile because of the zoom. For animals 500 f/4 is great on MKII (but it would be too long for cropped), 600 is better for birding on full frame and 400 f/2.8 is a super heavy lens most suited for night-time sports on tripod. </p>

<p> </p>

[savagesax]

I was never happy with the 2X converter. It was a bit soft. I sold it and bought the 1.4.

 

I think you would be happy with any of the huge primes. For whatever reason most of the nature photographer I know favor the 400mm with the 1.4 converter.

 

You may wish to post your question in the nature forum and see what those guys say.

[kerry_grim]

<p>Become a naturalist first. Learn your subject. There is no substitute for getting close. Spending megabucks by itself may be a quick short cut answer to getting a lot of photographs, but patience and knowledge of your subject is more important for excellent photos of wildlife in the long run.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Another vote for the 500mm + 1.4x extender. The 400mm is a monster with less reach and the 600mm is a heavy awkward sod unless you sit in one place without ever moving.</p>

<p>To throw another unusual suggestion into the arena... have you considered buying a 50D? Chances are it <em>may</em> give you superior results to the 5D2 + 1.4x. You may be able to get away with the 50D and the 500mm f4 without any extenders and still get fantastic quality images.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Jamie Robertson's suggestion is excellent. Did you consider renting a lens? Remember also, you will need a heavy tripod and ball head...that will be a lot more weight to drag around.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>Let me suggest another option, since price is no object. The maligned Canon 400mm f4 IS DO.</p>

<p>I include a shot taken with a Canon 1DM3 and a 1.4 II TC, giving a total FOV equivalent of 728mm at f5.6. Please note the hairs on the flower stamen.</p><div></div>

[clgriffin]

<p>I'll add that this lens is much lighter than any of the ones you were considering.</p>

[eric_washburn]

<p>I think that Charles makes an excellent point about the 400 DO. It probably is less sharp than the 500 or 600 (I only have the latter), but not dramatically so, and it's a lens you can comfortably use without a tripod and carry for hours. Some people have the dedication and discipline to lug around the 600 with a big tripod and gimbal mount all day and put up with the limitations on grab shots, but, with many others, the initial euphoria fades rather quickly. A small suggestion for whatever you get--try to find a Pyrex lid for a lens cover--much more convenient than the unmanageable one which Canon provides.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>David, if you're using a lens for landscapes- a super telephoto is NOT what you would use(unless you want to shoot birds on top of a mountain hundreds of feet away). Landscape lenses are typically wide angle.</p>