# Lens dilemma- 300mm f2.8 with tc or 500mm f4L MkI



## Mikehit (Oct 14, 2016)

Current gear is 7D2 with 100-400 MkII. 
After deliberating whether to go upgrade the body (to 5D4) to give me better low light performance, or to upgrade the lens to a wider aperture, I have decided to go the lens route (I will keep the 100-400 for the flexibility of the zoom). Being very close to getting a 300mm f2.8LIS II to compliment my 100-400 MkII I have just found a good condition second hand 500mm f4L (MkI) advertised and the MkII is way out of my price bracket. 

The 300mm is my default position and I have listed below the advantages of each as I see them. But what is harder to define (and where comments based on experience would be fantastic) is whether there a significant difference in image quality between the 300+1.4 and the 500mm? 



300mm f2.8 advantages: 
lighter, more compact, more handholdable
best part of a kilo lighter than the 500mm so more likely to take it out
with 1.4 TC still excellent image quality and losing 'only' 10% image size to the 500mm
Offers f2.8 if light is really challenging.

500mm f4 advantage: 
500mm is 500mm...
with extenders takes me even further 
£1,000 cheaper than the 300mm f2.8

500mm disadvantage: bulk and lower spec IS means I will probably end up using a tripod more often.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 14, 2016)

Mike, I would like to be in that kind of dilemma 

While not owning either of these two lenses I'd surely prefer the 300/2.8 II.
Reasons:

all of the advantages you've listed, PLUS
f2.8 is great
f2.8 is even better
f2.8 can be hand-held in this case
higher versality, esp. to use it hand-held
latest AF, IS, coatings, etc.
with 2x TC you can also get 600 mm

And if you're concerned about IQ with TC look at Brian's tests. He also tests with TC:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=117&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I'd only go for a 500 mm lens if I'd feel the real need (!) for more reach.

Enjoy your GAS 

PS.: Shall we make a bet, how long you're gonna keep your 100-400 II?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 14, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> PS.: Shall we make a bet, how long you're gonna keep your 100-400 II?



Ha!ha!

I think the 100-400ii is an excellent lens and I like the idea of keeping it for my 6D as a flexible dual-camera set-up. But I do have the 70-200 f4LIS so you never know...


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 14, 2016)

Insufficient data to make a determination.

As far as IQ if you are shooting at 500mm the 500mm is the way to go rather than the 300mm with extender. 
The big difference is size and portability. The 300mm for me is more like carrying the 100-400 you own. The 500mm is Huge in comparison.

The insufficient data:
We do not know what, where and when you want to shoot.

Decide on these two issues, focal length you need and portability. Define if your shots at 300mm are more important to you than those at 500mm.

If you always shooting at 500mm and portability is not a problem for you then go with the 500mm. 

If you primarily shoot at 300mm go with the 300mm.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 14, 2016)

It comes down to the focal length you require and how willing you are about using support systems (monopod or tripod). The 300 f/2.8 IS II and 400 f/4 DO II are near the limit of hand holdability for longer stretches of time. Being lighter and smaller, it's also more comfortable to walk around with. However, it still loses to the 100-400 II for portability. The 70-200s/70-300/100-400s also mark the boundary (for me) for " nonlinear conspicuousness". Yes, people start staring at those white zooms, but their interest level grows a LOT more with anything larger.

The longer the focal length the less general the lens becomes. 300 is still versatile and can be used in many situations (including indoor), but it has less utility for you when you have the 100-400 II. For anything longer, you should have a clear use case for it.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 14, 2016)

Fair point, takesome1. 

My main interest is wildlife with a growing interest in sports. Of wildlife, the most common subject is birds but that is partly because they are easier to find. 

When DSLR was my only rig, I found myself taking the camera less and less (dog walking, round town etc) because of the bulk so I bought MFT set up so I guess that gives some indication of how much I value portability and to be honest this is partly why the 300mm is so attractive, especially as I am what you could call an 'opportunistic photographer'. 
As for final use of images, I like to print up to A3 otherwise viewing on the computer. The thing that led me to this was watching wildlife in British Columbia and not getting the shutter speeds (this is where considering the 5D4 came in because I am impressed by the 100-400 MKii) so having f4 at 400mm would be an advantage on that score. And having f2.8 (or f4 at over 400mm) does have its own attractions regards DOF. 
Having f2.8 will give me the added option of pushing the exposure to reduce the appearance of noise, so giving a bit more leeway on the ISO and so reducing the benefits of the 5D4 (or so my logic goes).

If I were looking at the MKII 500mm the decision would be a bit easier, but I have looked at the comparison charts for the MkI vs the 300mm f2.8ii and if anything the 300mm edges it on image quality even with the 1.4x extender and if real-world experience supports that then I am closer to making a decision.


----------



## JMZawodny (Oct 14, 2016)

I have to agree with some of the earlier posts, you have not provided enough information. Do you need the f/2.8 or do you need 500mm. Judging from the way you composed the original post, it sounds like you want a longer lens than the 100-400 you currently own.

I own both the 300 f/2.8 II and the 500 f/4 II, I have no experience with the Mark I version. For me, they have completely different uses. I bought the 300 first thinking I'd like the flexibility of the 300 with the options to use the 1.4x and 2x extenders, but I really needed a longer lens for other applications. The 1.4x lives on my 500 and the 300 is used for low light when I can't get close enough to use other shorter and faster lenses. Depending upon what you intend to do with these, the 300 with and without the 1.4x might be exactly what you need.

I think you need to get some input on how the original 500 f/4 compares to the mark II. I can't help there. You also need to think about what you really need a new lens for.

Best of luck.

Update: Your last post just proceeded mine while I was writing. Personally, I do not use the 300 for birds. It and the 1.4x could have sufficient reach if used with a 7D2. The 300 is certainly much easier to carry and handhold for long periods. If compactness is your primary metric, your decision is already made.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 14, 2016)

I upgraded from the version I 500mm to the version II.

IQ is not a reason to make that move. Weight and IS are a valid reason.

But with a 1.4x you are comparing 420mm to 500mm. It doesn't edge it.

For wildlife and birds I would go with the 500mm unless I had to compromise for portability.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 14, 2016)

Thanks guys, this is really helpful.

So I've been reviewing my reasoning. 

Overcast days, the 7D2 and 100-400 at f5.6 - having to push to ISO 1600 (not too bad) and 3200 (can work depends heavily on the subject) but soon the shutter speed becomes to0 slow for anything other than stationary subjects and wildlife is often not that compliant (even 1/400 at ISO 1600 became a luxury!). 
The IQ on the 100-400 on the 7D2 is proving really nice so I was thinking f2.8 (or even f4) = higher shutter speed or can push exposure to the right to help offset noise at those ISOs. 

I am also aware that if the 300 is noticeably sharper than the 100-400, that alone gives more cropping options and a bit more reach again. So this is where I ended up with the 300mm as my immediate choice for a 'low light 400mm' with benefits of DOF. 

Then 2 things happened: 
- the 5D4 getting a good reception and offering superior low light performance (higher ISO, fast shutter speed) - but then we are talking about the old issue of pixel quality vs pixel quantity when cropping 
- I saw this cursed 500mm MkI !

I don't think I am pushing the technicalities of the 7D2 to the point where the camera is the limiting factor, which leaves the lens.

As I said above I was looking at it along the lines of 'if the 500mm is not significantly better than the 300mm then stick with Plan A' but now you have got me asking 'is the IQ of the 300mm significantly better than the 100-400 and if not then I change to the 5D4'.
As you say, takesome1, the choice is then 'do I want DOF with a focal length I am happy with; or do I want significantly longer reach'.

Sorry if I appear bumbling on this one. I have never made such a significant choice before and and this really is helping me gel my thoughts.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 14, 2016)

Mikehit, it is next to impossible to really be sure about these things. Then the day comes and a decision is required as opposed to muddling your life away indefinitely. Imagine the internal turmoil I've had with now choosing the 400 DO II to couple with the 1DX II. 

There are so many slightly different ways of framing your logic to benefit whatever decision is made. I rationalized that getting to 800 with F8 would be desirable based on my history with the 300 almost always being attached to the X2 III. I rationalized that moving from 600 to 800 would alleviate some of the cropping I've been doing with the 600 in spite of stickling with the 6D equivalent 20 MPs of the 1DX II. I rationalized that the weight difference of the 1DX II relative to the 5D4 would be insignificant especially considering I come from the 6D (camera plus heavy lens => camera is smaller proportion).

As far as the 300 is concerned, shooting from my observatory at close to MFD it is a dream lens and now my 400 has poorer MFD. I rejected the idea of the 500 because of weight/size since honestly at 67 the 400 + extender + 1 DX II is all I can handle. If I soon can't handle that then I don't think the 5D4 would have helped me much but 30 MPs was hard to pass up. A 6D II might still be in my future.

I was committed to selling the 300 but now my daughter is considering buying a good Canon camera and ..... guess what. 

Jack


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Oct 14, 2016)

I've had a 300/2.8L IS II on a 7D then 7D2 for almost four years now. I chose it because it offered the ideal compromise - great reach and very decent image quality with the 2x III, while being back-packable, and usable without a tripod. It was a huge leap from the telephotos I had before that - 300/4L and 70-300L.

Even though it was very portable for a lens of that power, and versatile too (I've even shot dragonflies with it), I found myself wanting something smaller as an 'everyday' wildlife lens. However my 300/4 and 70-300 were both a bit too small. My prayers were answered when the 100-400L II came along, and I added that to the fleet in early 2015. What a fantastic combination with the 7D2.

Much as I loved the 300/2.8L II, it was bought in the full knowledge that it was a compromise, and having the 100-400L II meant that the compromise was less necessary and I could look at something bigger. Also the one big weakness of the 300/2.8L II plus 2x III is AF performance - I very much wanted to improve that by cutting down on my use of TCs. After much deliberation (a bit like your current situation!) and insisting I would never do it, I finally bought a 500/4L II earlier this year. I also had to buy a new tripod to go with it, but that's ok because the whole point was to have the biggest option I could realistically own, knowing that I could always use the 100-400L II when portability was more important. It's worked pretty well - I do get a bit fed up with carrying the 500 and tripod, but it hasn't made me want to go back to the 300 which is now rarely used.

So I guess what I'm driving at is that for birds and wildlife generally the 300/2.8 might not be a big enough step up from the 100-400L II, and you could find yourself wishing you had the 500. However, the 500/4 MkI is even heavier (a *lot* heavier) and doesn't perform as well with TCs. Maybe the wisest move would be to do nothing at at the present time, and wait until you can have the 500/4L MkII?

Just a quick word on the 5D4. Great spec; a friend has one already (paired with a 600/4) and it seems to live up to expectations. But for long lens use, don't underestimate how much reach you lose compared with the 7D2. There is no point in owning a full frame body unless you have the lenses to go with it - you will *need* (not want) a 500 to make it worthwhile. If you don't do that, you don't get the full frame advantage. This is assuming your subjects are mostly small and/or distant of course - the 300/2.8 on a full frame body is an outstanding combination for some subjects - just not the majority of birds!

Hope that's useful. One person's needs are never quite the same as another's but hopefully mine will at least provide some worthwhile input.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 14, 2016)

As stated the 300 X2 III on something like a 6D does take a big hit on AF speed (not accuracy). It took a big hit with the 1D4 when I had that but I don't know about the 5D4 or 1DX II (haven't had the 300 X2 on it yet) but I can tell you that 1DX II with 400 DO II X2 III is really impressive for speed relative to what I've previously experienced. 

I can also say that 300 X2 has served me very well for decent IQ. However, at F5.6 I often found dull situations were forcing the ISO up and I almost always was at ISO 1250 with the 6D. Above that and a cropped image had too much grain for me and remember small birds are almost always cropped at 600, excepting chickadees etc., that are tame. 

That knowledge restrained me when the 7D II arrived since there is always the debate about crop cameras and reach and higher ISOs. For sure the crop camera reach does give an advantage relative to having a spot focus point on a bird that is far away. That's why 300 X1.4 was never viable for me relative to birds- usually couldn't focus on the distant bird as opposed to the tree or whatever.

There is no choice that isn't a significant compromise even if money is not a consideration.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 14, 2016)

Thanks Steve - your comments are almost a mirror of my dilemma.

In your opinion, how does the 300mm f2.8 compare to the 100-400 Mk II, either naked or with TC? From what you say it sounds like it was a case of 'nice but not good enough to make a real-world difference'. Unfortunately the 500 Mk II is, as I say out of my league and the only thing I am really dithering about is that it is the Mark I that I am looking at.

And Jack - your description of the tortures are just what I am up against. I do prefer the bigger wildlife and birds are what I end up with most of all. 

Maybe I need to bite the bullet and rent a couple of these bad boys to have confidence that I am making the right decision! In the good old days almost every shop had one of these as a demo model that you could try in the street outside the shop - but with money being more tight they only hold stock for sale and opening a box is a high risk for them so that option has all but gone.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 14, 2016)

Nice to know my comments evoke empathy. It's a lot of money!!

Jack


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 14, 2016)

I own the 100-400 Mk2 and the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1, on my 7D2 prefer the 300 when weight is not too much of an issue. The 100-400 takes the 1.4 Mk3 extender well but the 300 takes it better and is still very good with the 2 x Mk3 if the light is reasonable. I have tried a friends 300 F2.8 L IS Mk2 but could find little advantage with it except that it did AF a little better with the 2 x Mk3 and was a touch sharper with the 2 x- but not enough to justify the extra price.

Having said that, if you feel that you will be relying on extenders or cropping a lot then I would take the 500 F4 in a heartbeat! True the 500 will require good support much of the time but it can be carried a fair distance with a good shoulder strap and is easily hand hold able for reasonable periods. The 500 Mk1 also takes the 1.4 Mk2 or 3 well and if the light is good then the 2 x Mk3 can work very well.

You mentioned the older generation IS - true the more modern lenses have better IS but the best setting is still off. Save IS for when it is really needed, rare/if ever for me, or if the lens handles REALLY badly like my 100-400 Mk2. Great lens but with the worst balance/handling of any lens that I have yet used! The 500 F4 L IS Mk1 handles very nicely and balances well on most bodies.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Oct 16, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> In your opinion, how does the 300mm f2.8 compare to the 100-400 Mk II, either naked or with TC? From what you say it sounds like it was a case of 'nice but not good enough to make a real-world difference'.



Oh, no, sorry if I gave that impression, it does make a real-world difference. For me the most important is the reach with the 2x III - which gives 600 mm f/5.6, vs 400 mm f/5.6 i.e. 50% more. However there is a clear difference in AF performance between the 300 with 2x, and the 100-400 as a bare lens - and a perfectly-focused shot at 400 mm is better than a slight miss at 600 mm. Don't get me wrong, the 300 with 2x is very good, just not as good as a bare lens. For static shots where focusing speed is less of an issue, the 600 mm combination is clearly better.

Let me put it this way. Now that I have the 500, the 300 tends to be squeezed out because if I want reach the 500 wins (I even use it with the 2x occasionally) and if I want portability and versatility the 100-400 wins. But for the twelve months (roughly) when I had the 100-400 but not the 500, I would often choose the 300, and the reason I originally chose it - a great compromise between manageable size, price and performance, is no less true today.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 16, 2016)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > In your opinion, how does the 300mm f2.8 compare to the 100-400 Mk II, either naked or with TC? From what you say it sounds like it was a case of 'nice but not good enough to make a real-world difference'.
> ...



Valid comments for sure. I didn't have a 1DX when I shot 300 X2 with my 6D and absolutely AF had to be close to where you needed it to lock on quickly and hunting was a hopeless case if you didn't acquire instantly. IQ was very good. However, my friend with his 1DX claimed AF was fine. I haven't yet had my 300 on the 1DX II but the 400 DO II AF's really well at X2 and will be a pleasure to use, so 300 will probably be similar. It seems the 5D4 is impressive too.

So it seems Canon's new bodies will be making their previous lenses quite a bit more usable with extenders. Obviously that was their goal. And a certain unnamed reviewer claimed this was a relatively unimportant feature of Canon. I'd like to see the numbers. My bet is a lot of people want this.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 16, 2016)

Thank you, Steve. That makes sense. 

Well, I went to Calumet and had a lo-o-ong chat with the guy there and one comment was 'if you are basically happy with the focal length you have, and simply want ability to shoot at lower light levels it is not that much more to buy the 1Dx2 than the 300mm f2.8ii'. it's back to that 'what am I really after' question. 
So after cursing him putting temptation in my way, and further discussion, it did start to make some sort of sense. I know that the 7D2 beats the 1DX2 for cropping in good light but how all this started was cropping in medium to low light running at ISO 1600/3200. So if I get a more usable image at those ISOs it becomes interesting.
I do need to keep reminding myself how damned good the 100-400ii actually is, even with an extender and note get tunnel vision. And as your comment alludes to, Jack, AF performance on a powerhouse like the 1Dx2 could overcome many deficiencies on teleconverter combinations when talking about 'lower' models which could reduce the need for a lens upgrade, and the 100-400+1.4x gives almost (that word again) the same coverage as 300mm+2x. And the superior, more assured, AF of the 1Dx2 becomes another ingredient. 

I am a great believer in finding out what the very best can do and then working out where I am willing to compromise so I will be looking to rent the 1Dx2 and the 300mm f2.8ii and doing crossover tests with my 7D2, 6D, 100-400 and extenders. Unfortunately we do not have many bears (or salmon) in Manchester so the local equine population will be well photographed when I get them; and being October it will be exactly the sort of weather that has caused me such frustration (but I guess we will end up with either have a 3-day heatwave or getting the tail end of Hurricane Matthew giving us biblical downpours).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2016)

I spend a lot of time comparing shots of birds and of charts by my various combinations of lens and cameras, and these compromise many of the combinations discussed in this thread. For my bodies, TCs and lenses:

1. The 100-400mm II is a fantastic lens. In practice, at f/5.6 and 400mm it's IQ is as good as my 300mm II + 1.4xTC and 400mm DO II at f/4 (you can see that on the lenrentals MTF charts and the TDP shots). It's AF is also superb. 
The difference comes out with the 1.4xTC attached. It's pretty good at 560mm f/8 but the 400mm DO II is simply stunning at 560mm f/5.6. The 300mm + 2xTC is also better.

2. The 300mm @ 600mm had terrible AF on my 7D but this was cured on the 7DII, where it focusses fast and accurately. The same is true for my old 5DIII, new 5DIV and 5DS R.

3. Both the 300mm II and 400mm DO II with 2xTC come into their own on on the 5DIV (and the 5DIII). There is a significant increase in resolution over the 1.4xTC, which is not as pronounced with the 5DSR and 7DII. I think the sensors on the 5DSR and 7DII are beginning to outresolve the lenses on going from 1.4x to 2xTC, and the 2xTC does give a hit on IQ.

I have gone for the 5DIV rather than the 1DX II for a few reasons, including the extra 640g/1.5lb of the DX II being too much for me to carry on a hike and hold in an elevated position. The same would be even more so for a 500mm - I would have to drag it to a hide and sit there with a tripod. So, my 100-400mm II will be used on the 7DII and 5DSR for lightweight travel and being carried by wife and for when zooms and close focussing are required. The 400mm DO II will be used on the 5DIV with 2xTC for long distances in reasonable light, and bare or with 1.4xTC for BIF and more general use (800mm is fine for BIF in the distance but I like the wider fields of view for ease of tracking and faster speeds). The 300mm II will probably go as I can't justify both it and the 400 DO.


----------



## kaihp (Oct 16, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> I haven't yet had my 300 on the 1DX II but the 400 DO II AF's really well at X2 and will be a pleasure to use, so 300 will probably be similar. It seems the 5D4 is impressive too.



Jack, if the 1Dx with the 300/2.8 II + 2x TC is anything to go for wrt 1Dx II performance, the it's going to be somewhere between excellent and stunning. For me, there was a significant jump in AF performance (lock-on speed and tracking) when going from 5D3 to 1DX. For the motorcycle racing I tried the 1DX and 5D3 on, the 1DX just _murders_ the 5D3.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 16, 2016)

Well, all I can say is that Canon should be sued for psychological abuse of its dedicated customers. We want MPs and fps with today's AF in a 1 series body that's lighter. 

My house of cards will topple if 400 DO II X2 III doesn't turn out great with the 1DX II because I've reasoned that 800 mm will balance what I'd have gotten with 30 MPs relative to having previously been stuck at 600. So for me personally based on thousands of shots, 800mm FF should solve my excess cropping issues. Of course I'm now at F8, but with 1DX II ISO capability. I exclude weight because I can handle the 400 plus 1DX II. Like Alan I could not handle the 500. Then, how does one put a value on a feature such as the red focus points which I just love, and 14 fps.

It reminds me of debates about the 300 that only focused on IQ. What about that beautifully smooth tripod mount ring with detentes. Compare it to the 70-200 F2.8 II for example when you're trying to quickly shift from landscape to portrait on a tripod and the bird is about to disappear.

Jack


----------



## jmeyer (Oct 16, 2016)

Hi, I have the 7D mkII and the 500 F4. It is an unbelievable combo. It is extremely sharp, with fast AF, even with the extender on. I always have the 1.4xIII attached to it and a lot of times I wish I would have more length. I mostly shoot birds, but do wildlife with it as well. I also have the battery grip on the 7D. This combo is quite heavy and I almost always have it on a tripod. Carrying it around all day is tough and usually leaves my shoulders sore. I have also hand held it for a day and that really puts a drain on your arms and shoulders, too. I have never used the 300 or the new 100-400, but I upgraded from the 400 5.6. With the 1.4xIII on that lens, I never really liked the quality plus being at f8, isn't the greatest. If you choose to go with the 500, you will be extremely happy, I sure am. 

Jeremy

If you want to see how good this combo is, feel free to look at some of my pictures on Flickr. 

https://flickr.com/photos/20birds08/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 16, 2016)

jmeyer said:


> Hi, I have the 7D mkII and the 500 F4. It is an unbelievable combo. It is extremely sharp, with fast AF, even with the extender on. I always have the 1.4xIII attached to it and a lot of times I wish I would have more length. I mostly shoot birds, but do wildlife with it as well. I also have the battery grip on the 7D. This combo is quite heavy and I almost always have it on a tripod. Carrying it around all day is tough and usually leaves my shoulders sore. I have also hand held it for a day and that really puts a drain on your arms and shoulders, too. I have never used the 300 or the new 100-400, but I upgraded from the 400 5.6. With the 1.4xIII on that lens, I never really liked the quality plus being at f8, isn't the greatest. If you choose to go with the 500, you will be extremely happy, I sure am.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> ...



Jeremy, lovely photos!

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 28, 2016)

Well, I've gone and done it now! 
I went straight down the middle and bought the 400DO II. An out-and-out luxury but Black Friday came along and someone was offering £1,000 off the new price which brought it into the 'it's not too much more' territory compared to the 300mm.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Well, I've gone and done it now!
> I went straight down the middle and bought the 400DO II. An out-and-out luxury but Black Friday came along and someone was offering £1,000 off the new price which brought it into the 'it's not too much more' territory compared to the 300mm.



You won't regret it - I love my one (which I bought also for £1000 discount from my favourite shop). Paired with the 2xTC and the 5DIV, it's a dream, focussing on all points at f/8 for BIF.


----------



## tron (Nov 28, 2016)

Happy shooting Mike. I haven't test it with 5D4 but I have used it with 7D2 and it is super sharp and versatile.


----------



## Grant Atkinson (Nov 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Well, I've gone and done it now!
> I went straight down the middle and bought the 400DO II. An out-and-out luxury but Black Friday came along and someone was offering £1,000 off the new price which brought it into the 'it's not too much more' territory compared to the 300mm.



I agree with AlanF here, Mike, you wont regret it. We also just bought the EF 400DO IS ii and it is helping me get some of my better quality bird-in-flight captures ever, used as a bare lens, and then working almost as well with a 1.4x iii extender in place. Cannot beat that light weight and compact form, combining to make it a lens I am excited to pick up and use


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 28, 2016)

tron said:


> Happy shooting Mike. I haven't test it with 5D4 but I have used it with 7D2 and it is super sharp and versatile.



Now the camera! Congrats.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 28, 2016)

The camera....the 1Dx2 is now out of my reach so once I have pushed this combo as far as I can I will be looking at either a second hand 1Dx (original) or 5DIV. 
The 6D may be sold on and I hold onto the 7D2 for high-MP stuff.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2016)

Don't expect the bare lens to be significantly better at 400mm than the 100-400mm II, as I find with my lenses and also TDP and lensrentals with theirs.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=962&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/

The 100-400mm II is that good. The DO is an extra stop wider. But, the DO comes into its own with the 1.4x and 2xTC. Mine has the 2xTC virtually welded on until it gets dark.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 28, 2016)

Oi!! I am trying to avoid buyer's remorse !!! ;D

I am still amazed at the quality the zoom gives in good conditions and have done plenty of thinking on this. The f4 is definitely a bonus for low light (in sunny Manchester!) and the option of going to 560/800mm are certainly the attractive points.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2016)

Hi Mike,

Assuming you have the 70-200mm covered, why not sell the 100-400mm and get the 400mm f/5.6L... save a little more and get the 500mm f/4L.

Weird, but might work. :-\


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Assuming you have the 70-200mm covered, why not sell the 100-400mm and get the 400mm f/4.6L... save a little more and get the 500mm f/4L.
> 
> Weird, but might work. :-\



Read today's posts - he has just bought the 400mm f/4 DO II.


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 29, 2016)

1) Your photos are really great (love the eyes on the loon)!

2) Congrats on your new lens. Use it well. 

3) FWIW, since getting the 100-400 mkii, my 300 f/2.8ii has not been out of its case. I was so fortunate to get the 300 and it is clearly optically best lens I own but the 100-400 ii is that good that the 300 (with or without TC's) rarely comes to mind. I am just not ready to part with it for all the reasons that others have stated.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Oi!! I am trying to avoid buyer's remorse !!! ;D
> 
> I am still amazed at the quality the zoom gives in good conditions and have done plenty of thinking on this. The f4 is definitely a bonus for low light (in sunny Manchester!) and the option of going to 560/800mm are certainly the attractive points.



Hey Mike, I wouldn't have considered buying the 400 if it wasn't for 800mm. That was after 3 years of feeling 600mm was on the edge for the little birdies that I was typically photographing otherwise I had serious thoughts about how handy the 100-400 would be. However, I reminded myself that my 70-200 can still do a decent job in the sub 400 range.

I wouldn't consider a 1DX over a 5D4 as a 400 DO II owner unless FPS was really important.

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Mike,
> ...



Oh well.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 29, 2016)

300 2.8 on crop are moreless the same as 500 4.0 on FF, 1 stop aperture against 1 stop of ISO tolerance.

I had a 300 2.8 i with a 2x on crop for really much reach, with lesser light i could reduce the extender later switch to the 5d2. 

complementing i had a 70-200 f4 is, which i used on the 5d when the 300 was on crop.

i sold both and replaced them by a 100-400 ii. The better IS compensated for the 2.8 (4.0 at comparable reach) opening by far, but with a crop camera the 100-400 is at it's limits, usage of the 1.4x gives almost no benefit.

i could compare against a loaned 500 ii which takes well both extender, means gives 2.5x more usable reach. 

so my conclusion is:

- If i carry a supertele anywhere, it would be a vii one, for the weight and better IS, maybe as a compromise sell the 100-400. Then why not the 500ii
- FF gives the most, the first "extender"should be a crop camera with f8 capability (7dii or 80d)
- maybe combine it with a cheaper and lighter telezoom, the new 70-300 or the 70-200 4.0is


----------



## SteveM (Nov 29, 2016)

I have 2 Deer parks close to where I live, so I predominantly shoot Deer. I have a 300mm f2.8 along with a 1.4 converter on a crop sensor body. The 300 and the 1.4 tc are the ideal length on a crop sensor, I never remove the 1.4. Just can't get near enough with the 300 on its own. The extra weight and size would put me off a 500, having said that, the 500 f4 appears to be the standard lens for professional wildlife photographers.
Were I shooting full frame I would have bought the 500 f4. I do have a 5D Mklll, I just don't use it for wildlife unless I want a more 'environmental' picture.
I do find myself increasingly using the 100-400 mkll for its light weight, but I also like the 'creamier' backgrounds the 300 and 1.4 give me.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 29, 2016)

As the title of the thread says, the 300 was my initial thinking but once I thought about the amount of time I would have the 1.4tc attached, I thought I may as well go for the 400mm.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> As the title of the thread says, the 300 was my initial thinking but once I thought about the amount of time I would have the 1.4tc attached, I thought I may as well go for the 400mm.



Obviously, what we are hearing here is the need relative to subject size. In the beginning of my journey as a more elderly person the 400 2.8 would have been high on my list over the 300 if not for weight, and there was no stellar 400 DO II. If a 500 II would have been available for really cheap I'd have moved on it but oh me oh my, for me the 400 DO is now the max I want to hike with and in a few short years I'll likely be saying the 100-400 with crop is the way to go for birds, if I'm still hiking. Why do lenses have to be so heavy!  In all cases the differences are pretty minimal but I think we the CR posters are pretty fussy about the quality of our shots (excluding Alan, who's just "particular"). ;D

Mike, I'll go out on a limb and suggest you won't have any buyers remorse unless you tire of the weight and/or crave zoom.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 29, 2016)

Well it's just arrived 
Damn these early winter nights! 




> In all cases the differences are pretty minimal


I agree. But if all the stars align, those small differences can have an indescribable benefit to how you perceive the image. It just 'feels' different. Whether it is the critical level of sharpness that tips the balance or the coating improving contrast etc I don't know. 

Still, I've now got 10 days to see if I want to return it :
Weekend weather looks OK, better mid next week.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Well it's just arrived
> Damn these early winter nights!
> 
> 
> ...



Return it?!!! You're kidding.   ;D Be sure to immediately put the 2X III on it! ooh!

Jack


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> As the title of the thread says, the 300 was my initial thinking but once I thought about the amount of time I would have the 1.4tc attached, I thought I may as well go for the 400mm.


Correct! Plus you were thinking about 500 so 400 is the minimum. Up to now I have tested it with 7D2 with or without 1.4XIII and it's very very good. You will not regret it.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2016)

I use my camera + lens as a spotting scope as well as for high quality images. The 400mm + 2xTC has opened up new vistas for me by being able to capture birds far away. Last weekend, I was able to spot and record a rare pintail hidden amongst 100s of other birds, capture and identify a starling flying, and identify a dot far away hovering as a kestrel These images of 400-600 or so pixels long are not for my albums necessarily, but I can paste them in for the record. And I could get a decent images of a waterrail and snipe (at 2000 iso and 1/80s) occupying less than 1000 pixels long, far away in the gloom.

Jack, I am not particular - I am highly demanding!


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 5, 2016)

well, the 400 got its first run-out at the weekend and it is amazing! 
The 100-400Mkii is a fantastic lens and I will definitely keep it, but in the few days I have had the 400 DO my keeper rate has gone up more than a notch! Speed of AF alone helps for birds in flight and for static subjects it just seems to nail things a bit tighter. 
I am so please I went for the lens over the body (for now!  ) - especially as the 1.4tc has been permanently on there.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 7, 2016)

Interesting thread. I currently own a 300 f/2.8 II that I use for wildlife and portraits. I've found its generally not long enough, even with extenders, for 95% of the wildlife I shoot with my 5DsR, but the 50mp images allow me to do a lot of cropping and still have nice images. I have my eye on either a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 to take the next step with wildlife and bird photography. I recently rented a 600 II and fell in love with it. Its a heavy beast, but handles nicely on a gimbal head.

I'm not giving up my 300 f/2.8! Even when I get a longer lens for wildlife, I'll use it for portraits, nature and closer wildlife shots. Wonderful lens and crazy sharp.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 7, 2016)

bholliman said:


> Interesting thread. I currently own a 300 f/2.8 II that I use for wildlife and portraits. I've found its generally not long enough, even with extenders, for 95% of the wildlife I shoot with my 5DsR, but the 50mp images allow me to do a lot of cropping and still have nice images. I have my eye on either a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 to take the next step with wildlife and bird photography. I recently rented a 600 II and fell in love with it. Its a heavy beast, but handles nicely on a gimbal head.
> 
> I'm not giving up my 300 f/2.8! Even when I get a longer lens for wildlife, I'll use it for portraits, nature and closer wildlife shots. Wonderful lens and crazy sharp.



On a gimbal and if you don't have to carry it too far why not go big! 

Perhaps many will say that there is never enough reach but I'm finding the step from 600 to 800 to be more than proportionally helpful. For hand holding 800 gets to be borderline tricky in terms of keeping a focus point right on target, at least for wimpy me. 

Certainly the 300 has its reputation for good reason but my 400 with extenders is serving me better for birds. I agree, 300 is great for portraits on occasion.

Jack


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting thread. I currently own a 300 f/2.8 II that I use for wildlife and portraits. I've found its generally not long enough, even with extenders, for 95% of the wildlife I shoot with my 5DsR, but the 50mp images allow me to do a lot of cropping and still have nice images. I have my eye on either a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 to take the next step with wildlife and bird photography. I recently rented a 600 II and fell in love with it. Its a heavy beast, but handles nicely on a gimbal head.
> ...


800 in FF seems similar to 500 II with my 7D2 or 400 DO II + 1.4XIII with my 7D2. The 400 II + 1.4XIII loses one stop but it's lighter and I can hand hold it and use it much easier. Now there is a new kid in town the 5D4 that I have to test with 2XIII and some of these two lenses...


----------



## bholliman (Dec 7, 2016)

tron said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > On a gimbal and if you don't have to carry it too far why not go big!
> ...



I can certainly see that advantages of the 400 DOII, looks to be a marvelous lens. Reasonable size and weight are certainly important factors. I'll have to rent one this winter and try it with birds.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2016)

bholliman said:


> I can certainly see that advantages of the 400 DOII, looks to be a marvelous lens. Reasonable size and weight are certainly important factors. I'll have to rent one this winter and try it with birds.



Coming up from the 100-400 I was a bit concerned about the increase in weight but I quickly got used to it. I barely put the camera down all day, it was always in my hand and my hand never got tired (I am a moderately fit 55-year old a bit skinny in the arms) so I am very happy with it. I use it with a handstrap so was not having to actually grip the camera all the time. 

If you do rent it make sure you also rent a teleconverter if you do not have one already - a 2x Mkiii if your camera will autofocus at f8. 


One thing that does become more tricky with the greater magnification is putting the camera to your eye and having the subject in the frame, especially when the critters are moving around.


----------



## Act444 (Dec 7, 2016)

Interesting discussion. I've also been seeking more reach but keep putting off the decision...

The 100-400 performs better than I expected, and holds up well even on my 5DSR(!) which is nice. However, 400 isn't enough reach for many birds (on FF) and I find myself wanting a bit more. I thought about both the 400 DO and the 500 f4 II but for the latter, price and particularly weight was a big concern. If the 400 takes TCs well that could be a possible route, but reports of a 200-600 zoom and a new 600mm lens had me pausing (600 would be ideal, looking for something handholdable as I don't want to be bound to tripod).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 7, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Interesting discussion. I've also been seeking more reach but keep putting off the decision...
> 
> The 100-400 performs better than I expected, and holds up well even on my 5DSR(!) which is nice. However, 400 isn't enough reach for many birds (on FF) and I find myself wanting a bit more. I thought about both the 400 DO and the 500 f4 II but for the latter, price and particularly weight was a big concern. If the 400 takes TCs well that could be a possible route, but reports of a 200-600 zoom and a new 600mm lens had me pausing (600 would be ideal, looking for something handholdable as I don't want to be bound to tripod).



If price is no object then there might be more to consider. If weight is no object there might be more to consider. If IQ is no object there might be more to consider. If AF speed is no object there might be more to consider. ETC.

Basically, you consider the constraints that you put upon yourself and go from there. For me the 400 DO II was a no brainer once the F8 focus improvements came along. 300 X2 got me shots with the 6D but it was pitiful for AF speed. However the IQ was quite good so it served me for roughly 3 years and taught me that 600 for small birds was good but on the edge - too much cropping that made the IQ marginal.

I reasoned that 800 would bump me over that edge and it has, nicely while being hand-holdable and from Birds as Art etc. I learned that 400 X2 AF with the 1DX2 was excellent and exceeded the 5D4 so that coupled with fps tipped me towards the 1DX2. Of course I had to compromise on the 30 MP but some 1DX2 features pushed me in its direction and I'm satisfied with the compromise. When birds are active that little burst of 3-5 shots at 14 fps is addictive and productive.

1DX2 + 400 DO II + 2X III is all the weight my aging body can handle hiking.  And that's assuming I stay fit

I doubt that a 600 DO is really going to be that light if you carefully analyze the comparative weight savings relative to existing lenses. The 400 benefited comparatively because F4 became an option over F2.8.

A 600 F5.6 would gain similarly but it won't be produced. A zoom would be nice but it will never be light. Built in converters are nice but they bring size and weight too, which you might not appreciate if shooting native FL. Compromises galore! 

Jack


----------



## Vern (Dec 7, 2016)

Very helpful analysis Jack and others. 

I have the 300 2.8II and the 600 II and have compared them with the 2X III versus bare lens. Obviously the 600 wins on IQ, but it is a beast to carry around. Also, as Jack says, while the 300 + 2X has pretty good IQ (handles flare very poorly though, so no backlighting allowed, IMO), the AF performance when trying to capture birdies is too often frustrating. Good to hear the 400 + 2X on the 1DX II is better.

I typically use the 600 + the 1.4X III for birds and recently have been experimenting with this and the 5DSR w and w/o the extender. Jack's note encouraged me to take a look at the 400 DO II with the 2X on the TDP IQ comparator, it stacks up quite well and I could certainly walk around with it (~same as 300 2.8 + 2X). I have done so with the 600 but really find hand holding it tough for any period of time - especially when searching for a bird in a tree. On a tripod w gimbal, it is perfect, but that defeats the ability to walk and quickly capture pics - it is best from a blind for me. I have placed a gimbal mount on top of a monopod w the 600 and that is better for stalking, but still not exactly light weight.

I really wish the 1DX II had a truly silent shutter, then I would go for Jack's combo for walking bird shots and have a great setup for general large mammal stalking. 1DX II would be preferable for low light, fps and other features over the 5DSR. Unfortunately, my experience with my 1DX shutter is that, while birds will tolerate it, deer, foxes, etc will not and after one shot all you see is an empty frame. I suppose that the mechanics that allow 14 fps just can't also be ~silent. If they were, I would have Santa deliver this combo and sell the 300 and 1DX I since I don't use the bare 300 all that much and the 200 f2 is better for the occasional tele-portrait.

We each have our special preferences, but it does help a lot to hear how others manage the trade-offs.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 7, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> 300 X2 got me shots with the 6D but it was pitiful for AF speed.



The AF of the 300II + X2 combo performs very well for me on 5D3 and exceedingly well on the 1Dx.
I guess that your AF woes are due to the 6D's more simple AF system/processor.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 7, 2016)

kaihp said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > 300 X2 got me shots with the 6D but it was pitiful for AF speed.
> ...



Agree, I was told that the 1DX handled it quite well. 

Now, for good or bad I have 560 that is extremely fast and 800 seems to be very close. For anyone not viewing the bird thread, this is 800 with the 1DX2.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> well, the 400 got its first run-out at the weekend and it is amazing!
> The 100-400Mkii is a fantastic lens and I will definitely keep it, but in the few days I have had the 400 DO my keeper rate has gone up more than a notch! Speed of AF alone helps for birds in flight and for static subjects it just seems to nail things a bit tighter.
> I am so please I went for the lens over the body (for now!  ) - especially as the 1.4tc has been permanently on there.


Mike, do you find the 400 DO II noticeably sharper than the 100-400mm II for static birds? The lensrentals charts show the zoom to be close to the prime.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2016)

I've not done much of a side-by-side comparison yet - I've taken both rigs out with me intending to mix-and-match but keep getting seduced by the damned 400 DO ;D

But on the few comparisons I have, my gut feeling is not so much the _actual_ sharpness as the perceived clarity brought about by lens coatings etc. I recall reviews comparing the 100-400 MkI vs MkII and how there was little difference in the sharpness on charts but I also felt there that there was something about the rendering that was a significant improvement. I feel the same with the 400 vs zoom. 

I can easily see me having the 400 DO on my 7D2 with the 100-400 on the 6D if things get closer than the minimum focus distance of the DO (3m vs <1m).


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 7, 2016)

Vern said:


> I really wish the 1DX II had a truly silent shutter, then I would go for Jack's combo for walking bird shots and have a great setup for general large mammal stalking. 1DX II would be preferable for low light, fps and other features over the 5DSR. Unfortunately, my experience with my 1DX shutter is that, while birds will tolerate it, deer, foxes, etc will not and after one shot all you see is an empty frame.
> We each have our special preferences, but it does help a lot to hear how others manage the trade-offs.



I don't have the 1DX2, I use the 1DX - which is also remarkably noisy!

I too would like a better silent shutter mode, but for humans not wildlife. With the exception of a fairly close in Vixen - who merely gave me a dirty look - my noisy camera has been completely ignored by wildlife.

With the racket that my camera makes I was expecting problems but, so far, I haven't encountered them. The local deer simply ignore it, but if I twitch they are gone! Birds at 6 to 10 meters couldn't care less. However foxes seem to prefer single shot to machine gun mode. They don't run off but they don't seem to like it - this is exactly the same with my (MUCH quieter) 7D2 as well. Perhaps Foxes just don't like the rapid slap slap of the mirror, but are quite happy with the odd clatter now and again? Who knows.

Despite my initial reservations the racket that the 1DX makes has yet to prove a significant issue - except with humans!

Perhaps your local wildlife is more skittish?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 8, 2016)

Well, I'm a human and I got used to it pretty quickly!  I know the first few shots had me wondering what I had bought but now it seems acceptable. However, I wouldn't feel that way in a quiet church and would likely use my 6D. Birds seem pretty accommodating. Of course if we're talking 800mm, the distance helps.

Jack


----------



## tron (Dec 8, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> Vern said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish the 1DX II had a truly silent shutter, then I would go for Jack's combo for walking bird shots and have a great setup for general large mammal stalking. 1DX II would be preferable for low light, fps and other features over the 5DSR. Unfortunately, my experience with my 1DX shutter is that, while birds will tolerate it, deer, foxes, etc will not and after one shot all you see is an empty frame.
> ...


I believe the wildlife in churches and theaters is the same anywhere ;D


----------



## AlanF (Dec 8, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Well, I'm a human and I got used to it pretty quickly!  I know the first few shots had me wondering what I had bought but now it seems acceptable. However, I wouldn't feel that way in a quiet church and would likely use my 6D. Birds seem pretty accommodating. Of course if we're talking 800mm, the distance helps.
> 
> Jack


Well, you do specialise in woodpeckers, and they sound like a 1DX. It probably acts as a bird call to them.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 8, 2016)

AlanF said:


> It probably acts as a bird call to them.



Hopefully not in mating season....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 8, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm a human and I got used to it pretty quickly!  I know the first few shots had me wondering what I had bought but now it seems acceptable. However, I wouldn't feel that way in a quiet church and would likely use my 6D. Birds seem pretty accommodating. Of course if we're talking 800mm, the distance helps.
> ...



A couple or so years ago before I had been seeing the Pileated woodpeckers I heard this pounding that sounded like the neighbour was building a shed but since there is bush between us I couldn't see. As I listened I thought that really is quite the style of pounding a nail that's new to me. Shortly I saw the guy in the tree and now two years later we're buddies.

Here he is from yesterday at -20C on a windy day just meditating.

I'm afraid the 1DX2 doesn't sound like a woodpecker, at least not a Canadian variety!


Jack


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 8, 2016)

It is the startled expressions of humans that concerns me (a tiny bit) when you let rip with a 1DX1/2. They then seem to move away or want to examine your gear!

I was watching a news report recently where a politician was virtually inaudible over the clattering cameras. There is a good side to noisy cameras


----------



## Vern (Dec 8, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> Vern said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish the 1DX II had a truly silent shutter, then I would go for Jack's combo for walking bird shots and have a great setup for general large mammal stalking. 1DX II would be preferable for low light, fps and other features over the 5DSR. Unfortunately, my experience with my 1DX shutter is that, while birds will tolerate it, deer, foxes, etc will not and after one shot all you see is an empty frame.
> ...



Interesting - thanks for the reply, John.

I tried my 1DX 1 a few times and neither deer nor a fox stayed in place, but that was only 1-2 deer and 1 fox, so not exactly a scientific study. I usually set-up my blind on a ~300 acre nature preserve where hunting is not allowed, but it abuts army corps land around a local reservoir that is highly hunted. I assumed that most of the critters have a bad association b/t mechanical clicks and whizzing bullets, but I could give it another try. Problem is, I don't get out often enough and risking missing the perfect shot of a big buck due to the shutter makes me paranoid. I doubt younger deer or the females that feed in my front yard would care, but the antlered bucks are more wary. 

Here's a pic of a couple from summer time when the males will tolerate each other and they are a little less skittish. 5DMKIII, ISO 2000, 300 2.8II + 1.4XIII, f4, 1/320, shutter set to silent continuous. Would love to get better shots of these guys in autumn. I was walking on a trail where they were used to seeing people. Never seen them there during the rut/hunting season.

Maybe I'll try the 1DX 1 on the 600II from my blind over the holidays.


----------



## Vern (Dec 8, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Nice shot of the pileated, Jack. I've loved your previous ones too. I only see them in the summer time near my place and have failed to get a decent picture due to leaves etc. I need to follow-up on (I think I saw this here) your advice of how to set-up a feeder for them.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 8, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> It is the startled expressions of humans that concerns me (a tiny bit) when you let rip with a 1DX1/2. They then seem to move away or want to examine your gear!
> 
> I was watching a news report recently where a politician was virtually inaudible over the clattering cameras. There is a good side to noisy cameras



I read CR for the humour!

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 8, 2016)

Vern said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Vern said:
> ...



Lovely shot Vern. It prompted a thought in my head relative to the moose that sometimes wander into my yard. I was approaching this guy who was determined to destroy my poor little mountain ash remnant and was at most 25 feet away and don't doubt I could have gotten closer except I deemed it unwise. He'd just broken the tree after rubbing his antlers/head for a few minutes and seems quite annoyed. A shutter of any description was not going deter him from sampling all the vegetation! Pre-Canon shot - User and camera both subpar, apologies.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Dec 8, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Their sound depends on the resonance qualities of the wood they drum.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 8, 2016)

Vern said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Vern said:
> ...



This same subject has cropped up elsewhere and opinions seem to be divided. It seems to be critical to some and irrelevant to others. So far it has not been an issue for me but that doesn't mean that this is always the case!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 8, 2016)

But Alan, that shutter mechanism is supposed to be well damped with very little resonance and it's not made of wood! 

On the other hand, my African Grey is making a sound that I believe is meant to copy my camera. ;D

Jack


----------



## Act444 (Dec 9, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting discussion. I've also been seeking more reach but keep putting off the decision...
> ...



Yes, you're absolutely right...compromises galore indeed. Thanks for the reply. 

I think that hypothetical 600 5.6 DO at around the size and weight of the current 400 DO would be ideal for my uses, but of course that won't get made (at least not in the near future). 600 4.0 DO is even better (opening up the option of 800 5.6 with extender!), but fear is that price will be out of reach, and weight may still be on the hefty side. Can they keep the thing under 6 lbs? If so, may be on the bleeding edge of handholdability depending on balance.


----------



## tron (Dec 9, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> ...
> 1DX2 + 400 DO II + 2X III is all the weight my aging body can handle hiking.  And that's assuming I stay fit
> ...
> Jack



Don't be pessimistic. I bet you will happily upgrade from 1DxII to ...1DxIV 

There is also another distant future trick: You may exchange your 1DxII for the latest 5D (Mark VI, whatever). That way you will sacrifice fps but you will have a lighter system 

But you are right the combination you have is at the limit ... for me too. Actually maybe my limit is a little less heavy. I was walking holding my 400DOII+1.4XII+7DII all the time with no issues. Also I was able to handhold almost continuously (and I mean it because I was in a boat and shooting) for about one hour with no issues. A few days before I tried to do the same with my 500II+7DII. It took me one month to stop feeling my hand as a little tired (So 500II for me is best when in a car)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2016)

tron said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes, Tron, it's one thing to feel tired from shooting and quite another to have a type of injury due to the weight and length of shoot. So far I just get tired. I appreciate the smaller diameter of the 400. We all know that eventually age catches up with us and in my case my daughter is waiting in case I can't handle it.  However, would she really want that weight, that remains to be seen since she hasn't tried it. A 6D sized camera might be the solution.

There is no question in my short time with the camera, the 14 fps is addictive. One shot is now two or three with slightly different head angles etc. to choose from or an eye open vs. one closed sometimes. If you have 10 fps it probably isn't as striking but the 6D was 4 1/2.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 9, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> There is no question in my short time with the camera, the 14 fps is addictive. One shot is now two or three with slightly different head angles etc. to choose from or an eye open vs. one closed sometimes. If you have 10 fps it probably isn't as striking but the 6D was 4 1/2.
> 
> Jack



1986 - load film, take pictures. Send to the photo lab and get pictures back 2 days after you took them.
2016 - lad 64MB CF card, take 3,000 pictures in a day, spend 3 hours loading them onto the computer, hours sorting through them and end up processing your images 2 days after you took them.

Progress?

;D


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 9, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > There is no question in my short time with the camera, the 14 fps is addictive. One shot is now two or three with slightly different head angles etc. to choose from or an eye open vs. one closed sometimes. If you have 10 fps it probably isn't as striking but the 6D was 4 1/2.
> ...


;D

Surely no progress in the efficiency of the PP process.
But a huge progress in the freedom how and how many pictures you're going to take. 
So I suppose the numbers of pictures taken and discarded is much worse. Relative keeper rate ridiculous 
But ...
I expect the absolute keeper rate much higher. 

Problem:
Will you keep looking at them next year?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2016)

...... or don't even look at them for a year or shoot in summer, process in Alberta winter!

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 9, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> ...... or don't even look at them for a year or shoot in summer, process in Alberta winter!
> 
> Jack



Ah, the rolls of film with Christmas at both ends and a wedding in the middle.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



The best example I have personally was when 3 very young fox siblings entered my property from the bush to play on the grass. They were fighting, jumping, rolling and I had 4 1/2 fps. As I looked at the many nice shots I couldn't help but visualize what was between those shots!! Not to mention the 6D AF and 600 rather than 800 that I have now.

Jack


----------



## tron (Dec 9, 2016)

Jack, 4.5 fps or not the timing of the last one couldn't be better!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2016)

tron said:


> Jack, 4.5 fps or not the timing of the last one couldn't be better!



Tron, when you view the whole folder of shots my comments take on more meaning. The chance of me observing this again, exactly as I did is very slim. It was a very special moment just watching.

And then a couple days later more action that I flubbed. First shot AF point was right on the cats shoulder (300 X2, 6D) etc. You've heard the saying scared S___less; it originated from this shot .

Some is my fault but boy with the 1DX2 my chances improve dramatically. This was really comical and I missed 95% of it. You can be sure it influenced my decision to go 1DX2.

Jack


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 9, 2016)

Those shots are so great. So lucky to have witnessed it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 9, 2016)

Ryananthony, thanks but in my mind they are a sad reminder of what I missed recording. Of course I did cherish the moment but action detail like that fades from memory pretty quickly. 

My camera always sits ready to go with the long lens attached. If I'm gardening I often keep it cocked in the barn/shed You never know what might show up.

Jack


----------



## kaihp (Dec 10, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> 1986 - load film, take pictures. Send to the photo lab and get pictures back 2 days after you took them.
> 2016 - lad 64MB CF card, take 3,000 pictures in a day



Mike, I think I can tell right now, that if you can fit 3,000 images on a 64MB CF card, they probably aren't worth looking at, due to the poor resolution or high compression  ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 10, 2016)

smartypants :-\


----------



## Grant Atkinson (Dec 10, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Jack, 4.5 fps or not the timing of the last one couldn't be better!
> ...


Nice interaction that you captured here Jack, both the two foxes face to face at play, and then the fox and cat!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 10, 2016)

Thanks Grant, but it's like the fish that got away. Still I will always cherish the moment and hope I'm better able to handle something like that a second time if I'm lucky enough. I'm sure you have a ton of fish that got away stories! 

I am blessed with a yard having a ravine on the periphery and the odd creature that ventures onto my property. When that happens sometimes I can shoot from my deck or sneak around obstacles to approach - with the cat and fox I was on my knees behind a row of old cars trying to get in position but sadly I was able to record very little.

Jack


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 17, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> 1986 - load film, take pictures. Send to the photo lab and get pictures back 2 days after you took them.
> 2016 - lad 64MB CF card, take 3,000 pictures in a day, spend 3 hours loading them onto the computer, hours sorting through them and end up processing your images 2 days after you took them.
> 
> Progress?
> ...



Wait! Weren't there 2 hour photo kiosks?



But I do remember sending off a roll of film that might have images from last year along with yesterday's since the roll sat in the camera that long.


----------

