Long Glass: Big or Small?

[frolov]

This might sound as a typical "what lens to get" question, but there

is a plot twist: I'm more concerned with weight than anything else.

So please bear with me.

 

<P>Playing around with my 200/2.8 (which I bought primarily for

landscapes and some macro stuff) wetted my appetite for shooting

wildlife. While I managed to get a few good photos, I quickly

realised that I really need longer lens, or give up on most

opportunities. So I'm carefully considering my options for single

long lens for <I>field work</I>. (I use Canon EOS, BTW). Focal

length that appeals to me most is 400mm (I'm afraid going longer

than that without previous experience with big telephotos, and

getting 300/4 seems pointless as I have 200/2.8)

 

<P>With my budget, I can either get relatively small EF 400/5.6,

which seems a bit slow, or bite the bullet and get big older MF

300/2.8 (like Canon FD) with intention of using it with TC as

420/4. (Side question: Doesn't FD to EOS converter have 1.2x

TC build-in?)

 

<P>Weight of the long glass is my biggest concern. Given the fact

that I often find myself backpacking on long and mountanous routes,

kilo and a half is <I>heavy</I>, and three kilos is

<I>back-breakingly heavy</I>. Can you guys with big glass tell me if

that extra stop of light (and possibly some extra sharpness) of

300/2.8 is worth the weight? Or should I forget about taking the

thing backpacking, and just drag it along on day hikes?

 

<P>Regards, Andrei.

[bobatkins]

If weight is your #1 concern, why not put a 2x on your 200/2.8. It

won't be as sharp as a 400/5.6L, but it will be much cheaper and

much lighter. It may be "sharp enough", depending on your needs.

 

<p>

 

The FD to EOS converter is effectively a 1.2x TC.

[bruce]

Andrei,

I know you said that the 300 f4.0 was out because you felt it was too

slow. Is it too slow because you want to shoot at wide apertures to

blur the background, or too slow to hand hold? If it is the former,

why not consider the 300 f4.0 IS lens. This gives you length, and

additional "handholdability" with the internal stabilization unit.

Armed w/ the canon 1.4xAF converter, this is a 400 5.6 lens, that

allows you to hand hold the lens down to 1/250 of a second.

Furthermore, this is a light package, w/ a tripod mount... in

addition, it would be very usable with a monopod in poor light.

I have a 300 2.8 lens, and it is big and heavy to haul around... I too

do a lot of backpacking, and I often carry too few clothing articles

in order to bring my telephoto lens....

regards

bruce

[ellis_vener_photography]

Try finding a Leitz Telyt 400mm f/6.3 lenses used and have the mounts replaced with Canon EOS mounts. You will completely lose all auto functions, but these are extremely lightweight, sharp non telephoto lenses. because they only have two elements of glass the T/stop (transmission value) is closer to f/5.6 than many more complex 400mm f/5.6 lenses.

[frolov]

Bob, I tried using 2x TC with 200/2.8. Never got anything sharp from

it. Acceptable, maybe. Sharp, no. And it's not my tripod either -

I can clamp 200 plus 70 mm extension on it with sharp results.

I guess stellar perfomance with 2x TC is too much too ask from

any lens.

 

<P>That is why I want a good lens, so I will never look at the slide

and think: if only it was sharper... I guess for the quality I want

I'll have to pay in terms of weight. Maybe I should just get 300/2.8,

scrap the idea of taking it backpacking, and never look back.

[bobatkins]

You don't gain a whole lot in image quality going for the 300/2.8L

over the 300/4L. If weight is an issue, you really need 400mm and

the 2x isn't good enough, try the 400/5.6L. F5.6 isn't really that

bad these days with decent ISO 200 film around and the new ISO 100

Kodak "Velvia clone" available early next year.

 

<p>

 

Of course you could ditch the 200/2.8 and replace it with a 300/4

and a 1.4x to go to 420. It's a very sharp combination. Not so

hot with the 2x (probably like the 200 + 2x), but very good with

the 1.4x. Depends what else you have in your bag I guess.

[jason_elsworth1]

300/4 is also a good longer landscape lens for picking out elements in

a distant scene. It is lightweight and the smaller max apeture isn't

really important in this applicaton when nothing is moving. It is

basically always a compromise when you are intending to carry your

gear any distance. Ideally for wildlife we would all shoot the best

heavy syuff mounted on a heavy tripod but the further you need to

carry it the more you need to compromise and be clear of your goals.

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

stuumounted on an enormous

[drc]

I've just gone through the same process with my Nikon 300s about a year ago. Nature and backpacking are also what i aspire to, so when i heard of the great qaulity of the 300 Nikkor coupled with the 1.4x, i did some testing and quickly ended up selling off my 300 2.8. I am really happy with the combination of high qaulity and low weight. For the times i need more speed, i push velvia, or throw in kodachrome 200. I know of Canon shooting pros who tell me the optical quality differences between the EF F2.8 and F4 are similarily negligible.

[bob_royse]

You don't state what wildlife you're talking about photographing and

you don't state what equipment (tripods etc.) give such bad results

with the 200/f2.8 and 2x.

 

<p>

 

I've owned the Canon 180/3.5 for several months now and have gotten

downright spectacular sharpness from it with a 2x. Do some serious

testing with a mirror lock and cable release to see it you're getting

your money's worth from the 200/f2.8 and 2x combo.

 

<p>

 

A 400/f5.6 is a great focal length. With Canon you can get it from a

varity of ways (200+2x, 300/f4+1.4x with or without IS, 100-400IS or

the probable optical ultimate 400/f5.6). 400/5.6 is the best

compromise of size, length and speed. But it's a compromise.

 

<p>

 

IMO here are the virtues of the "big" lenses:

 

<p>

 

300/f2.8 - Relatively small, fast and lightweight. Good for carrying

long distanses and travelling. An ideal lens for an African trip

where mammals in low light will be important and a 1.4x 420 can be

used most of the time. A 2x can be slapped on for the "bird shot".

With a 1.4x it makes a great lens for photographing birds from a

blind as well.

 

<p>

 

400/f2.8 - probably better for sports photographers, but could be

ideal if you really need f/2.8 for mammals in low light. If you need

something longer, than get something longer. (the weight of the Nikon

400/f2.8S + 2x could also be a consideration for some). The close

focusing 800/f5.6 for warblers might be worthwile also, but a 600/f4

+ 1.4x and ext. tube probably would AF as quickly.

 

<p>

 

500/4 or 4.5 lenses - with a 1.4x starts you off into serious bird

photography, but leaves you frustrated when that Henslow's Sparrow

that you've worked so hard to photograph is singing out in the open

35ft. away. 700mm just doesn't cut it, unfortunately. If you're happy

with f4 at 280 or 300 mm, then a 500mm could be a logical next step.

A 500mm lens is neither here or there as a focal length in it own

right IMO. I owned a 500mm for years and rarely used it as such, and

99.9% of the time had a 1.4x, 2x or extention tube on it. If you're

idea of bird photography is a heron or egret, then go ahead and get a

500, but most serious bird photographers wouldn't lose any sleep

stepping on one of those junkbirds if a Sedge Wren was nearby (just

kidding!!!). There's not much that this type of lens can do that

wouldn't be better served by a 400/5.6, 300/2.8 or 400/f2.8 +TC's,

or......

 

<p>

 

600/f4 - I've owned one for a short time now and don't know why I

ever bought a 500mm. At this time in photographic history (which, of

course, could change fast at this pace) the 600 f/4 is king. On paper

the 600 is only 20% longer than a 500mm - so what? In reality there

is abigger difference. It's the square root that gets amplified by

the increased focal length. That Henslow's Sparrow at 35ft. will

occupy 44% (not 20%) more of the frame at 840mm than at 700mm (36 vs.

25 - not 6 vs. 5).

 

<p>

 

Don't but what you don't need, but don't waste your time with

equipment that is only a compromise either.

[bobatkins]

Just an alternate point of view to Roberts...

 

<p>

 

I've used, shot with and owned both the 600/4 and 500/4.5. In my

opinion, the 500/4.5 is a much more convenient lens to work with.

Now I don't shoot small birdies. I'll take the Great Blue Heron

over the tiny little warbler any day! I prefer to shoot mammals

anyway, given a choice.

 

<p>

 

If I'm shooting from the car, or close to it, the ideal "kit" is a

300/2.8, 600/4 and TCs. Out in the field, if you have to carry it

all, I'll take a 300/4, 500/4.5 and TCs any day. You lose a little

speed, a little reach, but the sharpness is so close you'll never

see the difference.

 

<p>

 

The 600/4 is a great lens - unless you have to carry it far. While

Robert thinks that area magnification is what counts - and I think

it's really linear magnification, I think his principle holds with

regard to weight. The 600/4 may only be twice as heavy as the 500/4.5,

but it <em> seems</em> at least 4 times heavier if you have to carry

it very far!

 

<p>

 

So your lens choice is very much dependant on what you will be

shooting and how you will be shooting it. There is no solution

which applies to everyone.

[ellen_wilson]

I'm a small chick with big glass, yeah you can do it. Get the 400mm,

you'll be bummed if you don't. You might move a little slower, but

you'll notice more, therefore take more pics. I find it easiest if you

hike everything out, set up a daycamp and go from there with

equipment, snack and water.

[ellen_wilson]

Sorry Andrei, I just read my above answer and it sounds misleading.

Soounds like I'm super athlete or something.There is NO way I could

hike everything out by myself for say a week long backpacking trip.

Take someone else with you to share the load. I don't think you should

backpack by yourself anyway for safety reasons. I like to put photo

gear in a fanny pack facing front. This way you don't often miss

wildlife (zoom lens). Also, an easily accessible side pocket on

backpack for long lens is very nice.

[stanley_mcmanus]

One advantage of the 500mm lens is that you can get a manual focus

500mm f/4 for a Nikon body. The cost is a lot less than the fancy

autofocus lenses. I believe that a Nikon 500mm /f4 in good condition

goes for about $3000. And with the 1.4x convertor you have a 700mm

f/5.6 that will still use the rangefinder feature of your autofocus

camera. Not bad! I don't know if Canon has a similar combo for your

EOS camera. But with the money you save over an autofocus lens you

can buy a used Nikon autofocus body for use with this lens. Of

course, that causes other complications. Life sure is simpler for the

landscape photographers.

[paul_wilson2]

As has been mentioned before, a Nikon 400/3.5 can be had for as little

as $2000 used and there is a Nikon to EOS adaptor available(not a TC).

The 400/3.5 weighs about the same amount as a 300/2.8 and is not much

bigger.

 

<p>

 

You'll have to use stop down metering(as you would with the FD lens)

but these lenses seem to get used wide open most of the time anyway.

 

<p>

 

As for weight, what tripod are you using? It might be worth saving

for a Gitzo carbon fiber.

[steve_fletcher]

I would urge you to re-think your ban on the 300/4. In my view, it's

the only choice that's going to do it for you. Like you, I want to

backpack with as long a lens as possible. My planned trips are in

the Sierras, so rugged country. I wouldn't take any of the heavy

lenses in my pack -- in this group I include the 300/2.8 and anything

heavier. My 500/4 definitely stays at home (although I packed with

it once -- nearly killed me!) when the goal is backpacking or serious

hiking. I bought the 300/4 specifically as "portable length" since

there were clearly limits to what I could do with the 500. No 300 is

long enough for me for wildlife most of the time, but as a portable

it's the best thing going. Add a 1.4x to it and that's the package I

think will never be beaten for backpacking. Top quality lens (either

the Nikon I use or the Cannon you want), light package, fast enough,

hand-holdable.

 

<p>

 

To offer yet another alternative to Robert's view, above, I view

fixed 400 mm lenses as about the most useless length available. Too

long to hand-hold, too short to do anything with most wildlife. As

your hobby leads you further down the path into wildlife, I suggest

you'll find the 300 useful for above reasons, and the next length

you'll want to look at is the 500/4.5 from canon. A fabulously

useful length by itself, and superb with a 1.4x, great compromise in

terms of length and speed offered at only half the weight of the

useless (in my view) 600/4 behemoth (a friend who owns the Nikkor

600/4 D takes it almost no where because of its size). I find 500 mm

works great with smaller birds, who are typically less conscious of

human presence than the large, majestic birds like my favorite, the

Great Blue Heron (sure, you gotta shoot those little ones fast, but

that's always true, they never sit still). The only other long lens

I still think about sometimes is an 800/5.6, which is a sufficient

increase over my 500 to be useful. Still fast enough too, I think.

My two cents.

[darcy___]

I would agree with those who say "go with the 300 f4...." You are kidding yourself if you think you will pack a 400f2.8 or 600 etc. on a serious backpacking trip. There may be a few who would do it but I believe it is very few. You would probably end up going shorter distances, or worse yet not go at all.

[bob_royse]

The are many choices in lengths, speeds, weights, and sizes for

telephotos. The is a market, apparently, for all of them and picking

the right one depends on what you're photographing, where you live or

travel to, and whether or not you have to carry it far. One man's

meat is another's poison so they say.

 

<p>

 

I, personally, never do wildlife photography while backpacking and

probably never will. I do a lot of hiking for birding and

landscape/macro photography and would never carry anything bigger

than a 300/f4 or 400/5.6. I live in Ohio and I'm not likely to

encounter any suitable subjects that warrant carrying a big lens

without a specific intention.

 

<p>

 

As far as the cynics for 400mm lenses go, I found that 400mm was the

ideal focal length for photographing wildlife from a vehicle while I

lived in Africa. A 400/f5.6 is also a great choice for handheld shots

of flying birds in good light anywhere in the world. I have had no

interest in mammal photography in recent years and I'm definitely not

qualified to speak on the behalf of the best moose lens.

 

<p>

 

Yes, 500mm lenses can be carried farther more easily than 600mm's,

but the thing is 700mm is just too short to capture the subjects I'd

be likely to encounter when carrying it for considerable distances

(e.g. White-Eyed Vireos and Blue-Winged Warblers in an open meadow

area). Carrying a 600mm short distances is really no big ordeal and

sticking one in a backpack to get to a specific destination, such as

a mudflat, a mile or so away is no problem either.

 

<p>

 

To each his own.

[c_terry]

I am going to chime in in favor for either adding teleconverters to the 200 2.8 you have, or getting a 300 f4. I do lots of backpacking myself. I also own a 500 f4.5 (manual focus). When backpacking I carry either an EF 75-300 IS or a 300 f4L and a 1.4 teleconverter. I also carry a monopod in favor of a tripod for weight reasons. I wouldnt DREAM of carrying the 500 along, due to the combined mass of the lens and the tripod I wouldnt use it without.

[james_r._saxon]

Before I would plunk down the money on the big glass I would do a couple of things. First I would do some soul searching to see if I really would use this lens. Second, I would rent a number of the lenses discussed and take them on an outing to see which lens or combination of lens and converter were appropriate. A number of the larger camera stores will rent equipment. Check in your area or on the web. Good luck.

[andy.kim]

The Nikkor 400mm f3.5 EDIF is a good suggestion, since it's

relatively compact and light for a big tele, has a fairly versatile

reach, and is relatively cheap used. Rather than get an EOS adapter,

why not just slap an inexpensive Nikon manual body on it, like an FG

or FM to use full aperture metering (and aperture priority mode with

the FG)? You should be able to find a body for less than $200.

[pete_parker]

There are many alternatives when looking for Big Glass. My

philosophy is buy the focal length you'll get the most use out of. I

have owned and used a 400 mm for years and rarely need more length. I

do own a 1.4 teleconverter for those times.Remember, the descision you

make might stick with you for a few years, so do research and find the

best all around lens for your needs. Everyone you talk to will have

his or her own opinion on what you need. Make your descision for you,

not for what someone else thinks. First and foremost, buy the best

lens you can afford, image quality is important. Good luck,

Pete Parker

[paal_jensen1]

I would recommend a 300/4. Its small and light. I own a 300/2.8 lens.

It weigths 3kg and it stays home. Instead I use a 200 ED Macro lens

and 1.4X and 2X converter. You say you already own a 200/2.8 and use

it for macro and landscape and hence a 300mm don't fit in. I say sell

the 200/2.8; you don't need a 2.8 lens for either landscapes or macro.

Buy a 135mm lens instead if you don't already own one. Or maybe a zoom

lens.

I also use a 600/4 lens. The only reason for this is that I shoot with

it exclusively: a) close to my car and b) close to my boat. A 600/4

weights between 6 and 7kg depending on brand. A 500mm weight half as

much and is a much better choice for everyone who carries their

equipment.

Remember also the higher the magnification the sturdier (and heavier)

the tripod needs to be. This seems to work exponentially.

[george_rhodes]

Hi Andrei,

 

<p>

 

I have been using the relatively new Minolta AF400mm f4.5 HIGH SPEED APO since it hit the U.S. about two years ago. It is almost a full stop faster than the 400mm f5.6 lenses, is almost as light and therefore handholdable when necessary and is optically superb - rated higher than any of it's 5.6 counterparts. I have been using it on the Maxxum 9xi, but Minolta will be coming out with a superb new Pro model, the Maxxum 9, in the very near future. The 9 will compete directly with the highest end Canon and Nikon pro models. Minolta is making a head-long jump into the pro arena. Their 400mm f4.5 maintains AF when coupled with the Minolta AF 1.4X APO TC. I have achieved superb results using this lens on the 9xi. If you're not familiar with this lens and the upcoming Minolta Maxxum 9, you might want to do yourself a favor and take a look. You might be surprised.

[arthur_morris]

I could write for a week touching on just some of the bases touched in this thread, but I'll try to be brief.

1-The Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS (Image Stabilized) lens with matching 1.4X TC (and an extension tube or two for macro work) would seem to be the perfect outfit.

2-The Canon 400mm f/5.6L is superb. Mine has paid for itself many hundreds of times over (and I mean that literally). Handheld, it is the world's premier lens for photographing birds in flight and in action. And tripod mounted, with the 1.4X TC, it makes a great starter outfit. As for the early reports that trashed this lens, the reviewers should try getting out in the field and taking some photos rather than staying in their offices and writing.

3-It is interesting to note that Nikon simply does not offer a decent intermediate AF telephoto lens. Canon offers several, including two with IS technology (three, if you count the rather inadequate (for nature photography) 75-300 IS lens.

4-500mm f/4 lenses are relatively lightweight and far easier to lug around than the 600 f/4s.

5-For serious bird photographers, the brutally heavy, expensive, 600mm f/4 AF lenses (both Canon and Nikon) are simply the best tools available.

6-With the Gitzo 1548 Carbon Fiber Tripod and the tiny Arca-Swiss B-1 ballhead, I routinely produce razor sharp images with the 600mm f/4, a 1.4X TC, and as much as 37mm of extension.

7-Anyone who would like to recieve a comparison the the Canon 300mm f/4 IS lens and the 400 5.6 is invited to e-mail and reqest same.

[jason_elsworth1]

A someone who is about to invest into the Nikon system I read point 3

of Arthur's excellent response with interest despite doing lots of

research over the last 6 months I had never spotted this because I am

not thinking about a lens longer than 300mm currently. Those

interested in a solution to the no mid range 400 AF from Nikon should

click on the following to see one possible solution until Nikon come

on borad. http://www.moose395.net/mcb400.html