# Long telephotos



## Act444 (Apr 8, 2015)

Hi all,

So a day that I never thought would come might actually be approaching this year. Specifically, that's the day I might actually be able to splurge on one of the big whites  But just one. And only the handholdable ones...

We're talking the $5K-7K price range, which narrows it to 3, essentially. Specifically I am asking for those who own a 200f2, a 300 2.8 (version 2) or the new 400 DO to shed some thoughts on their experiences. 

I am leaning towards the new 400 DO - although I do have the 100-400 already, the 400 f4 with a 1.4x yields a 560 5.6 which puts it right in animal/bird territory. 300 on crop is just starting to approach that sweet spot, but 400 would be even better. And with 560 I could even use the 5D3. 

The other option I'm considering is the 200 f2 IS. Poorly lit ice skating shows push me in that direction - one show I just squeaked by with 135 f2 and 7D (original, now have Mark II)...200 with a 5D3 would be an additional stop (through ISO) to work with...I cap the 7D at 3200. Still, rumblings of a version II - and potential resale difficulty - have me a bit hesitant. 

As for the 300 2.8, I probably have the least need for that focal length - the 100-400 covers it nicely and I've also got a 70-300 (which may get sold)...and indoors, more likely to grab a 70-200 2.8 - still, it's in the same price range and the IQ seems to be astounding - with a 1.4x it becomes a 420 f4 and difference seems minuscule between that and the bare 400 f4...but seems like the 400+1.4 is superior to the 300+2.0 according to TDP.

Anyone with these lenses - specifically the 400 DO II, seems to be rare - chime in with their experiences? It could help me out. Remember, I'm looking for something I can handhold...

Thanks!


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 8, 2015)

The 400 DO II certainly makes this a harder decision than when I bought my 300 f/2.8 IS II, but I think I'd still buy it. If you have the 1.4x and 2x III extenders, it's a great combo and the IQ with the 1.4x looks to be almost identical to the bare 400 DO II. Plus, you get f/2.8 at 300mm. There are plenty of times when an extra stop makes or breaks the shot for me in low light. At 600mm with the 2x, especially with a crop body, it works well for birds and other work. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS as well and while it's quite good with the 1.4x III, there's no comparison to the 300 at f/2.8 in terms of blurring the background and AF speed, plus you get mode 3 IS. 

My typical shoot goes like this:

Pre-dawn, 1D X + 300
Dawn, 1D X + 300+1.4x and 5DIII + 70-200
Golden hour and beyond, 300+2x & 5DIII + 70-200 +1.4x (with adjustments as needed)

The 200 f/2 is sweet, but is pretty specialized and doesn't take extenders quite as well. Unless you are planning to do a lot of indoor sports and/or portrait work, I'd go longer. According to the charts on the Digital Picture, the 400 DO II looks excellent, but f/4 is still f/4 and the performance at 800mm doesn't look that great. The 300mm +2x compares well with the 400 + 1.4x (esp. at f/6.3 or f/8) and gives you another 40mm.

Apparently, the killer feature of the 400 DO II (other than size) is the IS system. According the SLRGear, it's pretty remarkable and a significant improvement over the other big whites. Canon says it's the same system but has been tuned.


----------



## ScottO (Apr 8, 2015)

Hi, 
I scored a 400f4 DO II from Canon about a week ago. First thoughts, it's everything Canon says it is. It handles and balances well even on the lighter 7D mk II.

A friend and Nikon shooter stopped by shortly after it arrived and could not believe the image quality. The image stabilization was allowing us to get sharp images at 1/60s handheld on a 7D mk II. Since then I have tested as low as 1/30s on a 1Dx with good results. 

It takes 1.4X teleconverters very well and 2X fairly well. 

Color and contrast are much better been on the mk I, I find I'm still adding more contrast in lightroon then with the 100-400 mk II.

That said the 100-400 MK II is an Excellent option for much less money if you can live with f5.6 and f8 with the 1.4X extender. I had they fairly good copy of the 100-400 MK I but the MK II is in a class by itself.

Hope this helps


----------



## Act444 (Apr 8, 2015)

Thanks for your input!

I should clarify that I actually do not have any extenders now. They degrade IQ too much on all but the sharpest of the supertelephotos, so I wrote them off. This is the lens in which I will make an exception however. In that case the teleconverter would be an added expense. It looks like with the 300 2.8 I'd need both a 1.4x and a 2x, whereas with the 400 I would pick up only a 1.4x (quality with 2x not good enough). 

I had no idea about the new IS, that's pretty cool. Wow. 

ETA: I do have the 100-400 II, chances to use it have been so far limited however. I would rather not deal with the f/8 limitation.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 8, 2015)

If you have the 100-400 II (I didn't realize it was the Mark II), the 400 DO II and 1.4x are probably going to work best for you. The only thing you'll lose is being able to shoot at f/2.8 at 300mm and f/4 at 420mm. If that's not important for your work, then the 400 is probably your best bet.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 8, 2015)

You can't go wrong with any of these: 200mm f2 IS, 300mm f2.8 IS II, 400mm f2.8 IS II and 100-400mm mrk II

Edit: since you already have 100-400, I would look into 300mm f2.8 IS II or 400mm f2.8 IS II for longer reach. I haven't try 300mm + TC yet. The 400mm f2.8 IS II works very well with 1.4 and x2 TC III. With x2 TC III, you getting 800mm @ f5.6

Here are 400 + x2 TC III: http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Sports/Surfing/

Edit AGAIN: I missed your budget setting


----------



## Act444 (Apr 8, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> If you have the 100-400 II (I didn't realize it was the Mark II), the 400 DO II and 1.4x are probably going to work best for you. The only thing you'll lose is being able to shoot at f/2.8 at 300mm and f/4 at 420mm. If that's not important for your work, then the 400 is probably your best bet.



Yeah...the biggest decision factor for me will be whether I need f2.8 at 300mm or not. But how about weight? That's another big thing. I'll have to look it up, but if the difference in weight between the 300 and 400 is significant, that's something else to consider...

A question for Scott: on the 400, do you find it easy to manage by hand/shoulder for several hours of shooting? Is the difference in contrast only slight (like perhaps just a few tenths of contrast tuning makes up for it) or noticeable (+1 or +2 adjustments required to match)?


----------



## Act444 (Apr 8, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> You can't go wrong with any of these: 200mm f2 IS, 300mm f2.8 IS II, 400mm f2.8 IS II and 100-400mm mrk II
> 
> Edit: since you already have 100-400, I would look into 300mm f2.8 IS II or 400mm f2.8 IS II for longer reach. I haven't try 300mm + TC yet. The 400mm f2.8 IS II works very well with 1.4 and x2 TC III. With x2 TC III, you getting 800mm @ f5.6
> 
> ...



Thanks. Nice shots - and hard to tell on my phone but looks good even with a 2x! 

Yeah, unfortunately the 400 2.8 II remains out of reach as far as my budget is concerned. Weight is another concern - seems to be 8 pounds(!) - sounds like a lot to manage. OTOH, the 300 2.8 II I could swing - and is a more manageable weight as well. Not going to be a very easy decision TBH.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 8, 2015)

The DO II is about 8oz / half pound lighter than the 300mm and a touch smaller.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 8, 2015)

There probably should be a separate thread on the 300mm f/2.8 II or 100-400mm II vs 400mm f/4 DO II. Bryan at TDP has just measured the IQ of the 400 DO II on the 7DII, following the 1DsIII. One of the unique things about his very thorough and dispassionate approach is that he tests lenses with extenders as well on both crop and FF. Here is a relevant comparison with the 300mm II.

It’s difficult to see the difference between the 400mm DO II vs 100-400 II on the FF at 400mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

but the DO just wins at 560mm.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

On the less tolerant 7DII, the 400mm DO II is clearly sharper than the 100-400 II on 7DII.

400mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

560mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

The 300mm + 1.4xTC at 420mm on both the FF and 7DII appears to have a very slight edge over the 400 DO II, but there is really nothing between them.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0


The 300mm + 2xTC at 600mm on the 7DII is less sharp than the 400 DO II + 1,4xTC at 560mm at f/5.6, but stopping down to f/8 gives the 300 a slight advantage, if any.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=739&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=3&LensComp=739&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

On FF, the 300mm + 2xTC at 600mm may be infinitesimally less sharp than the 400 DO II + 1,4xTC at 560mm at f/5.6, but stopping down to f/8 reverses the situation.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=3&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

At 800mm, the 400 + 2xTC is very good on FF but soft on the 7DII.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=962&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

My conclusion, weight and IS aside (which are not that disparate), is that unless you intend the 2xTC with the 400 II on FF, the 300 mm f/2.8 II is as good as and more versatile than the DO. However, I am tempted for the DO with the 2sTC on my 5DIII to capture small birds at a distance (I would use neither lens with 2xTCs with the 7DII).


----------



## ScottO (Apr 8, 2015)

AlanF

I don't think you have a problem carrying the 400 DO on the correct strap. I've used it with a Black rapids strap for about two hours without a problem. As far as the contrast goes I'm kicking in +10 on average in lightroom.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 9, 2015)

Ah, thanks. He must have just put up the 7D2 shots because it certainly wasn't there last night...


I've also been comparing it against the 500 f/4 II (although that would really pushing it both in terms of expense and weight) just to see. I suppose the 500 is in a different class altogether though. Anyone have that lens?




> I don't think you have a problem carrying the 400 DO on the correct strap. I've used it with a Black rapids strap for about two hours without a problem.



I remember thinking I was going to have trouble with the 28-300 when I tried it out, but managed it just fine on the normal strap (although I slung it cross-shoulder instead of around my neck like I usually do).

+10 sounds like quite a bit but I'm not too familiar with the Lightroom setup (I use DPP).


----------



## candc (Apr 9, 2015)

the new 400 doii seems to be really good. according to lensrentals it is sharper wide open than the 300ii wide open so the 400 is sharper than the 300 + 1.4x tc. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons

it would seem to be an ideal hand holdable wildlife and bif lens. i like the idea that you can use it with a 1.4x tc and not just have the center point. i use large zone a lot for bif.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2015)

Here's a monkey wrench to further confuse you, just published courtesy of DxOMark. The "score" is meaningless, but the MPix measurement is surprisingly lower than the 300mm:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-II-USM-lens-review-Upgraded-model-punches-above-its-weight


----------



## Act444 (Apr 9, 2015)

Not too surprising actually. I think the TDP test makes it pretty clear that while good in its own right, the 400 DO just isn't quite in the same league as its L counterparts. I must say that the thought of compromised performance (even a little) at $7,000 doesn't really sit that well with me, but I guess it's still an extra stop at 400mm and that in itself could make a big difference in IQ in certain scenarios. 

Curious to get thoughts on the 500, although it seems to be a significantly heavier (and costlier!!) package than the 400.

ETA: Partly answering my own question, interesting take on the 500 by this guy who claims he could handhold it for a few hours http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/09/21/hand-holding-the-canon-500mm-f4-l-is-ii/ wonder if others agree.


----------



## candc (Apr 9, 2015)

So roger at lensrentals tested the 400doii lens and says its sharper than the 300ii wide open by a fair margin. Dxo says the 300 is significantly better than the 400. Either therer is some faulty testing or some drastic copy variation.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 9, 2015)

candc said:


> So roger at lensrentals tested the 400doii lens and says its sharper than the 300ii wide open by a fair margin. Dxo says the 300 is significantly better than the 400. Either therer is some faulty testing or some drastic copy variation.


The difference is that DxO also looks at "homogenous results across the frame" and results all apertures. That means that they aren't just looking at center sharpness wide open, as Roger usually is in his tests. He uses multiple copies, however, but IIRC, he didn't find much variation with this lens.

Comparing them using their comparison tools, they look very, very close in sharpness, so I don't get their statements. The only thing that corroborates them is the 2x extender performance of the 300mm looks quite a bit better than the 2x performance of the 400 DO II at TDP. That suggests a sharper underlying lens.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 9, 2015)

candc said:


> So roger at lensrentals tested the 400doii lens and says its sharper than the 300ii wide open by a fair margin. Dxo says the 300 is significantly better than the 400. Either therer is some faulty testing or some drastic copy variation.



Not quite, this is what he wrote:

"We tested the 300mm lens at both f/2.8 and at f/4 to level the playing field a bit.

400mm f/4 DO II	300mm f/28 IS II f/2.8	300mm f/2.8 IS II f/4
Ctr 1490 1395 1580
Avg 1350 1220 1330
Avg Corner 1100 1100 1160

These results are about what I expected, since we already knew that the 400 DO II is really excellent. Shot at its native f/4 it has a bit better resolution than the 300 f/2.8 does shot at f/2.8. Stop the 300mm lens down to f/4, though, and it's a bit sharper than the DO."
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/page/2

Also slrgear has the 300 slightly sharper
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1747
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1369/cat/10

But, they are both spectacular, and we are splitting hairs. I am waiting for DxO to do the 100-400mm II and the Sigma 150-600mm C and S.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Apr 9, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Curious to get thoughts on the 500, although it seems to be a significantly heavier (and costlier!!) package than the 400.



I don't own a Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2, but I know a man who does.
The performance of this lens is simply superb, AF is very fast (very!) and the IQ is probably the best at/or around this focal length. Secondly the weight isn't much of an issue, I carry a Canon 300 F2.8 L IS (Mk1) + 2 extenders as my mobile setup which is very close to the weight of the Canon 500 Mk2 with no extenders.
I have used it handheld with success - but I wouldn't want to do this all day. For reference I do frequently handhold my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS and I have arms like matchsticks!
Whilst I love my 300 F2.8 and the mobility it offers, I would much prefer to have the 500 Mk2.
Apparently the newer IS systems on the Mk2 Superteles is an improvement on the older models, I cannot comment as I don't use IS.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 10, 2015)

I see...thanks for your thoughts!

Wow, now I'm not quite as set on the 400 as I was when I first started this thread, you have clearly done your jobs


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Apr 10, 2015)

I have never used the Canon 400 DO Mk2, but I have tested 3 Canon 400 DO Mk1 lenses. Two were very sharp and out resolved my (then) Canon 600 F4 L IS at the same distance - no mean feat! The other was mediocre at best, pictures were dead, flat and not that sharp.
I read that this has all been corrected in the Mk2 version but it is very expensive and at these prices I can't help feeling that the 500 F4 L IS Mk2 is a better option. Now if Canon were to make a straightforward 400 F4 L (skip the IS), possibly with a built in extender (like the 200-400) then I would be at the front of the queue!


----------



## candc (Apr 13, 2015)

AlanF said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > So roger at lensrentals tested the 400doii lens and says its sharper than the 300ii wide open by a fair margin. Dxo says the 300 is significantly better than the 400. Either therer is some faulty testing or some drastic copy variation.
> ...



That's what he wrote about the bare lenses. He also compared 400 to the 300+1.4 and the 400 5.6

400mm f/4 DO II 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4X 400mm f/5.6 L 
Ctr 1490. 1330 1390 
Avg 1350 1210 1160 
Avg Corner 1100 1080 990 


The results, again, are fairly triumphant for the DO. The DO version I, which I shot with frequently, definitely gave up some image quality compared to a 300 f/2.8 with teleconverter. Most of us who shot the DO were willing to do so because it weighed less, and the weight was distributed near to the mount making it easier to handhold. The version II 300 f/2.8 is much lighter than its predecessor, so the weight savings isn't quite as significant. However, it's clear that from a resolution standpoint at least, the 400 DO is slightly better than the 300 f/2.8 IS II with teleconverter


According to that the 400 is better than the 300+tc but like he said, both options are really good.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 13, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Not too surprising actually. I think the TDP test makes it pretty clear that while good in its own right, the 400 DO just isn't quite in the same league as its L counterparts. I must say that the thought of compromised performance (even a little) at $7,000 doesn't really sit that well with me, but I guess it's still an extra stop at 400mm and that in itself could make a big difference in IQ in certain scenarios.
> 
> Curious to get thoughts on the 500, although it seems to be a significantly heavier (and costlier!!) package than the 400.
> 
> ETA: Partly answering my own question, interesting take on the 500 by this guy who claims he could handhold it for a few hours http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/09/21/hand-holding-the-canon-500mm-f4-l-is-ii/ wonder if others agree.



I just got the 500mm mkii. It is a dream. It's amazingly sharp and I find it hand hold able. 

These were all taken with a 70D. The three Ospreys also had a 1.4x teleconverter.


----------



## markesc (Apr 19, 2015)

Great shots!

I'm in the same boat! 500 II or bust! It seems everything else is a compromise...

Should eventually get there! have the tamron 600 and 75-300L to sell...gonna keep the 100-400 II as the mfd is just awesome..

Congrats on the lens!!!





Chisox2335 said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Not too surprising actually. I think the TDP test makes it pretty clear that while good in its own right, the 400 DO just isn't quite in the same league as its L counterparts. I must say that the thought of compromised performance (even a little) at $7,000 doesn't really sit that well with me, but I guess it's still an extra stop at 400mm and that in itself could make a big difference in IQ in certain scenarios.
> ...


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 19, 2015)

Thanks. I have the 100-400 mki and it's given me some great shots without a doubt. My wife is kind of picking up photography so she is currently using it now. If she wasn't going to I'd probably sell the 100-400 mki and put the money towards the mkii in the future but I'm not sure how frequently I'd use it with the 500mm.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 20, 2015)

I am in the same boat and I am also leaning towards the new 400 DO II. Weight, portability, reach and sharpness is more important than a fast f2.8 aperture.


----------



## Apop (Apr 20, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> So a day that I never thought would come might actually be approaching this year. Specifically, that's the day I might actually be able to splurge on one of the big whites  But just one. And only the handholdable ones...
> 
> ...






Allow me to play for the devil, I have put in greats amounts of time of looking into lenses , crops, data and stuff over the past 3 years, I try to be really objective as of lately, Even though i went through great effort justifying the nikon 200-400/ Canon 300 2.8ISII etc, in the end the data available online made it hard considering price/performance differences.

300 2.8IS II , I liked it a lot , i preferred it with 2xIII over the 500 f4 IS with 1.4 tc,
Still fast autofocus on the 1dIV and nice and sharp, but if was tospend as much cash today i would consider something else also( The devil part).

-Sell 100-400, 
-Get Sigma 120-300 Sports + sigma 150-600 sports,

The sigma 150-600 was shown to be better than the nikon 300 2.8II with 2x on a d800 ( dpreview) @ longer distances ( I think it was 30/40 feet), and by quite a margin to my eye 
So It should not be that far off the canon 300 2.8 + 2xIII,

Then according to dpreview, dxomark , and slgear ,
The 120-300 sports is very very sharp and not far off the 300 2.8 IS in the center, but the sigma 120-300 Sports beats the canon 200-400 until 1/3rd off centre @ 300mm even at 2.8
It ''destroys'' the nikon 200-400 btw !(which i owned and found remarkable) 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=sigma_120-300_2p8&cameraId=canon_eos7d&version=0&fl=300&av=2.8&view=mtf-ca

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=canon_200-400_4&cameraId=canon_eos7d&version=0&fl=300&av=4&view=mtf-ca

Which is remarkable,
Further more most reviews suggest the sigma 150-600 sports is as sharp or sharper than the tamron @f8, and until 500mm it is really really good(the sigma)

so
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=tamron_150-600_5-6p3_vc&cameraId=canon_eos7d&version=0&fl=600&av=8&view=mtf-ca

compared to 200-400 with 1.4 extender
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare?lensId=canon_200-400_4_1p4x&cameraId=canon_eos7d&version=0&fl=560&av=5.6&view=mtf-ca


The sigma 120-300 and 150-600 are also weather sealed and have fast AF (Not as fast as canon, but i rarely go from min focus distance to infinity and will apply limiters always, which they both have)
( they both work 1.4 converter, they just released new ones, although I think the sigma needs to be stopped to 4.5, even 5.6 , when with the canon 300 you can shoot wide open), still would make a nice 168-420 4.5 lens and and in case of emergency 840mm f9

This means if you get 120-300 2.8 (with great IQ in the centre) 
and 150-600 with great IQ up to 500 and comparable to the 200-400 @560 vs 600mm ( you are 5.6 vs 6.3 on light tho')


TDP, a great indicator when comparing canon lenses to each other , but a bit lacking sometimes(IMO)
A bit pointless to compare tamron/sigma/nikon stuff ,
He seems in a hurry with off brand lenses only showing full frame crops, which makes it harder to judge,
The tamron 150-600 doesn't look that bad on his site, but i miss 60d/7dII crops, 

I think he takes a lot more time with canon lenses and more samples(look at the difference in his 70-200 IS II for example) with tamron/sigma he doesn't try as much( Also i think he shoots at minimal focus distance or close 2 , which negatively impacts sigma lenses for example)

His results do not really reflect the DXO measurements(perceptual megapixels), or the graphs published on Dpreview(of lenses), or those of SLRgear, if you compare canon/nikon/sigma/tamron, So i would look at multiple scources! before drawing any conclusions!



400II, I would stay away from this unless i was not in good enough shape to carry something heavier, maybe they had a 'bad' sample because TDP crops look almost flawless, but I have a bit more faith in SLRgear objectiveness and testing 

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1747/cat/10
7d
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/canon400f4is2/7d/VFA/zcanon400f40vfa400f40_7d.jpg
1dsiii
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/canon400f4is2/1dsmkiii/VFA/zcanon400f40vfa400f40_1dsmkiii.jpg

It's good to play around with and look at the crops, they also got one with bottles and colors/threads nice to see detail.( they tested the 150-600 C, not S unfortunately, but the C even looks very good @ 600mm)


SLR gear also has crops up off the sigma 120-300 S sports , and 300 2.8 IS II,
The sigma looks really good in the centre even comparable(Color shot with the bottles) to the 300 2.8 IS II, it is just 'much' worse on full frame corners and also not as good on crop bodies compared to the 300 2.8 IS II.
Still compared to the 400II do(which some think is sharp), it looks a lot better.

In the end, here it's 3000+1900 euros for the 2 sigmas, so 4900 euros, leaves room for a body even

Here the 300 2.8 IS II is 6200 euros and the 200-400 is 11000 euros,
The 300 2.8 IS II will not be bested in IQ, but the 200-400 will be equalled or bested at times, Considering the price and versatility you can get , it is quite remarkable....

It is almost to good to be true, and the downside is that they are quit heavy lenses and you'd be carrying 2 of them instead of 1 , which would be like lugging around an older 400 2.8 or 600 f4,

Also if you care about the corners a lot and often ''miss'' your target or do compositions in the corners, there will be a significant difference ( Not sure about the 150-600 corners but it should be impossible for them to match the 200-400/300).


Am in a bit of hurry atm, bbl


----------



## AlanF (Apr 20, 2015)

candc said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



The 300 + 1.4xTC has a focal length of 420mm. This gives a magnification of 1.05x over 400mm. This factor gives an effective increase of MTF compared with the 400mm DO II to be, in practice, for the 420 lens of 1400 at the centre, 1270 at avg and 1130 in the corner.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 21, 2015)

Well...turns out with the latest price drop that the 300 2.8 + 1.4x is now actually cheaper than the bare 400 DO. Making a decision just got that much tougher...


----------



## candc (Apr 21, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Well...turns out with the latest price drop that the 300 2.8 + 1.4x is now actually cheaper than the bare 400 DO. Making a decision just got that much tougher...



Plus you can actually get the 300. The new 400 is not in stock anywhere. Camera Canada ordered one from canon for somebody when it was announced. He got sick of waiting and cancelled out so I took his place. I already have the sigma 120-300s its good with the series iii tc's and the new sigma tc's. Its better with the tc-2001 than the 2xiii and about the same with the 1.4x versions. Its good for bif with the 1.4x on a crop body but its heavy for extended handheld overhead shooting. I also have the tamron. I sent it in and had the firmware updated which makes the af better. The zoom locks at 400 and that's the best way to use it for bif. The af performance drops dramatically at longer fl.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 21, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Well...turns out with the latest price drop that the 300 2.8 + 1.4x is now actually cheaper than the bare 400 DO. Making a decision just got that much tougher...



+1

I've been looking at 300 to 400mm options for some time and have decided to go with the 300/2.8 II and TC's. Not only is the price lower and the lenses available, but I will often shoot at 300mm and will need f/2.8 at times, so the 400DOII really doesn't check enough of my boxes anyway.

Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 21, 2015)

bholliman said:


> Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...



Better to ask for forgiveness than permission


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Apr 21, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...


Dear danski,
as soon as she is convinced that your hobby will keep you away from anything "dangerous" for your relationship, she'll happily (?) say "YES" to the most perverted of your photographic demands! Women (when you have a strong G.A.S syndrome) usually think this way; "Better let him play solo with his brand new expensive toys than having him fool around with chicks and gambling"!
If you're not married to an angel (???), like the one i'm married to, that equally shares my "G.A.S issue", try make her think the way i described upwards... 

Be lucky, be happy, be surrounded by those you love the most, live your life like you owe yourself to do; A SINGLE TICKET JOYRIDE...

Yours
Yiannis.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 21, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...
> ...



True...until she decides she won't forgive any more....then it all gets very painful, tricky and expensive.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 21, 2015)

I am pleased to see that my old cheapie 400 f/5.6L punches well above its weight - not as good as the lenses costing 4X as much, but darn good anyway. I have other G.A.S. candidates: 7D2 (from 60D) and new high-specced laptop, and probably the Sigma Art 50.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Apr 21, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I am pleased to see that my old cheapie 400 f/5.6L punches well above its weight - not as good as the lenses costing 4X as much, but darn good anyway. I have other G.A.S. candidates: 7D2 (from 60D) and new high-specced laptop, and probably the Sigma Art 50.


Dear Nancy,
i'd like to inform you that, after spending three months with my brand new 7D Mk2, shooting...19.5k (!!!) images, going forth and back with center point AF issues with faster than f2.8 lenses, and after losing time (half a dozen visits to Canon Service, where they pretended to know nothing about the issue although admitting there was one)and cash (bought for 1650 Euros, sold for 1100), i finally got rid of the damn thing and did myself the favour and got a second brand new 5D Mk3, to use it exclusively with Magic Lantern! the 7D has lots of potential with nice cleaning (in post procedure) high ISO images and videos (up to ISO6400 almost competing with 5D Mk3) but, it's a nightmare to get a piece working correctly.

So, before making your "G.A.S. driven" decisions, take a moment or two and think about getting a 5d Mk3 for a little more cash than 7D Mk2. I'm not a full frame aficionado, i've taken shots to bring tears to my eyes each time i take a look at them even with "5$" cameras but, being the owner of a 60D as you mention, i'd suggest you make the big leap and get the "big one". You'll need some time to get used to filling the frame again but, once you make it there, you'll never look back. If you don't want to spend that much, a 70D will suit your needs perfectly and you'll have the 1.6x crop factor and the 3-10x video mode! Then, spend the 1000~1700$ you'll have saved, invest on a nice trip to the tropics and use your new 70D to seize the moments. 

Always be lucky, be strong, be surrounded by whom or what you love the most.

Yiannis


----------



## AlanF (Apr 21, 2015)

My 7DII has taken 7.5k bird photos in 4 months and it works perfectly, though the fastest lens I use is f/2.8. Is yours ok for f/2.8-f/8 lenses?


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Apr 22, 2015)

AlanF said:


> My 7DII has taken 7.5k bird photos in 4 months and it works perfectly, though the fastest lens I use is f/2.8. Is yours ok for f/2.8-f/8 lenses?


Dear Alan,
My "ex" 7D Mk2 was ok with anything slower than f2.8. I could shoot birds in flight all day long with f4+ without any problems but, as soon as i reached for f2.8, i started looking for ...pills to keep myself from going insane! The only lens that worked fantastically (only +1 AFMA needed) down to f1.8 was my 85mm f1.8. Sigmas were a total disaster even at f8+! I wasted too much time and quite some cash with that weird piece of camera but when it worked, it worked well. Anyway, 5D Mk3 works much better and is super consistent with *ANY* lens, that's why i bought a second one for exclusive use with Magic Lantern.

7D Mk2 is a great all-around APS-C camera but, you must be lucky enough to find a good copy of it! Unfortunately, most of the times, i have to handle low light situations and f2.8- is something i use regularly. 

All my best wishes Alan, be lucky, enjoy those you love the most.
Yiannis

P.S: Please feel free to ask me whatever you like about 7D Mk2 or any other thing i could possibly be aware of.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 22, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...
> ...



I've successfully used that tactic at times and gotten away with it, but not going to risk it for this amount of money. I've started my sales pitch. It will take some time, but I think I'll get there. 

A happy wife is worth much more than any lens in the world.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 2, 2015)

Update - got to play with a (version 1) 300 2.8 at the local store - probably about the limit of what I'm willing to carry around (5.6 lbs)...so this likely rules out the 500. I got to take some pics as well, not all turned out, but the ones that did were amazing. But to justify getting one, specifically over the 400, I needed to go back and figure out if I ever had/will ever have a "need" for native 300 2.8. Turns out there might be a couple after all...but then again, hearing that the 300 + 2.0x isn't the best on 7D2 is a bit discouraging and takes away from its versatility.

Also, I notice that Ken Rockwell (yes, I know...) has a review up on the 400 DO which is quite positive. 

Not getting any easier...


----------



## lion rock (Jun 2, 2015)

bholliman,
Mr Surapon has the right idea: "He buys his wife a big diamond ring before he fulfills his own GAS issue!"
Now, everyone is happy 8) ;D ;D !!
A very effective plan.
-r



bholliman said:


> I've been looking at 300 to 400mm options for some time and have decided to go with the 300/2.8 II and TC's. Not only is the price lower and the lenses available, but I will often shoot at 300mm and will need f/2.8 at times, so the 400DOII really doesn't check enough of my boxes anyway.
> 
> Now, I just need to convince my wife that my hobby requires an additional $6k investment...


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 2, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Update - got to play with a (version 1) 300 2.8 at the local store - probably about the limit of what I'm willing to carry around (5.6 lbs)...so this likely rules out the 500. I got to take some pics as well, not all turned out, but the ones that did were amazing. But to justify getting one, specifically over the 400, I needed to go back and figure out if I ever had/will ever have a "need" for native 300 2.8. Turns out there might be a couple after all...but then again, hearing that the 300 + 2.0x isn't the best on 7D2 is a bit discouraging and takes away from its versatility.
> 
> Also, I notice that Ken Rockwell (yes, I know...) has a review up on the 400 DO which is quite positive.
> 
> Not getting any easier...



300 2.8 USM non-IS? Sometimes referred to as "VI".

300 2.8 USM with IS?

I think you will find that the weights of the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4 are pretty comparable. There is supposed to be very little drop in IQ with the 1.4x and a little more with 2x VIII teleconverters, and the VII IS lenses and the VIII TC's are designed to work together. You only have f/8 center point AF with the 2x TC attached.

Do not forget that the free Canon DPP software has lens optimization tools.

There also is a 500mm f/4.5 USM non-IS lens that is still extremely well regarded and lightweight.

None of the USM and non-IS big white lenses are serviceable by Canon and for all practical purposes, spare parts outside of cannibalizing another lens essentially do not exist. *If* you can deal with that, it is about the most inexpensive way to get into the big white club. You will need a camera body with AFMA to get the most out of these lenses as calibration by Canon is not an option.

Bear in mind that someday, the "VI" IS lenses will also be declared obsolete by Canon.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 2, 2015)

Oops, my bad. It's the 1st IS version (the "300mm f2.8L IS USM"). 

That lens (which I was able to hold & shoot for a couple min) is 5.6 lbs while the 500 f/4 II is 7 lbs (according to TDP). 5.6 vs. 7...not an insignificant difference !

I'd rather stick to the version II (or current) models out there as I am thinking long-term. 

Making me wonder if there is a carry bag/backpack that could fit one of these things (attached to a body) + another body with a lens, perhaps up to 70-200 2.8 size? This would be essential if I were to pick the 300...


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 2, 2015)

Act444 said:


> Oops, my bad. It's the 1st IS version (the "300mm f2.8L IS USM").
> 
> That lens (which I was able to hold & shoot for a couple min) is 5.6 lbs while the 500 f/4 II is 7 lbs (according to TDP). 5.6 vs. 7...not an insignificant difference !
> 
> ...



I guess it depends on what you intend to take pictures of (300 vs 500) and whether or not you want to use an extender to get there. If the 300 doesn't cut it, then the weight difference is insignificant.

As far as backpacks go, there is the Lowepro Flipside 400AW, and there are many others. Whether or not the 300/500 lens hood will fit in there too is another matter.

Lenscoat is offering a collapsible fabric lens hood.


----------



## Vern (Jun 2, 2015)

I'm fortunate to have the 200 2.0, 300 2.8II, 100-400 II and 600 II + TC's in my kit, so perhaps my experience will be helpful. What I shoot = indoor sports, outdoor wildlife - strong avian interest, landscape at remote locations (backpacking). I think you are already debating the key issues - use of native focal length -vs- weight -vs- cost -vs- performance with TC's. 

200 2.0 - I think you've ruled this out already, but if indoor sports is a strong interest, you might keep you eye open for a used one. I only use it w/o TC's and at 2.0 - and it is phenomenal for this application and portraits.

300 2.8II - I actually rarely use this at the native focal length b/c it is a little too long for the indoor sports I shoot (mostly volleyball), so it has become my 'walk around 600mm' w the 2XIII and low light large mammal wildlife lens. Amazing IQ but I probably don't use it as much since I got the 100-400, which works OK with the 1.4X, is more flexible (good for landscape while backpacking), and a little lighter package.

600 II - my most used wildlife lens. I have carried this one a long way on day hikes but it takes a toll on my back and shoulders. Pairs great w 1.4XIII and OK with 2XIII at f11. This is an expensive 'must have' if you really love avian photography (or at least belongs at the top of the 'if I win the lottery list'). I don't have a crop frame body, so can't compare the 300 + 2X on the 7D2 to this lens + TCs on 1Dx or 5DMKIII.

The new 400 DO looks very good, but I don't think I have a niche for it in my kit - unless I sold the 300 2.8 - this has crossed my mind. If you really want the most portable, longest tele in your price range, it sounds like the best choice.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 2, 2015)

^ Thanks very much for your insight, it's definitely helpful. 

I have actually NOT ruled the 200 2.0 out completely - I do occasionally shoot dimly lit ice skating shows and typically the 70-200 gets the nod, although I did turn to the 135 f2 once when the lighting was just plain awful. The 200 would really be a dream here - mainly because I could use the 5D3 instead of the 7D2 for even better high ISO - but in most cases I'd probably pick the 70-200 for the increased flexibility. 

I haven't really done BIF but I do try to get birds on the ground or in trees, rabbits, squirrels, whatever I can find around here. The 300mm end on the 70-300 just gets by on the 7D2, and often times the 5.6 has me at ISO 3200 or higher which kills detail. For this I was considering the 400 DO II (perhaps the favorite at the moment) and the 500 f/4 (literally the bleeding edge of my price range at CPW street value). However, the weight is also something I need to consider. I need to be able to carry it around without much struggle for a couple of hours at least. 

Then there's the 300 2.8, the lens I basically have the least use for in terms of native focal length. However, IF I can figure out a way to carry it around in combination with another camera+lens, it wouldn't go unused - might end up taking it to a couple of events here and there (used with a 5D3). Not sure how useful it will be for my dabbles in animal photography though. I guess the extra 2 stops will help on the 7D2 but ultimately I'd rather have more reach. Again, going to come down to which realm of photography I value most. 

Thanks for the info on the backpacks as well. I'll look into Lowepro - they have some good stuff. Looks like it may be a tight squeeze though for what I'm looking at. Most of those bags seem designed to hold one body mounted with lens and other bodies and lenses separately, while I'm looking for something that will fit two bodies WITH lenses mounted (and hoods). I suppose some compartments can be rearranged though.


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 2, 2015)

That would be an awfully big backpack. I have the Lowepro 400 AW and it won't fit 2 bodies with the lenses, hoods and bodies as you describe. 

I'd definitely look for something with a frame for weight distribution and support.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 2, 2015)

My big wish is for 600mm f/4 L IS II, a 5D3/4, ..... and for serious upper body muscle (for a small woman), for hand-held BIF. I have a bunch more exercising to do, still putzing with 10 and 12 pound weights. :-[ I would like to be up to 12 to 15 pound weights in an endurance rep sequence before I rent a Big Heavy White and Heavy Full-frame Camera (what, about 10 pounds combined).

No excuses, now that I see that a 92+ year old woman completed a full marathon in 7 hours.


----------



## Vern (Jun 2, 2015)

NancyP said:


> My big wish is for 600mm f/4 L IS II, a 5D3/4, ..... and for serious upper body muscle (for a small woman), for hand-held BIF. I have a bunch more exercising to do, still putzing with 10 and 12 pound weights. :-[ I would like to be up to 12 to 15 pound weights in an endurance rep sequence before I rent a Big Heavy White and Heavy Full-frame Camera (what, about 10 pounds combined).
> 
> No excuses, now that I see that a 92+ year old woman completed a full marathon in 7 hours.



good attitude!

And I don't want to be discouraging, so would also suggest a strong core and lower back for hand holding the 600. I have done this for BIF w the 1Dx mounted and while you can track so much better than the kit on a gimbal mount (b/c your eye is the rotation point instead of mid-lens), I find it tough on my back (and I lift fairly heavy weights regularly; 40-50 lbs dumbbells). Renting is a great idea. I rented the 500 II and 600 II, each for a week at the beach, and ultimately picked the 600 for the maximum reach. However, if you are really keen on handheld BIF, the little bit of weight difference (and less front-heavy) w the 500 might be your best choice.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 2, 2015)

NancyP said:


> My big wish is for 600mm f/4 L IS II, a 5D3/4, ..... and for serious upper body muscle (for a small woman), for hand-held BIF. I have a bunch more exercising to do, still putzing with 10 and 12 pound weights. :-[ I would like to be up to 12 to 15 pound weights in an endurance rep sequence before I rent a Big Heavy White and Heavy Full-frame Camera (what, about 10 pounds combined).
> 
> No excuses, now that I see that a 92+ year old woman completed a full marathon in 7 hours.



Nancy,
My 400mm f2.8 IS II + x2 TC II Vs 600mm f4 is about same weight. I would highly recommend lighter tripod + gimbal. You will enjoy shooting more


----------



## Act444 (Jun 2, 2015)

This review comparing the 500 and 600 basically tells me all I need to know as far as hand-holding these things goes. I'll pass on the 500 - I value portability. It was a nice thought though...and the 600 was always well out of earshot anyway. 

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/03/02/comparing-the-canon-500mm-f4l-is-ii-and-the-canon-600mm-f4l-is-ii/

So ultimately it's the 300 2.8 II vs. 400 DO II - right back where I started, of course. Will add in a 1.4x extender either way. Also officially writing off the 2x, does not sound ideal. 

I feel the 200 2.0 is probably going to be updated soon...and therefore will probably will pass on it this round but if I ever end up with one I might shoot for used or refurbished (or heavily discounted).


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 3, 2015)

Act444 said:


> This review comparing the 500 and 600 basically tells me all I need to know as far as hand-holding these things goes. I'll pass on the 500 - I value portability.



Lots of people handhold the 500I or 500II (f/4) with great success. Do a web search. Yes, length of time spent handholding that lens probably varies- physical condition of the photographer matters. A monopod works too.

The 500 f/4.5 USM non-IS is lighter than the 500 f/4 and still gives you 500mm. That lens is also very highly regarded, even though it is obsolete and non-serviceable.

Portability is great, but if the portable lens is short, then what good is it?


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 3, 2015)

when hand holding long lenses, look for things to lean against to add stability.... like the side of a tree, car roof, railing, whatever.....


----------



## scyrene (Jun 3, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Curious to get thoughts on the 500, although it seems to be a significantly heavier (and costlier!!) package than the 400.
> ...



I have the 500 mark II. It is a wonderful lens. For birds especially (in particular smaller ones, perched) it is faultless, and image quality is essentially unchanged in real world usage with the 1.4x extender. I don't find it too heavy, and I am not strong - it takes a little getting used to initially, but for instance I recently used it for 5+ hours hiking round a moderately hilly part of the countryside. However, the minimum focus distance is a bit long, and it is much less versatile for indoor use/portraiture, whereas the 200 f/2 or even 300 f/2.8 would be better. IS is top notch.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 3, 2015)

Vern said:


> I'm fortunate to have the 200 2.0, 300 2.8II, 100-400 II and 600 II + TC's in my kit,



You sure are!


----------



## Act444 (Jun 3, 2015)

scyrene said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



Interesting. How do you carry it around? (What bag/strap/etc.?)


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 3, 2015)

Act444 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...



Hoped you wouldn't ask that, well you did so here goes!
I use a leftover Arca 4 inch clamp (Eastern made cheapie) with 2 Eye Bolts (lifting bolts) attached and this is hooked onto a Think Tank Backpack strap I had lying around.
Please excuse the terrible pics!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 3, 2015)

Note this is my 800mm lens - not the 300mm!


----------



## Act444 (Jun 3, 2015)

I see. Cool, thanks for taking the time to show me (us)!

For me, the best compromise for getting to 500mm seems to be the 400 DO + 1.4x for a 560 5.6. On a 7D2 that should be a nice amount of reach. The appeal of the 500 was being able to use the 5D3 instead for an equivalent amount of reach and get FF quality. 

Probably going to "pull the trigger" sometime later this month (not ready to do it now)...will continue to post thoughts/questions throughout my decision-making process. Thanks for all your help/patience!


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 10, 2015)

Best of luck with your decision.
Too much choice really but all are probably very good.
I'd love the 200-400mm but I'll wait for a lotto win for that.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 20, 2015)

Act444 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...



I have a Lowepro Flipside 500 AW backpack. I have the standard Canon neck strap on the camera body, but when the 500 is mounted I carry it by the tripod handle upside-down, at most wrapping the strap round my wrist but usually not. That's it!


----------



## Act444 (Jun 27, 2015)

Cool. Thanks!


----------

