# 400mm f2.8L IS II or 600mm f4L IS II?



## Eldar (Sep 14, 2013)

At the moment I have both of these lenses, and they are both extraordinary. But I'm not a a pro and it is a lot of money, so my common sense tells me to just keep one. But which one?

I do sports, wildlife and birds. And I also use the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extendres. Well, I don't use the 2xIII on the 600mm, because of the reduced AF functionality and 1200mm is difficult for anything but fairly stationary objects.

So, what would your reasoning and decision be, if you had both, but could only keep one?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2013)

I shoot mainly birds, the 600 II makes more sense to me. But for sports, you're better off with the 400mm, since you can crop, but often not back up.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 15, 2013)

To me it would be a bird vs sports question and which is more important. 400mm for sports and 600 for birds.
With general big game wildlife either would work but I would favor the 600mm.

What body you are using would weigh in this question as well. A 400mm with a crop body would make it more usable for birds.

This sounds like a personal question that only you will be able to answer, which is more important to you.

(edit; my choice would be keep the 600mm. I am a wildlife guy and carrying a shorter 400mm that is somewhat heavy never appealed to me. Other than the occasional grand kids games I would never use the 400mm, I actually have a 300mm f/2.8 for that.)


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 15, 2013)

Both those lenses just for fun?, I want to party with you.

I have the 400mm f2.8 IS, and both ver III extenders. I think this is the way to go because you can't make a 600 into a 400, but the 400 can be a 560, and an 800. So the 400 is just more versatile. And the 400 is more suited for sports, when the f2.8 is often needed for low light.

I also have 300mm f4 IS for those times when the 400 is too big, and it does great as a 420, even 600 when there is enough light.


----------



## RGF (Sep 15, 2013)

600 for wildlife with 1.4 or 2.0x. 400 focuses closer and with the F2.8 (vs F4 for the 600) but is shorter.

I suggest you consider 200-400 as a starter super tele. Not quite as fast as the 400 F2.8 but a lot more flexible.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 15, 2013)

RGF said:


> 600 for wildlife with 1.4 or 2.0x. 400 focuses closer and with the F2.8 (vs F4 for the 600) but is shorter.
> 
> I suggest you consider 200-400 as a starter super tele. Not quite as fast as the 400 F2.8 but a lot more flexible.



I have and use the 300f/2.8L II, 400f/2.8L II, 600f/4l II & a few months back acquired the 200-400f/4, I shoot wildlife.

The 300f/2.8 I'll keep as it's amazingly sharp, light & flexible with converters, the 600 I'll keep as the 200-400f/4 wont get the range without adding additional converters, and although the Lens produces good IQ with the built in 1.4x + added 1.4x, the 2x converter in this mix is marginal at best. There are shots on my last trip that the 600 + 1.4x just handled so much better than the 200-400f/4.

In this mix I sold off the 400f/2.8L II, it's a lovely Lens, but I found I was always going to the 200-400f/4, it's a one stop loss of course, but I found it wasn't a real issue and easy enough to work around.

I would suggest looking at selling both Lenses, and buy the 200-400f/4 with an additional 1.4x Converter to give you 784 f/8 at the long end, this will not be as sharp as your 600 + 1.4x (840), but you need to pixel peep to see the difference.

For Wildlife, sports, the 200-400f/4 is the complete Tool (I'm imagining the sport as I don't do sport Photography), but for Birds ?? not sure you can beat the 600 other than maybe the 800.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2013)

eml58 said:


> ... but for Birds ?? not sure you can beat the 600 other than maybe the 800.



Actually, the 600 II + 1.4xIII _does_ beat the 800/5.6 - the former is sharper as well as lighter at a longer FL (and slightly cheaper). Same holds true for the 600 II + 2x vs. 800 + 1.4x. I think that's why we'll be seeing an 800 II before too much longer...


----------



## Bombsight (Sep 15, 2013)

I'll keep it simple.

Keep the 400. 

You can shoot earlier and later during the day @ f2.8.

Focus means nothing if your shot is too noisy.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 15, 2013)

I am using 1DX, 5DIII and 1DIV bodies and I am waiting to see what the rumored 7DII will bring. The sports I´m shooting is primarily downhill skiing, snowboard and soccer. The 400 is ruling all three in my view. But I spend much more time on birds and wildlife.

The 1200mm focal range benefit of the 600+2x is not really useful to me, unless on rather stationary objects. I find the AF limitation and my lack of ability to actually focus on anything faster than a turtle at 1200mm, to be limiting its usability. So that gives med 600+840 with the 600. With the 400 I get 400, 540 and 800, so from that perspective the the 400 gives me more flexibility. 

Both of these lenses are phenomenal on their own. Sharpness, color, AF speed, the lot. But when adding the converters, I get sharper results with the 600. And the 600+1.4x is a lot sharper than the 400+2x. But with the 400 I get the advantage of f2.8 for dusk, dawn and speed. I also get the best from the 1DX/5DIII AF systems at 2.8. 

I will be going to Serengeti and Masai Mara next year and The 200-400 would be very handy for that trip. But it might be that a 300 f2.8L IS II, combined with the 600mm would be good. Getting the 200-400 would kill my financial arguments and I may as well keep the 400. The 300 is (a bit) cheaper, smaller, lighter and phenomenally good. I have the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, which fills in also. 

The hard question is probably if I am willing to accept the reduced sharpness with the 400+2x combo, compared to the much sharper 600+1.4x ... I can´t see replacing both with a 200-400 as an option.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2013)

Eldar said:


> The 1200mm focal range benefit of the 600+2x is not really useful to me, unless on rather stationary objects. I find the AF limitation and my lack of ability to actually focus on anything faster than a turtle at 1200mm, to be limiting its usability. So that gives med 600+840 with the 600. With the 400 I get 400, 540 and 800, so from that perspective the the 400 gives me more flexibility.



Handheld BIF (bittern in flight  ), 1D X, 600 II + 2xIII. 









Eldar said:


> ...a 300 f2.8L IS II, combined with the 600mm would be good.



Agreed. The 300/2.8 II is on my short list. 



Eldar said:


> The hard question is probably if I am willing to accept the reduced sharpness with the 400+2x combo, compared to the much sharper 600+1.4x ...



That's it, in a nutshell. But the 300/2.8 II takes the 1.4x great, giving you 300, 420, 600, and 840.


----------



## Greatland (Sep 16, 2013)

Sell the 400 and and keep the 600...a no brainer if you are a wildlife shooter....


----------



## Greatland (Sep 16, 2013)

I have rented the 800 but bought the new 600 about a year ago...a better lens IMHO, and with the 1.4 extender a bigger lens as well...I did NOT like the results that I got with the 800 and the 1.4 III extender either....softened the pictures too much.....


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 16, 2013)

I can't comment on any of the lenses as I don't own them (other than I would love to own them). I have been to the Serengeti twice, originating from USA.

I would strongly advise you to check with your tour operator and airlines regarding size/weight restrictions. Also, there are many differences in tours, so some make longer lenses absolutely necessary. 

In any event, you don't want make all these changes only to find out that the gear needs to stay at home. 

As an example, when I checked in to KLM Dutch at DFW Airport, my camera bag was over weight (max as I recall was 12 KG). I stuffed the heavy lenses in my safari vest. Then when we left Arusha for the Serengeti, we took a puddle jumper for 1:45 min. They were very strict on weight requirements (bags however went behind seats). You also have to check, as some connecting flights have small overhead compartments. All of these details are critical when you are taking large heavy gear.

Hope you have a great trip, keep us posted.

Good luck with the lenses

sek


----------



## Eldar (Sep 16, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> I would strongly advise you to check with your tour operator and airlines regarding size/weight restrictions. Also, there are many differences in tours, so some make longer lenses absolutely necessary.



I am aware of the problem and will do the checking before we go. Luckily I travel enough business wise to have the required colors on my frequent flyer cards, so getting to Nairobi is not a problem from a weight perspective. But how we get from there to the parks is not yet clear.

An alternative is to copy Nick Brandt. He shoots portraits of African animals with 50mm (!) and 100mm eqvivalents. Look him up at www.nickbrandt.com and enjoy. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Handheld BIF (bittern in flight  ), 1D X, 600 II + 2xIII.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I handhold the 600 probably more than I use monopod or tripod and I can also hook on the 1.4x, but don't tell me it's easy with the 2x on



Definitely not easy, and not something I often try. Actually, I don't use the 2x all that often anyway.


----------



## tron (Sep 16, 2013)

I would keep the 600mm II. I am FL limited more than needing a f/2.8 vs. a f/4 lens. But it all comes to what YOU need more.

You cannot back off but a lesser lens could do the job (300 f/4 for example).

Plus, I would not get the 200-400. It's too expensive (you would not sell one of the two if they were cheaper, why buy a more expensive one?). In addition it would combine the lesser focal length (400mm) with the f/4 aperture.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 21, 2013)

Thanks for taking an interest guys. I had more or less made up my mind when I posted this, but needed to test my arguments with your views. It seems most of you would do the same, so step one is concluded. The 400mm was sold today. 
The next, and actually quite enjoyable step, is to figure out what I should get for the $11k now burning in my pocket.

First thought would be the 200-400mm f4 1.4x or the 300mm 2.8L IS II, or maybe do something totally different and get a Hasselblad H4D ($15k on sale at the moment, w. the 80mm) or a Leica M9, or maybe I should wait for the next megapixle body and the upgraded L-lenses that is about to come out ... Difficult decisions, but quite fun


----------



## tron (Sep 22, 2013)

I would keep the money for the moment. That or I would get the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. It is an excellent sports lens. Also, it is much cheaper and lighter that the 200-400 zoom.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 23, 2013)

tron said:


> I would keep the money for the moment. That or I would get the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. It is an excellent sports lens. Also, it is much cheaper and lighter that the 200-400 zoom.



Earlier in the year, I was on an Irish sea birds workshop. I was the only 400mm f2.8 L IS, mk I...and flippin heavy...but stunning pictures, even If I do say so myself 
There was a 600 LIS II and a 500 LIS II, both very good.I think the 600 is a bit better than the mkI. The new 500 is increadibly light and easy to use. There were two 300 LIS II with TC's and again very light and easy to handle, sharp and beautiful optics. It lost a stop vs my 400 when focal matching but could move closer to the subject to get the same framing. 
If I was going to do it again, it would be a hard descision between the 300II or 500II. My 400I was mroe flexible with TC's but heavier and a lot harder to handle when tracking large birds...even lugging it abot over the island was seriously hard work! I personally found the 600IIL a bit too long for my likes. I suppose I could chop my 400L in for a 400IIL


----------



## tron (Sep 23, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I would keep the money for the moment. That or I would get the 300mm f/2.8L IS II. It is an excellent sports lens. Also, it is much cheaper and lighter that the 200-400 zoom.
> ...


True, the II series are lighter or much lighter! I am not interested for a 300 2.8 (I do have an excellent 300mm f/4L non-IS) or a huge 400 2.8 or 600 4

I got a 500mm f/4L IS II and indeed it is a very good and light (for what it is) lens.


----------

