# Best Big White Lens to Choose



## Hector1970 (Jun 21, 2017)

Hi All.
One of the last remaining lens I require / desire is a big white lens.
I'm a very all rounder as a photographer.
I do some birding, I love Sports Photography and often photograph Soccer and Rugby.
I am quite keen on nature photographs as well.

There are 3 choices I'm looking at
a) 200-400 with the 1.4 Extender
b) 500mm F4 II
c) 600mm F4 II

I've seen a few discussions from a few years ago on a similar topic.
I am interested in hearing if you made a choice like that what did you choose and any regrets.

It's a once in a life time purchase so I need to get it as right as possible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2017)

I chose the 600/4 II, but I shoot mainly birds. It will be too long for field sports, if I need that (kids aren't there yet), I'll get a 300/2.8 II. 

'All-arounder' sounds like zoom lens to me, so I'd say 200-400 would be your best bet.


----------



## rancho_runner (Jun 21, 2017)

If you like the flexibility of handholding, 500mm is the best one (I chose it a couple of years back, and I'm very happy about it; shooting airshows and birds mostly). And it works well (for me) with any TC too.


----------



## DJL329 (Jun 21, 2017)

Try renting one for a weekend when you plan to shoot an event or go birding.

Last year, I was in the same boat, trying to decided between the 500mm f/4L II and the 400mm f/4 DO II, so I rented the 500mm from lensrentals.com. It was a few hundred $$ and well worth the cost in helping me decide.

Once you've made your choice, head over to canonpricewatch.com to get the best "street price" from an authorized dealer. You could save a few hundred, which would help to offset the cost of the rental.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2017)

If I could buy one it would be the 600 f/4 II. Perfect for lowering the odds of getting busted photographing beach bunnies. ;D


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Jun 21, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm a very all rounder as a photographer.
> I do some birding, I love Sports Photography and often photograph Soccer and Rugby.
> I am quite keen on nature photographs as well.
> 
> ...



Sorry my friend, but i have to say that you seems not comfortable to buy only one of them, which is normal (we are human right? ), because from what you need, 200-400 is the best option.

If i were you, i would buy 2 primes, 300mm f/2.8 II and 500mm f/4 II.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 21, 2017)

If you 'love' the sports and 'do some birding' I think your priority is for the sports. For that I would not go above 400mm, especially if it is amateur/semi-pro sport which means you are likely able to get to the touchline. So of those I would go for the 200-400.

However many sports pros will insist on f2.8 lens in there to get separation from the background (either the crowd in a stadium or trees/buildings in a local club match) - and putting a 2xtc on there will give you 800mm for birding at f5.6. And the 400 f2.8 ii is cheaper than the 200-400 and only 200g more. So it becomes a choice of the 'wow!' factor of the 2.8 versus the flexibiity of the zoom but if you already have a 200 f2.8, then a tc on there will give you that flexibility anyway. 

Alternatively, 500mm f4 plus a second hand 300mm f2.8ii?

Good luck wrapping your head around all the options! ;D


----------



## Khalai (Jun 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> If you 'love' the sports and 'do some birding' I think your priority is for the sports. For that I would not go above 400mm, especially if it is amateur/semi-pro sport which means you are likely able to get to the touchline. So of those I would go for the 200-400.
> 
> However many sports pros will insist on f2.8 lens in there to get separation from the background (either the crowd in a stadium or trees/buildings in a local club match) - and putting a 2xtc on there will give you 800mm for birding at f5.6. And the 400 f2.8 ii is cheaper than the 200-400 and only 200g more. So it becomes a choice of the 'wow!' factor of the 2.8 versus the flexibiity of the zoom but if you already have a 200 f2.8, then a tc on there will give you that flexibility anyway.
> 
> ...



Or perhaps 400/4 DO lens to confuse everybody a bit more? It's incredibly small and light for a lens that class. I could not believe it, when I was holding it on a demo workshop one day. Definition of (almost) portable supertelephoto lens


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 21, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Or perhaps 400/4 DO lens to confuse everybody a bit more? It's incredibly small and light for a lens that class. I could not believe it, when I was holding it on a demo workshop one day. Definition of (almost) portable supertelephoto lens



I have that lens and thought it was too cheap ;D


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 21, 2017)

Thanks for the replies. It's very helpful but its still a very difficult decision.
You've given me very good opinions and options.
Renting unfortunately is not an option where I am.
It's a great option to have.
I take it they are all stellar lens.
I hadn't considered the 300 + 500 option or the 400 DO previously.
I have the 100-400 II so I was looking to go beyond 400.
Light and keeping shutter speed high is on my mind.
F4 is what I had in mind but F2.8 is tempting too.
It does not help that I'm so wide ranging in the types of things I photograph.

If there are any more insights into what you picked and why and how happy you are let me know


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 21, 2017)

What's the 400 F2.8 like with a 2x convertor. I believe they work much better on the big whites
I didn't find the 2x to be great on a 70-200 II?


Mikehit said:


> If you 'love' the sports and 'do some birding' I think your priority is for the sports. For that I would not go above 400mm, especially if it is amateur/semi-pro sport which means you are likely able to get to the touchline. So of those I would go for the 200-400.
> 
> However many sports pros will insist on f2.8 lens in there to get separation from the background (either the crowd in a stadium or trees/buildings in a local club match) - and putting a 2xtc on there will give you 800mm for birding at f5.6. And the 400 f2.8 ii is cheaper than the 200-400 and only 200g more. So it becomes a choice of the 'wow!' factor of the 2.8 versus the flexibiity of the zoom but if you already have a 200 f2.8, then a tc on there will give you that flexibility anyway.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 21, 2017)

Several people on birdphotogrpaher.net are happy using the 100-400 as a lightweight option to the 500 f4, it is that good so it really comes down to whether you need wider aperture for your sports (either for faster shutter speed or for shallow DOF) or you need more length for your wildlife. 


If part of your decision to buy a big white is to complete the collection or for pride of ownership (there is nothing wrong with that at all - I do it like others do fancy cars) then the game changes a bit but I think deciding what qualities you want from a lens (basically, what problem you are trying to solve) will enable you to prioritise your compromises.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 21, 2017)

Hi Mike 
Good question.
Do we always know our true motivation when it comes to buying gear.
In the end I want that crisp separation between subject and background and biting sharpness and the ability to maximise shutter speed when required.
It is about compromise as no lens does it all.
The 200-400 is the most flexible. It has a reputation for being very good for a zoom but I'm not sure how it exactly compares to a 500 / 600 Prime especially with the extender in place. (When its a 560mm F5.6).

About two years ago I got to use a 500 F4 for a few hours and it was very good. The sharpness was amazing to me. It's a once in a lifetime purchase. I need nothing else currently (except maybe a Sigma 14mm 1.8 :) I stopped purchasing a while back to build up some savings for a major purchase.
I realise it's an almost superficial dilemma (first world problem). It will certainly be a purchase tinged with guilt when I do go ahead.


----------



## Khalai (Jun 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Or perhaps 400/4 DO lens to confuse everybody a bit more? It's incredibly small and light for a lens that class. I could not believe it, when I was holding it on a demo workshop one day. Definition of (almost) portable supertelephoto lens
> ...



A few days ago, I've seen 400/4 DO (mark I version) goes as low as 2500 USD preowned (no signs of wear/tear, basically like new). It was quite tempting offer


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Jun 21, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> Thanks for the replies. It's very helpful but its still a very difficult decision.
> You've given me very good opinions and options.
> Renting unfortunately is not an option where I am.
> It's a great option to have.
> ...



Is your body full frame or crop? If its ff so i would go with the 600mm, the 100-400 II would do the sports for you. Collect some money then sold it to fund 300mm f2.8 II secondhand


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 21, 2017)

I've a 5D IV, 5DSR and 7DII so I'm full frame and crop.

Anyone got a 200-400 and would they recommend it.
I was just looking up sample pictures and they looked good.
Do you get a clean background at F5.6 (ie with the extender engaged).
I was wondering too if you can still damage it by putting on the extender which actively taking photographs (which was a comment by one review)


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jun 21, 2017)

My vote would be for the 300 f2.8 II. It pairs very well with the mk III extenders for a very versatile combination of lengths - 300, 420 and 600mm. You'll quickly notice the 300 f2.8's ability to lock focus, do low-light, and with extenders, be truly 300, 420 and 600 vs the 100-400 at ~380mm (or whatever it ends up being - I can never remember off hand). 


I agree with other posts that 600 is at the very least, a bit unwieldy for many applications - it's just plain big, heavy and expensive, and a bit long for most "sports shots"... It is, without a doubt, a tremendous lens though. 


I am a "general all-arounder" as well, For my money, I think you'll find more enjoyment in "all around photography" with having the flexibility of the 3 very good focal lengths on what amounts to be one of the best lenses I've ever seen or used, the 300 f2.8 II and the Mk III 1.4x and 2x. To be fair, the 300+2x is not quite as great as the 600 f4, but I have a hard time justifying the expense vs the very small increase in sharpness and f-stop capability. 


If you can't tell already, my next major lens purchase is going to be the 300 f2.8 II. I've rented/borrowed them enough times to know that without any doubt/hesitation at all. My 70-200 get's quite a workout right now and is not too shabby with the extenders either. But the 300 is no comparison - just plain great at doing what it does. 




The plus side in all of it - at the quality and price stability of these bigger lenses - you'll not lose out if you get one and decide you'd like a different focal length. They hold value very well, especially if you can get them on promotion/rebate or refurbished so that your initial purchase price is not as high.


----------



## WRS (Jun 21, 2017)

PeterAlex7 said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the replies. It's very helpful but its still a very difficult decision.
> ...



I agree with this. I have this exact combo. The 100-400 II is a really excellent lens and quite versatile. If you are going to make the plunge into a big white and really like birding and wildlife shots the 600 is hard to beat. It is a bit heavy but I've done quite a bit of hiking around with mine and have found it manageable.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 21, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> Thanks for the replies. It's very helpful but its still a very difficult decision.
> You've given me very good opinions and options.
> Renting unfortunately is not an option where I am.
> It's a great option to have.
> ...


If you have the 100-400 II, then you should get the 600 II. That combo is only beaten by the 600 II + 200-400. The 600 II and the 300 II is fantastic combo, quality wise, but less flexible. My most used white lens is the 600 II (with extenders most of the time), then the 200-400, the 100-400 and last 300 II.


----------



## DominoDude (Jun 21, 2017)

I'm a bit odd, but I would aim at a 300/2.8L Mark II + the 1.4 teleconverter, or the 500/4L +1.4 TC. I've never heard anyone say a bad word about the 300mm, not even when it's coupled with the 1.4TC. Also, it would be cheaper to start with, and if you get second thoughts you can sell it and get a solid good return (just remember to keep the 1.4 TC).
If the 300mm doesn't suit you, then you would know after trying it, if you should aim for a 400/4DO Mark II, or the 500/4L.

I admit that the 600mm is a beauty, but it is also damn expensive and less versatile.

I haven't used any of these, but I see them in the field, and I know how I think...


----------



## awair (Jun 21, 2017)

I rented the 200-400, knowing that I really needed the 400/2.8 for the extra stop.

I liked the lens, but used it almost exclusively at 400, with an occasional 'flick of the switch' to 560. That feature, I really appreciated. Quality was great, but probably more suited to outdoor/better-light sports.

Having bought the 400, I don't regret it. Most of the time I shoot at 2.8. Maybe I need a 360-440 zoom, as sometimes moving position isn't an option ;-) The 300 would definitely be too short for me, but easier to follow the action. Nearly all the shots I like are closely cropped, so it doesn't always matter if you can't get "all the subject" in the frame.

Now, if they released a 400/2.8 with a built-in 1.4X - that would be perfect!


----------



## awair (Jun 21, 2017)

Sorry, a 'late-night rave', bit difficult to marshal all my thoughts in one go...

Yes, I have the 1.4X III extender and 560/4 is impressive. No noticeable loss of real-world quality, though I daren't stop-down, due the low light where I'm shooting. The 2X results are too difficult to judge, as I'm compromising on shutter-speed and/or ISO, for the two-stop loss.

If/when I'm shooting a more appropriate subject, I expect the results will be more than good enough with the 2X.

My (heavily biased) opinion is that you get most flexibility from the 400/2.8 ("600"/4 & 800/5.6), whereas the 300 maxs out at 600/5.6.

Good luck with your choice.
My second 'wish-list' item would be a new 200/2, bonus would be with a built-in 1.4X.


----------



## Jopa (Jun 22, 2017)

We need a poll here 

IMO get a 600/4, since you already have 100-400 covered. It works great with the 1.4xTC (AF and sharpness), so you'll have even more reach (840/5.6).


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 22, 2017)

Eldar said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the replies. It's very helpful but its still a very difficult decision.
> ...



This is costly common sense! 500mm with the 100-400 would cost a little less, but, you are right. Why only add an extra 100mm?

I guess the only way to know if I can successfully hand-hold either 500mm or 600mm is to rent!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 22, 2017)

I'd probably go 200-400 zoom. For sports I use a 400 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8. If I had the business justification I'd get a 1Dx2 and 200-400 and another 1Dx2 with the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. I just can't justify it though. But you haven't bought anything yet


----------



## Dekaner (Jun 22, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'd probably go 200-400 zoom. For sports I use a 400 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8. If I had the business justification I'd get a 1Dx2 and 200-400 and another 1Dx2 with the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. I just can't justify it though. But you haven't bought anything yet



This is basically my setup, except a 1dx and a 1dx2. It's honestly the most versatile because you have all focal ranges from 70-560 covered. 

Occasionally I need another lens, which I usually rent or loan from CPS if they are onsite at a major event.

My next purchase will probably be a 200 f2, which I could put an extender on to get a 280 f2.8. Not perfect but again, very flexible, especially if you don't know where photo positions are, etc.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 23, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> 500mm with the 100-400 would cost a little less, but, you are right. Why only add an extra 100mm?



You're not though - you're adding the _opportunity_ to get out to 1000mm (with AF) at f/8 by adding a 2x while still using a lens which is noticeably more manageable and user-friendly than the 600mm f/4, which will "only" get you out an extra 200mm.


----------



## AdamBotond (Jun 25, 2017)

DJL329 said:


> Last year, I was in the same boat, trying to decided between the 500mm f/4L II and the 400mm f/4 DO II, so I rented the 500mm from lensrentals.com. It was a few hundred $$ and well worth the cost in helping me decide.


Dont wanna go off-topic, but I was wondering whether you ultimately picked 400 F4 DO II over the 500 f4 II? If so, could you share your thoughts on 400 DO II? I'm strongly considering picking one up, as well.


----------

