# Going beyond 600mm



## kaihp (Jan 13, 2017)

From time to time, I find shooting either distant wildlife (mainly deer) or motorcycle racing and coming up wanting to have more reach than I have today.

Today, I use a 300mm f/2.8L II + 2x TC III on either 5D3 or 1DX (Mk I), so this is my baseline.
I also have the 1.4x TC III, so this in combination with a lens is definitely a possibility.

Without setting a budget (I'd have to save up anyway or possibly rent the lens the few times I'll need it), I've been consideringthe following:
- 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II (+1.4x TC)
- 200-400mm f/4L 1.4x EXT (+1.4x TC / 2x TC)
- 600mm f/4L II (+1.4x TC)

I can see that the 'weapon of choice' among pro racing photographers is a 600mm+1.4x TC, but (A) I'm not a pro and (B) I'm a bit concerned whether I'd find the prime being less practical than a zoom. However, I see Eldar (and Edward too?) saying that they use their 600/4 much more than the 200-400/4.

For motorcycle racing the 1DX would be used, but for the wildlife the 5D3 also comes into play. Either case, both will only focus to f/8 at the center point.

The Tamron & Sigma 150-600mm end up with f/6.3, so I'll loose AF with an extender at the long end.

Are there other options I should consider? Manual focus is a no-go.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2017)

kaihp said:


> I can see that the 'weapon of choice' among pro racing photographers is a 600mm+1.4x TC,
> 
> For motorcycle racing the 1DX would be used, but for the wildlife the 5D3 also comes into play. Either case, both will only focus to f/8 at the center point.



600mm f/4 + 1.4x = 840mm f/5.6. You would have all of your AF points. With the 2x, it's f/8. 

I use the 1.4xIII with my 600/4 II the majority of the time.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 13, 2017)

Whilst the Canon 600 Mk2 is a lovely lens the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS can be picked up (used) somewhat cheaper. My "Used", but near mint, 800mm was just under half the current price of a new 600 F4 Mk2 in the UK.

Given the choice I would love a 600 Mk2 but they are simply too expensive here + the 800mm is cheaper and very nearly as good - or (possibly) better if you want 800mm?

With the newer Canon higher end cameras the 1.4 extender is quite good on this lens - think of it as a 2 x on an F4 lens. However with the 800mm focal length extenders are rarely needed. 

For some reason people are frightened of this lens! I have no idea why as I use it for 70%+ of my photography! After seeing what a friend of mine was doing with his 600 F4 Mk1 on landscapes I have discovered a whole new use for my 800mm!

Just another lens to consider?


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 14, 2017)

I'm confused why the 100-400II/1.4TC that is only 560mm and a stop slower than your current 600mm setup is even in consideration??

That said, the 200-400 with 2xTC (or with internal and external 1.4TCs...preferred way due to versatility) is good at 784mm (technically 800mm as the TCs should be square root of 2 but camera reports 784mm) but it isn't great.

I would recommend two options both of which I own (well I own all the options listed here and used to have the 300II)...

1) 600II + 1.4TC.....this is the ultimate in IQ and fastest aperture you can get but it is way bigger and heavier than what you are used to

2) 400DOII + 2xTCIII....this option is very good, IQ not quite as good as 600/1.4 but the IQ at 800 is exactly like the 300II/2x at 600 IMHO. However, you really need a 1DX2 or 5D4 to make it work and get all the AF modes (this would hold for the 200-400 at 800mm also). I find the 400DOII at 800mm better IQ than the 200-400 at 784 or 800. But the 200-400 has more versatility but again it is just as heavy as the 600 (although a bit easier to wield because it is smaller). The 400DOII would be exactly like the 300II for handling (actually even a small bit lighter and smaller than the 300II).

There is also the 800 f/5.6 as mentioned above but I will list my argument against the 800 vs 600...
1) The 800 can't use all 61 points on the new cameras
2) The MFD of the 800 is much worse than the 600
3) The 600 gives you more versatility as you get 600, 840 and 1200 options whereas the 800 is 800 and 1120
4) The 800 is heavier and even more unwieldy
5) All reports show the 600 at 840 has IQ that is the equal to the 800.
6) Both are focusing at 5.6 at 800 so AF is very similar..
Disclaimer: I've never used the 800 f/5.6 and never will.....

Last option....wait for the 600DO but you may need to pay for dialysis after giving up both kidneys and that could limit your shooting.....


----------



## rancho_runner (Jan 14, 2017)

Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...


----------



## scyrene (Jan 14, 2017)

rancho_runner said:


> Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
> You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
> The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...



Yes, do consider the 500 II. Note it is considerably cheaper than the 600 II (in the UK, ~£8k versus £11k at one major retailer at the moment), and although the latter is probably (rightly) widely currently considered Canon's foremost long lens, the 500 has similar performance, with only 100mm less.

I'd caution about BIF though - I find the 500L too big to use for that under most circumstances (but I hand hold, I don't know if others are using support).


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 14, 2017)

rancho_runner said:


> Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
> You can handhold the combination all day (which I do, mostly at airshows) and the size is such that traveling is not an issue (you can carry the body+500II+1.4xTC in a carry on, it fits with no issue).
> The quality is great (including with TCs), and I love the flexibility as a walk around lens, for instance when shooting wildlife or BIF, it gives a lot of flexibility and opens possibilities...



Good call, not sure why the 500 didn't pop into my head.

I would also strongly consider the Sigma 500 f/4 Sport to save money if 700mm would work.

Brad Hill is currently doing a very detailed and long-term review comparing the 500 FL vs the 500 Sport ( he is also including the 400FL and Sigma 150-600S in the comparison)...his data should be reflective of how the 500II would fare as I would consider the 500II and 500 FL to be equals in the real world. He hasn't completed all parts of his review yet but his initial IQ assessment in a controlled environment is showing the Sigma to be exactly like the Nikon 500 FL in IQ and bokeh etc.

Here is the link to his blog: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#500mm_wars_4

If the Sigma holds up in the next section on AF, IS and real-world results (for Brad mostly handholding) then I think it would be an option to seriously consider. Of course you could also get a used 500 f/4 IS (version 1) used for a similar price to the Sigma.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 14, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> Of course you could also get a used 500 f/4 IS (version 1) used for a similar price to the Sigma.



That's the rub for Canon users.

The Sigma will have to perform spectacularly and flawlessly.

Of course, that Canon 500 VI will be declared obsolete and non-serviceable at some point in the not too distant future... I do not know how Sigma will fare long term with lens support.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jan 14, 2017)

scyrene said:


> rancho_runner said:
> 
> 
> > Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
> ...



I have the 500 II and use it with the 1.4x most of the time. It is a very nice combination. I also hand hold it all day long at airshows. I doubt I could do that with the 600. One other option would be to wait and see what the 600 DO will be like. I'll be considering that if it is about the same weight, or lighter than, the 500 II.


----------



## xps (Jan 14, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> rancho_runner said:
> 
> 
> > Another option is the 500II+1.4x (or +2x), which cost less, and is very practical.
> ...



Recent test in german Color Foto (2/17):
The Sigma 4/500mm DG OS HSM performs excellent 100 points (27 higher than average) on the 5DSr. This lens is 1/3 cheaper than the Canon pedant. Friends say, the Sigma is better in IQ than the Canon 500/4 Mk I. 


If you go on an cheaper zoom lens (=< 600mm): 100-400II+1.4x III IQ ~ 150-600 DG OS HSM Sigma Sport IQ. The plus of the sigma is the usage of all/more AF points, as you do not reach f8. If you use the 100-400II without the teleconverter, the IQ is much better than the Sigma´s


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 14, 2017)

Easy - instead of the 600/4, go for the 500/4L IS II and with the money you've saved, upgrade your 5D3 to a 5D4. Image quality with the 1.4x III is superb, and the 2x III is good when you have to. The 30 MP images are more croppable than the 5D3's. The f/8 focusing (for the combo with the 2x III) is very capable, with all 61 points active including 21 cross-type. 6 fps -> 7 fps isn't a big difference but every little helps.

I've only had the 5D4 for a week (had the 500/4 II for much longer on a 7D2) so maybe it's just that the initial enthusiasm hasn't worn off yet, but it seems to me to be a killer combination.


----------



## AJ (Jan 14, 2017)

or 400/2.8 with a 2x TC?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 14, 2017)

AJ said:


> or 400/2.8 with a 2x TC?



I used the 300/2.8L IS II with a 2x III regularly for three years, and while it's a _very_ capable combination the AF performance hit is significant and that was my main reason for upgrading, along with the increased reach. I'm sure it would be exactly the same with the 400/2.8. For that reason I'd recommend the 500 + 1.4x to anybody who expects to need that much reach on a regular basis.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> For that reason I'd recommend the 500 + 1.4x to anybody who expects to need that much reach on a regular basis.



Agreed in general, get the FL you need rather than skimping and planning to use a TC most of the time. However, there's an exception currently at the long end – the 600/4 II + 1.4xIII is longer, lighter, and sharper than the 800/5.6.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 14, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed in general, get the FL you need rather than skimping and planning to use a TC most of the time. However, there's an exception currently at the long end – the 600/4 II + 1.4xIII is longer, lighter, and sharper than the 800/5.6.



The 600 Mk2 + 1.4 is certainly longer than the 800 F5.6 - but an extra 40mm at these focal lengths? It is certainly lighter a BIG plus factor in my books! 

Unfortunately I have only had one opportunity to try the 600 Mk2 + 1.4 Mk3 in the field - I rather liked it! 

It is just that the 800 F5.6 L IS can be picked up for far less money - the 400mm + Mk2 lenses were just not in the frame for me, hence my suggestion of the 800 as a cheaper alternative. Not quite as good but thousands of pounds cheaper, and a little heavier.....


----------



## rancho_runner (Jan 14, 2017)

JMZawodny said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > rancho_runner said:
> ...



This is what I am thinking too, JMZawodn.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> It is just that the 800 F5.6 L IS can be picked up for far less money - the 400mm + Mk2 lenses were just not in the frame for me, hence my suggestion of the 800 as a cheaper alternative. Not quite as good but thousands of pounds cheaper, and a little heavier.....



Is the OP in the U.K.? Here in the US, used 800/5.6 prices from a reputable dealer are $10000 for 9/10 and $11000 for 9+/10. A new 600/4 II from an authorized dealer is $10400. Which would you advise?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 15, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > It is just that the 800 F5.6 L IS can be picked up for far less money - the 400mm + Mk2 lenses were just not in the frame for me, hence my suggestion of the 800 as a cheaper alternative. Not quite as good but thousands of pounds cheaper, and a little heavier.....
> ...



Yoiks! I thought that you got things much cheaper in the USA! My 800 F5.6 L IS cost £5500 (about $6700 at today's rates). True mine was second hand but it was in pretty much mint condition and MUCH cheaper than a used 600 Mk2 in any condition over here.

Perhaps Britain is not so much of a ripoff as we/I thought? I do know that RRS tripods are a no go here. They are simply superb but one 3 series RRS tripod vs a Gitzo 4542LS + a Gitzo 3320BS + a Gitzo 2531 + a Gitzo 2541 Mono Pod + a used Gitzo 1550T and a little change - bit of a no brainer really!

Tell me is $938 a reasonable price for a new 7D2 in your area? This was in December 2015.

I think that I may have to stop whinging about UK prices?

P.S. Do you know anyone who wants a very nice condition Canon 800 F5.6 L IS at USA prices? I will pay shipping and insurance. In fact at $10K I will throw in a full Canon (Elstree) service as well!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> Tell me is $938 a reasonable price for a new 7D2 in your area? This was in December 2015.



A new 7DII is $1350 here.


----------



## xps (Jan 15, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > For that reason I'd recommend the 500 + 1.4x to anybody who expects to need that much reach on a regular basis.
> ...


I was able to shoot with the 800mm and 600mm + 1.4x extender at Nature Photography days, before I bought the 600mm. Mr. Neuroanatomist is right. I decided to go with the 600mm, because I can use it handheld too, what was not sufficient with the 800mm. Also using both lenses on an highend-tripod with the 5DSr and 5DIII, in sum, I got visibly better images. We compared the taken pictures on scene.
First, I tended to take the 800mm, but afterwards, I believed the other nature phototgrapher that are mostly using the 600mm, that the 600 II is the better solution.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 15, 2017)

Thanks to everyone for chipping in.

For the record I'm Denmark so neither US nor the UK. However, buying from a EU country (UK still applies, although Jersey/Guernsey doesn't) would be an option.

arbitrage: The reason for considering the 100-400/II was simply from a point of cost and just wondering if it at all was an option. Seems the answer is pretty much a "no".
The 800's MFD of 6m doesn't scare me - I'll be 20-30m from the racetrack anyway, although it is widely reported that the 600/II + 1.4x TC combo is superior to the 800mm (which hasn't got the Mk II treatment yet).

rancho_runner: for reminding me of the 500mm II. It's significantly less expensive than the 600/II (72K vs 94K; $10K/$12K6; £8K4/£11K).

The 400 DO +2x TC and a possible 600 DO x 1.4x TC would definitely be interesting options too.

Steve Balcome: the money saved by going 500mm vs 600mm would more likely go towards upgrading the (used) 1DX to a 1DX2 than for a 5D4.

I've found that a pro shop actually have the 600mm as rental, so I'm leaving towards renting it at least as a try-out so I can delay selling the kidney. Rental looks like to be ~2700DKK ($385/£320/€365) for Thursday-Monday morning.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 15, 2017)

kaihp said:


> The 800's MFD of 6m doesn't scare me - I'll be 20-30m from the racetrack anyway, although it is widely reported that the 600/II + 1.4x TC combo is superior to the 800mm (which hasn't got the Mk II treatment yet).



I do find that the MFD on my Canon 800mm can be a little awkward at times but a 21mm extension tube is enough to sort this out. 

I did try the 600 Mk2 + 1.4 extender - very good indeed but I am not certain that it was any better than my 800. Like you, I have read that the 600 + 1.4 Mk3 is better - I just didn't see it in a side by side comparison. However the fact that the 600 Mk2 + 1.4 was at least as good as the 800 bare speaks volumes for the quality of this lens!

Some of the "Mk 2" treatment is in the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, it is a sort of a Mk1 1/2 lens. It is much sharper and proportionately much lighter than the 600 F4 L IS that I had, but it still has the protective front element and some of the extra weight of the earlier construction.

The 600 Mk2 is definitely a better lens, especially with the very latest cameras, but it is much more expensive!
I want one......


----------



## scyrene (Jan 15, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > The 800's MFD of 6m doesn't scare me - I'll be 20-30m from the racetrack anyway, although it is widely reported that the 600/II + 1.4x TC combo is superior to the 800mm (which hasn't got the Mk II treatment yet).
> ...



I think the main advantage of the 600+1.4 combination is flexibility - it's gives 600 and 840 (and 1200 with the 2x), whereas the 800 is just an 800 (and will only autofocus with the 1.4). I agree with you though inasmuch as I think the 800 is dismissed too readily on these forums. I know a guy who uses it and produces wonderful results, including handheld. If money was no object, I'd love one...


----------



## Diko (Jan 16, 2017)

I went 600x2, but that's insane and quality is not good. Still believe it might be good for distant bird-watching if I could get enough good at that. I like it thought. And this spring/summer there'll be a lot to try and test.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 16, 2017)

My latest purchase made under some duress because it's an amount I'd never have dreamed poor old me would spend on camera gear, was the 1DX II and the 400 DO II. While I have lingering regrets that I couldn't get a 1DX II with 5D4 resolution, I have not a hint of doubt about the 400 choice and the 800 it gives me. 

Virtually everything about what I now have is very similar to my very enjoyable three years hiking with 6D, 300 2.8 II X2 III except I now get to 800 with wonderfully snappy AF. As much as the 600 is a super lens I would never choose it for portability (the 500.... also just a tad heavy).

My feeling is that for smaller birds given their typical approachability, FF with 800 is fine and an awful lot better than 600 in a fair number of situations. Previously 300 and 420 were sparsely used. I'll likely sell the 300 since the 70-200 2.8 II X 1.4III can serve as my alternative to it.

Jack


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 16, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> Some of the "Mk 2" treatment is in the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, it is a sort of a Mk1 1/2 lens. It is much sharper and proportionately much lighter than the 600 F4 L IS that I had,



... and four-stop IS although not Mode 3.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 16, 2017)

kaihp said:


> Steve Balcome: the money saved by going 500mm vs 600mm would more likely go towards upgrading the (used) 1DX to a 1DX2 than for a 5D4.



Funnily enough I thought that as I was replying, but it's always easy to spend other people's money! Also my argument was partly based on having 30 MP to play with, so it doesn't work quite as well with the 1DX2.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 16, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Balcome: the money saved by going 500mm vs 600mm would more likely go towards upgrading the (used) 1DX to a 1DX2 than for a 5D4.
> ...



It's always easier (even if not quite as fun) to spend Other Peoples' MoneyTM ;D

My reasoning for upgrading the 1DX over the 5D4 is that I don't feel I'm missing Mpixels nor DR. For me, the AF speed and accuracy has a higher value than Mpixels. I had struggled with getting the 5D3 AF to work as I liked and found an immediate and significant jump in keeper rate when I used the 1DX. Viggo's recent report about the 1DX2 AF being a (big) step up from the 1DX was very interesting to me!


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 16, 2017)

I have been contemplating the 1Dx v 1Dx2 vs 5D4 question myself and have spent considerable time reading in-depth reviews and talking to people with experience of both. I have rented the 1Dx2 but not used the 1Dx and the general idea I get is that the 1Dx2 is a 'significant' step up if you are already pushing a model like the 1Dx to its limit: the 1Dx2 provides about 1-stop better ISO performance, it drives big whites+extender better. If those will overcome limited focal length then fair enough. You already have the 1Dx so you are the best judge as to whether the 1Dx2 will offer more opportunities for you, but given the tenor of your original post it seems focal length is now your main concern, not AF accuracy, and the 1Dx2 will not solve that. 

In your OP you say 


> I find shooting either distant wildlife (mainly deer) or motorcycle racing and coming up wanting to have more reach than I have today.


Yet you are now talking about upgrading the 5D3 so I would ask whether you really know what problem you are trying to solve. The 500 f4LISII plus tc plus 1dx2 will give you more reach and higher keeper rate - but that is no good if your current porfolio shows you need 600-840mm instead of 500-700mm.
If you are wanting to handhold the lens a lot then the 500mm makes far more sense.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 16, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I have been contemplating the 1Dx v 1Dx2 vs 5D4 question myself and have spent considerable time reading in-depth reviews and talking to people with experience of both. I have rented the 1Dx2 but not used the 1Dx and the general idea I get is that the 1Dx2 is a 'significant' step up if you are already pushing a model like the 1Dx to its limit: the 1Dx2 provides about 1-stop better ISO performance, it drives big whites+extender better. If those will overcome limited focal length then fair enough. You already have the 1Dx so you are the best judge as to whether the 1Dx2 will offer more opportunities for you, but given the tenor of your original post it seems focal length is now your main concern, not AF accuracy, and the 1Dx2 will not solve that.
> 
> In your OP you say
> 
> ...



I know about all this. After a few days of pondering, your head just swims and any choice is rational.... and probably any choice is perfectly satisfactory, provided you're not inflicted.....

Jack


----------



## kaihp (Jan 16, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> In your OP you say
> 
> 
> > I find shooting either distant wildlife (mainly deer) or motorcycle racing and coming up wanting to have more reach than I have today.
> ...



The comment about upgrading the body was in relation to Steve's suggestion to go for the 500mm over the 60mm, and then use the saved money to upgrade the 5D3 to a 5D4 (in part to get f/8 focusing on all AF points). My point to him was that I was probably more likely to want to upgrade the 1DX to a 1DX2, than the 5D3 to a 5D4. That still holds.

Handhold-ability is less relevant for the purposes I'm looking at. With the distant deer, a tripod+gimbal is fine. When shooting roadracing you use a monopod attached to a "flagpole pocket" so the weight goes through the belt around your waist. This allows you to rotate quite freely when panning as the riders go by.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 17, 2017)

Thanks for clarifying, kaihp. 
I would have a look at the exif data on the pictures and see how many photos were pushing the focal length of the kit you have. It can be quite surprising when you compare what you think you shoot with what you do shoot. I find a lust of the longer lenses (longer than the 400 DO that I own) comes from frustration on a relatively small number of occasions and it sort of puts the lust into perspective. Also, do you need to go much greater than 600mm or is the 2x tc affecting AF/tracking whereas a f4 big white will be more reliable?

Arash Hazhegi did an excellent review of the 1Dx2 for photographing raptors in flight and his comment was that it drives big whites with the 2x converter much better than did the 1Dx. So I would concentrate on the 1.4x with the 2x as 'emergency cover'. 

So looking at the exif data (and the amount of cropping you do), if you are borderline on the focal length then the 500+1.4tc will probably give you enough reach and you have the 2xtc to add a bit more if needed.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Thanks for clarifying, kaihp.
> I would have a look at the exif data on the pictures and see how many photos were pushing the focal length of the kit you have. It can be quite surprising when you compare what you think you shoot with what you do shoot. I find a lust of the longer lenses (longer than the 400 DO that I own) comes from frustration on a relatively small number of occasions and it sort of puts the lust into perspective. Also, do you need to go much greater than 600mm or is the 2x tc affecting AF/tracking whereas a f4 big white will be more reliable?



Cool logic should definitely decide this. This is why my plan is to rent the 600/4L for the next time I'm going to a MotoGP race (so far planning on doing the AssenTT again this year).


----------



## Gman (Jan 17, 2017)

Using this combination at the Inauguration on Friday, 1-20-2017: 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII + 2xII + 5D Mark IV = 2400mm


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 17, 2017)

Gman said:


> Using this combination at the Inauguration on Friday, 1-20-2017: 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII + 2xII + 5D Mark IV = 2400mm



With a concrete tripod? 

Jack


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 17, 2017)

The longest I have used is my 800 F5.6 L IS + 2 x Mk3 and 7D2, gives 1600mm with a field of view of 2560. Hated the manual focus/live view focus but it was quite a bright day so I didn't have to use IS. The "Concrete" tripod was a Gitzo 3530LS - hardly a biggie!

Due to a recent Gitzo 50% off sale I now have a nice new 4542LS - bit heavier but what about a 3 x extender ;D


----------



## Gman (Jan 18, 2017)

Jack, the tripod is actually the weakest link in the setup. Optically stunning at 48x. We're expecting rain. I'll be out at 670 yards on rooftop (law enforcement approved). If it works out, I'll consider posting an image.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 18, 2017)

Gman said:


> Jack, the tripod is actually the weakest link in the setup. Optically stunning at 48x. We're expecting rain. I'll be out at 670 yards on rooftop (law enforcement approved). If it works out, I'll consider posting an image.



Do post. Here in Canada your new president gets lots of notice! My wife never misses the latest on CNN and now she even has me watching instead of Just For Laughs, Gags. 

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 18, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Here in Canada your new president gets lots of notice! My wife never misses the latest on CNN and now she even has me watching instead of Just For Laughs, Gags.



Instead of? Wait, they're different?!?

Egad, I'm in trouble if they bring back HUAC...


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 18, 2017)

Gman said:


> Using this combination at the Inauguration on Friday, 1-20-2017: 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII + 2xII + 5D Mark IV = 2400mm



And a big flag shouting "I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER NOT A SNIPER" ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 18, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Gman said:
> 
> 
> > Using this combination at the Inauguration on Friday, 1-20-2017: 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII + 2xII + 5D Mark IV = 2400mm
> ...


*lol* exactly my thoughts


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 24, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I have been contemplating the 1Dx v 1Dx2 vs 5D4 question myself and have spent considerable time reading in-depth reviews and talking to people with experience of both. I have rented the 1Dx2 but not used the 1Dx and the general idea I get is that the 1Dx2 is a 'significant' step up if you are already pushing a model like the 1Dx to its limit: the 1Dx2 provides about 1-stop better ISO performance, it drives big whites+extender better. If those will overcome limited focal length then fair enough. You already have the 1Dx so you are the best judge as to whether the 1Dx2 will offer more opportunities for you, but given the tenor of your original post it seems focal length is now your main concern, not AF accuracy, and the 1Dx2 will not solve that.
> 
> In your OP you say
> 
> ...



I shoot both 1DX and 1DX2 (and 5D4) and I just wanted to clarify one point....the 1DX2 is not one stop better at high ISO. There is basically no difference in their high ISO performance.....and the even more amazing thing is the 5D4 is just as good as the both of them and with 10-12 more MPs.

I love the 1DX2 for a number of things.....f/8 focusing and red AF servo points being the two significant ones. I use a lot of f/8 combos (200-400/1.4/1.4, 400DOII/2x, 100-400II/1.4 and 600/2x) so that is the biggest reason I now have 1DX2 and why I swapped my 5DSR for 5D4.

But, I actually prefer the files out of the 1DX over the 1DX2....I don't even know what it is but there is some sort of smoother transition and clarity in the files (maybe less "digital" of a look). So when I don't need f/8 AF I often will still shoot my 1DX on my main lens. IMHO, YMMV

Anyone interested in downloading some 1DX2 vs 5D4 real world high-ISO and regular ISO shots can use this link that I provided to some guys over on FM Forums (where I hang out most of the time).

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2o5y8Q0KlgVZ0pmUlJvMDhBTVU


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Gman said:
> 
> 
> > Using this combination at the Inauguration on Friday, 1-20-2017: 600 f4L IS II + 2xIII + 2xII + 5D Mark IV = 2400mm
> ...


I got to play with the 800F5.6 with a 2X teleconverter.... My tripod was an old steel Manfroto with a gear head that was normally used for testing feed horns and probably weighed 50 pounds....insanely solid and stable! Lightweight is great if you have to carry it, but if you don't, heavy is hard to beat!


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2017)

Interesting comments, arbitrage. 
I understand the 5DIV does f8 at all points - how does that compare to the 1Dx2 when using x2 tc?


----------



## tron (Jan 24, 2017)

For me the new 500mm is a compromise - but a pretty good one - between the practically ultra portable 400mm DO II which I also have and the new 600 which I didn't get mainly due to the weight.

The 400 is FL limited and the 600 is very heavy. When I use the 500 on a tripod I am many times FL limited (and I wish for a 600) so I revert to using teleconverters (1.4III, 2XIII). I use the 5D4 and in serious FL limited cases the 7DII (OK I know this is not the best for that combination but it gets me an almost decent picture instead of nothing).

Now a 5D4 advantage ( vs. 1DxII) I can think of is it can mitigate the 600/500 difference somehow.

The difference in size between 600 and 500 is (600/500) in square = 1.2^2 = 1.44 (so 44% improvement)

Now the difference in size due to mpixels between (5D4 and 1DxII) is SQRT (30/20) = SQRT(1.5) = 1.22 a 22% improvement. So we cut the differencr in half (assuming a 1DxII with 600 of course...) If we are talking about fairly static subjects with the camera/lens on tripod a 5D4 AF does the job even with a 2XIII (FYI I do not have a 1D series camera anyway to compare...)

Another combination is using just the 500 with my 7DII which gives less magnification than 5D4 with 500 + 2X 
but at f/4 I can use it with much lower ISO. That combination has also been used occasionally for BIF with partial success (subject to distance, lighting). But that partial success is hugely better than the almost nothing BIF photos I get when I use a 500 + 2X on a tripod ;D (a gimbal makes my tripod very heavy to carry so I avoid it most of the times...)

I mentioned all these because I believe there is not a magic DO-ALL solution it's combinations that some or all of them work for us up to a point.

A 600 DO would solve many things but it would be very expensive...


----------



## Diko (Jan 24, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2o5y8Q0KlgVZ0pmUlJvMDhBTVU



Thanks for sharing! 

Tech numbers say: 1Dx2 is with Base Light Exposure of 0.418 5D4 is -0.326.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2017)

arbitrage, appreciate your observations and feedback.

Jack


----------

