# Primes for wildlife ...



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

I am in the process of deciding which prime to get, for the time being, to use for wildlife. I have my mind set on the 300 f2.8 IS II, but I was wondering: What's the difference, practical and theoretical, between this lens and, say, the 400 f2.8, the 500 f4 , the 600 f4? The obvious answer would be the different focal lengths and, of course, price tag. But is there anything else that is significant, as far as the differences between them are concerned?! ??? :


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 10, 2013)

No experience with anything other than the 300 f/2.8 ii (I rented for a weekend). And all I can say is, wow! Even with a 2x tc, unbelievable IQ and performance. The only flaw was inconsistent focus locking on BIF against a busy background like a forest in marginal light, but I suspect this was not the lens, just operator error in a setting without enough object contrast to lock on. Oh, and the only other negative is the price, but you do get what you pay for.

If I could afford it, I'd get this lens and know that with TC, I'd also be getting a good 420 mm and 600 mm. The 500 and 600 are supposed to be excellent but do cost a lot more.


----------



## Vossie (Nov 10, 2013)

What wildlife do you intend to shoot?

I have a similar interst in one of the big whites so will follow this tread. So far I've only used the 600 which I rented for 4 days. I used it predominantly to shoot kingfishers. Got some great pics. The amount of detail is amazing (used it mostly with the 1.4x). Even though the 600 was a great experience, I feel the lens is too specilized and heavy for me. I would prefer a lens that is a bit more versatile for non-birding applications and lighter so I would be able to take it on hikes. I also like to handhold my cam, and not carry a tripod. With the 600 that is very difficult to do.

I read a lot how well the 300 copes with a 2x, but do not read many experiences about the 400 + tc combinations. With a 400 + 2x you can almost get as long as a 600 + 1.4x, but I do not know how the IQ and AF speed would compare. And what about a 400 + 1.4x vs a 300 + 2x. Anyone here with some experiences here? (Real-life not iso charts)


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2013)

A major difference is weight. The 300 II is light enough to be hand held, even with a 2xTC attached, and so can be used without a tripod or monopod for hiking and extended periods. If you want to sit in a hide (blind) and have your gear mounted on a tripod, then you will get significantly longer reach with the 400, 500 and 600. If you want to walk around, then the 300 is for you. I have opted for the 300mm f/2.8 II, which, as many of us have found is superb and works very well with the 2xTC III. I haven't regretted that decision for a minute. But, I would like to have access to a 600mm II on occasion. Neuro has a 600, and is saving up for a 300 for hiking.

A superb Belgian bird photographer I know through the internet uses a 400mm II with a 2xTC, with spectacular results.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 10, 2013)

All the big whites in vII are excellent lenses. If you haven´t actually used them, I would recommend renting your most likely candidates first. It can be expensive gambles.

I have only tried the 300 f2.8L IS II one weekend and I believe it is the fastest AF of all the big whites. IQ is excellent and, as far as I can tell, it is the one who gives best IQ with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. It is the least expensive (the word cheapest sounded totally misplaced here) and the smallest in size and weight, giving you 300/2.8, 420/4 and 600/5.6. Downside is if you need more reach.

The 400 f2.8L IS II gives you excellent performance on its own, very good with the 1.4xIII, but is in my view a bit soft with the 2xIII. The results are still very usable though. 400/2.8, 560/4 and 800/5.6 is an impressive versatility. I had this lens, but sold it. I kept the 600 f4L IS II and bought the 200-400 4L IS 1.4x. But I question whether I should have kept it or not. This lens is significantly lighter than the version I, which made it an alternative to me because of an option to handhold. But it is significantly bigger and heavier than the 300.

I had the version 1 of 500 f4L IS. Its main benefit is being smaller and lighter than the 400. But with f4 it is 100mm shorter than the 600 and one stop slower than the 400. So I decided against the version II of this lens when I updated.

The 600 f4L IS II is an awesome lens, which I believe I´ll keep until I´m unable to carry it. Performance with the 1.4xIII at 860mm/5.6 is excellent and actually better than the 800mm f5.6L IS. At 1200mm/8 the problem is first the very narrow angle of view (you need to find whatever you want to shoot in the viewfinder) and thereafter AF. With the 5DIII and 1DX you only have the center AF point available and in my experience, that requires very stationary objects. It is the biggest of them all, about as heavy as the 400/2.8 II, it requires a big backpack and it is almost 2x the price for the 300/2.8II. When I sold the 400/2.8, I kept this one.

The new 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x zoom is not a prime, but it is phenomenal. It is very versatile, with its 200/280 - 400/560 zoom range. about as heavy as the 400/2.8, but smaller. IQ is slightly behind the primes, but the difference is academic. The zoom function gives you a little less need to crop, to make up for it. AF is a fraction slower, but still very fast.

Summing up, these lenses are the best in the business for their respective focal lengths. They are big and expensive though. Make sure you know what focal length you need before you buy. But I can promise that when you unwrap your very own big white for the first time, it gives you that "Yes!" feeling


----------



## Vossie (Nov 10, 2013)

AlanF said:


> A superb Belgian bird photographer I know through the internet uses a 400mm II with a 2xTC, with spectacular results.



Does he have a website? I actually work in Belgium (although I live in The Netherlands).


----------



## Eldar (Nov 10, 2013)

I skimmed through my images to find an example. This is a handheld shot with the 400mm f2.8L IS II, with the 1DX body and the 2xIII extender. ISO4000, f6.3, 1/800s. Lighting conditions were fairly challenging and it is cropped to about 50% of the original picture. I hope it shows that this is a high quality package.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2013)

Vossie said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > A superb Belgian bird photographer I know through the internet uses a 400mm II with a 2xTC, with spectacular results.
> ...



Vossie
He posts his photos on www.birdpix.nl under the user name charlysax (search for "poster" and then his name. That bird site has incredibly high requirements for sharpness and low noise, which is why I upgraded to the 300mm f/2.8 and the 5DIII, but the photographers who are much better than me seem to work wonders with cheaper gear.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

Well, guys, I intend to use my first big white lens on a safari trip I plan on doing in Kenya and South Africa in the near future. I also like to use it for birds, animals in the forest, and things like that. By reading and re-reading all of your comments I'm leaning now towards the 400+1.4x III, instead of the 300+2x III.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I skimmed through my images to find an example. This is a handheld shot with the 400mm f2.8L IS II, I believe with the 5DIII body and the 2xIII extender. ISO4000, f6.3, 1/800s. Lighting conditions were fairly challenging and it is cropped to about 50% of the original picture. I hope it shows that this is a high quality package.



+1


----------



## Eldar (Nov 10, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> Well, guys, I intend to use my first big white lens on a safari trip I plan on doing in Kenya and South Africa in the near future. I also like to use it for birds, animals in the forest, and things like that. By reading and re-reading all of your comments I'm leaning now towards the 400+1.4x III, instead of the 300+2x III.


In that case, you should definitely look at the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. Magnificent lens. Combine that with a 70-200 f2.8L IS II and you have high quality glass from 70-560.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

Eldar said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > Well, guys, I intend to use my first big white lens on a safari trip I plan on doing in Kenya and South Africa in the near future. I also like to use it for birds, animals in the forest, and things like that. By reading and re-reading all of your comments I'm leaning now towards the 400+1.4x III, instead of the 300+2x III.
> ...



I shall definitely think about that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

Depends on what you mean by wildlife, and how close you'll be able to get. However...you can always crop, whereas you can't always back up. 

I shoot birds, frequently small ones - for me, the 600 II was an obvious choice. I did debate 500 vs. 600 for a while, but I have no regrets about the 600. I often use it with the 1.4xIII (about as often as the bare lens), and occasionally with the 2xIII. I do shoot with it handheld, I carry it on hikes. But you'd definitely want to get a monopod, and a good tripod with a gimbal head (that applies to the 300, 500, and especially the 400 as well). 

For 'general' wildlife, 500mm (on FF) is likely an optimal focal length. Wildlife is, by definition, wild - you usually can't get all that close. 

Personally, I'll likely get the 300 II at some point soon. However, while that's partly as a more portable bird/wildlife lens, it's main use will be sports, since my older daughter is now starting to participate in several.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Depends on what you mean by wildlife, and how close you'll be able to get. However...you can always crop, whereas you can't always back up.
> 
> I shoot birds, frequently small ones - for me, the 600 II was an obvious choice. I did debate 500 vs. 600 for a while, but I have no regrets about the 600. I often use it with the 1.4xIII (about as often as the bare lens), and occasionally with the 2xIII. I do shoot with it handheld, I carry it on hikes. But you'd definitely want to get a monopod, and a good tripod with a gimbal head (that applies to the 300, 500, and especially the 400 as well).
> 
> ...



As I explained above, Neuro, I'll use my first big white lens on two safari trips in Kenya and South Africa+For birds, animals in the forest and things like that.


----------



## xROELOFx (Nov 10, 2013)

I'm not really sure if this is helpfull, but something to consider is AF speed. To me this is the main difference between primes, primes + extenders or (big)zooms. Primes are just faster at it. Once you put an extender on, it will be slower. But, with small or shy subjects like birds, the longer reach you have the better.

If this AF speed really matters depends on the subject and what 'pose' you want to photograph. If your subject is stationary or does not move a lot (or moves slow), a smaller prime + extender can be excellent. For fast moving subjects you of course want fast AF. So a longer prime would be the better choice.

If that subject tends to move from/towards you often (and fast), a zoom like the new 200-400 would be a good choice as well. Since you can zoom in/out to get the subject in your FOV, it's easier to get a full body shot. With a prime you're stuck at that focal length, this can sometimes mean parts or your subject are cut off.

A nice trick I like about zooms is that it makes finding a subject easier: zoom to 200mm to get the subject in your sight, then quickly zoom to 400mm (or 560 or whatever with extender) to get the wanted framing. Finding a subject wich moves quick can be pretty difficult at the longer focal lengths, wich will often result in cut off parts like missing wing tips or worse. I have a whole collection of an eagle catching a fish who got too close 

So it really depends on what you want to shoot, where you're taking the pics, and of course your personal skills and preferences. Good luck anyway


----------



## candc (Nov 10, 2013)

i am looking at what you have listed as your gear and if i were you i would get the 200-400. you could keep the 5diii, 24-70ii, 70-200ii and sell the rest to help cover the cost of the 200-400. if you absolutely need the best iq and shoot small birds or longer distances then get the 600ii


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> As I explained above, Neuro, I'll use my first big white lens on two safari trips in Kenya and South Africa+For birds, animals in the forest and things like that.



Might want to inquire with the safari outfitters. When I was in the Serengeti, 600mm would have come in handy. In the Ngorongoro Crater, the lions came close enough for a 16-35mm to work fine. 

I think the 200-400 + 1.4x would be an excellent safari lens, you may want to rent one for that, regardless of what you decide to buy.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > As I explained above, Neuro, I'll use my first big white lens on two safari trips in Kenya and South Africa+For birds, animals in the forest and things like that.
> ...



I was thinking about renting that new 200-400. Maybe, using a zoom lens might make more sense, since one can always zoom out to frame the subject into the FOV, if it's moving outside of it, and then zoom in to isolate it.


----------



## dslrdummy (Nov 10, 2013)

Agree with neuro that the 200-400 would be an excellent safari lense. I don't have it but having just come back from Zambia and Botswana, I can tell you that changing extenders on a game drive is not to be recommended from a dust point of view. I had a 70-200 and 400 f/5.6 and often didn't have the right focal length which meant going with what I had or risking swapping in the extender. The convenience of the built-in extender cannot be over stated in my view.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

candc said:


> i am looking at what you have listed as your gear and if i were you i would get the 200-400. you could keep the 5diii, 24-70ii, 70-200ii and sell the rest to help cover the cost of the 200-400. if you absolutely need the best iq and shoot small birds or longer distances then get the 600ii



+1 8)


----------



## eml58 (Nov 10, 2013)

I do around 4 Safari trips a year to different parts of Africa, each trip anywhere between 2 weeks and as long as 6 weeks, 2013 I've spent 3 months on Safari in Africa.

If you intend/need to do a reasonable amount of Travel to get to where you intend to use the gear, consider your carry on baggage and what restrictions are going to apply, as Photographers we tend to think like Gun People, what gear always at the top of the list, the rest we feel we can take care of.

In Africa most Airlines strictly apply 8Kgs as a bench mark for carry on, I Fly Business Class where ever I can & that allows 11Kgs, on Main Airlines you won't be able to book an empty seat, but I do that on the small Charter flights between airports & the Camps, that allows me to carry more than the 20Kgs the smaller flights will restrict you to. Never ever ever ever etc, Check in Camera gear within Africa, it's a huge Business in stolen Camera gear in this Continent, won't make any difference who you Fly with, all the African airlines have the same issue, they simply cannot control theft from checked in Baggage, it's a total lottery. 

Which brings me to Insurance, complete must if Travelling in Africa, don't leave home without it. Now Lenses.

The 300f/2.8 L II goes where ever I go, always. This is the absolute fastest focussing & sharpest Lens Canon make in my experience, works absolutely well with the III Series 1.4x Converter, pretty good with the 2x. But, you need to be able to get close, in most South African situations it's the perfect Lens, generally a lot of bush, Animals are generally closer due to the amount of bush. Completely hand holdable and I almost never use it on a Tripod or Monopod.

The 400f/2.8 L II is another superb Lens, I recently sold mine, but I've been extremely Happy with this Lens both in it's series 1 form and later when i upgraded to the series 2 version. But, it's still heavy, so expect to be using it for your best shots on a tripod or a monopod. I used to always carry as standard kit the 300 + 400 and 1.4x converter. 1.4x works amazingly well on this Lens, the 2x a little soft.

600f/4 L II, superb, just a brilliant lens, lovely weight, best shots again from a Tripod or monopod, crisp & sharp. 1.4x works just amazingly well on this Lens, the 2x a little soft. I use this Lens only when I'm scheduling to Safari in the Serengeti (Tanzania) or the Masai Mara (Kenya), the Lens needs large open spaces to be worth carrying, but if you have the open areas with Wildlife further away, this is the lens to have.

As soon as the 200-400f/4 was released I was about the first in Asia (Singapore) to get one, haven't for a moment regretted getting it, just a brilliant lens. Being able to to zoom to fill the frame 200-560 f/4 to f/5.6, my Imaging has taken a leap forward, way less cropping to get the right shot, close enough at 560 f/5.6 to be just about perfect. Light enough to hand hold for short periods, but gets heavy quick, used mostly again on Tripod/Monopod or bean bag. But, you give up light, it doesn't sound like a lot, but going from the 300/400 f/2.8 Lenses to a f/4 has required an adjustment, mostly now I shoot at minimum ISO400 as a Base where I may have shot a lot with the 300/400 at ISO200 as a base, but I feel the adjustment has been worthwhile. Major added advantage with this Lens is you don't need to change out converters, it's a flip of the switch in/out, that simple, huge benefit in lost shots, dust on the sensor etc, when I use the 600 + 1.4x I generally set the Lens like that onto a 1Dx Body and that's how it stays, I'de love to see a 600 with the Converter assembly of the 200-400f/4.

My standard rig now is 300f/2.8 + 200-400f/4 for places like Botswana, South Africa, Zambia, Namibia. If the Serengeti or Masai Mara it's those + the 600 and generally a hassle with Airline Carry On rules, which I either circumvent with bringing my son/s, extra seats where possible, pay off the check in person for a tag to allow the extra carry on.

All of these Lenses work exceptionally well with the 5DMK III or the 1 Dx, but, you will miss the 12 fps of the 1 Dx on Safari, nothing quite like it, the 5DMK III at 6 fps is Ok, but (there's always a but) it can't compete with the 1Dx, for Safari, the 1Dx is the Safari tool with spades.

I hope this helps, what ever you decide you can't go wrong with any of these Lenses, enjoy your Imaging.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the Ngorongoro Crater, the lions came close enough for a 16-35mm to work fine.


----------



## stein (Nov 11, 2013)

I got the 300/2.8L IS for birds etc and is very pleased!
http://tromsofoto.smugmug.com/BirdsoftheNorth/Owls/i-7b5XBn3/0/L/JORDUGLE20130626-444A5205-L.jpg
Stein, Norway


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 11, 2013)

eml58 said:


> I do around 4 Safari trips a year to different parts of Africa, each trip anywhere between 2 weeks and as long as 6 weeks, 2013 I've spent 3 months on Safari in Africa.
> 
> If you intend/need to do a reasonable amount of Travel to get to where you intend to use the gear, consider your carry on baggage and what restrictions are going to apply, as Photographers we tend to think like Gun People, what gear always at the top of the list, the rest we feel we can take care of.
> 
> ...



Wow!!!! Many thanks for the very detailed info!!!!


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Nov 11, 2013)

@ eml58:
Thanks for the very detailled information.
And I am a bit envious about the resources you must have....


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 12, 2013)

xROELOFx said:


> I'm not really sure if this is helpfull, but something to consider is AF speed. To me this is the main difference between primes, primes + extenders or (big)zooms. Primes are just faster at it. Once you put an extender on, it will be slower. But, with small or shy subjects like birds, the longer reach you have the better.
> 
> If this AF speed really matters depends on the subject and what 'pose' you want to photograph. If your subject is stationary or does not move a lot (or moves slow), a smaller prime + extender can be excellent. For fast moving subjects you of course want fast AF. So a longer prime would be the better choice.
> 
> ...



I really wish Canon would have made a 400-600 zoom instead of 200-400. I have yet to encounter something that fills the frame on my 400f5.6, and given the amount of cropping I was doing with my 800mm mirror lens it seems like 800-1600mm would be the ideal focal length for birds. That said, I'm sure the 200-400 is absolutely brilliant for pretty much everything but birds.
Anyway, here's hoping the 800f5.6Mk2 has a built in 2xTC.


----------



## candc (Nov 12, 2013)

If you are not already shooting a crop body then get a 7d,70d for now and then the 7dii when it comes out


----------



## Methodical (Nov 12, 2013)

Wow, I guess I am in the minority here using the 500 f4. I use it and 300 2.8, but I also shoot sports, so the 500 f4 and 300 2.8 combo is more versatile for me. 

Man, it must be nice to have access to all that equipment. I may take out a loaner from CPS for the 400 2.8 II and 600 II.

To the OP. Are you a CPS member? If so, do a loaner to see which is best for you.


----------



## Methodical (Nov 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In the Ngorongoro Crater, the lions came close enough for a 16-35mm to work fine.



Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2013)

Methodical said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The Farside clip was cute, but they really did come quite close to the Land Rovers...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2013)

My wife and I were even closer to the mountain gorillas in Parc National des Volcans in Rwanda…and not inside a Land Rover.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> I am in the process of deciding which prime to get, for the time being, to use for wildlife. I have my mind set on the 300 f2.8 IS II, but I was wondering: What's the difference, practical and theoretical, between this lens and, say, the 400 f2.8, the 500 f4 , the 600 f4? The obvious answer would be the different focal lengths and, of course, price tag. But is there anything else that is significant, as far as the differences between them are concerned?! ??? :



The difference between the 300/2.8 L II and the 600/4 L II is massive. Both are phenomenal lenses, don't get me wrong, but if/when you need extra reach, the 600/4 can be paired with a 2x TC for 1200mm of bliss. Keep in mind that subject size in frame is the square of the difference in focal length. So, a 600mm lens will result in the subject being four times larger in frame. With that TC, the subject is 16 times larger in frame.

At the very least, 600mm is often the difference between needing to crop and not. With 1200mm, it is sometimes the difference between scaring off your subject, and getting the perfect shot. I have recently been trying to photograph coyotes hunting prairie dogs. At 600mm, you have to be pretty close to frame the shot nicely, and get good detail. Coyotes are always on the move, and they KNOW when they are being followed. They will even use tactics like splitting up the group in order to lead the photographer astray, so they can hunt in peace. At 1200mm, you can stay back at a relatively comfortable distance without losing the quality your looking for.

It really depends on what you want to shoot, and how much you want/can handhold. There is no question that the 300mm f/2.8 L II is a superb hand-holdable lens, and quite versatile with TCs with 420mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 options. If your primary subject is deer, elk, moose, etc. then the 300mm should be ideal. If you like to photograph more elusive subjects, like coyote or mountain goat and the like, then I would recommend the 500mm or 600mm lens and both the 1.4x and 2x TCs. Not only are goats and canines and similar animals smaller than your average deer, then often tend to be more wary and maintain a greater distance, so extra focal length really helps. 

Even in the case of deer, 600mm at a moderate distance gets you some amazing detail. This photo of a doe in the shadows of a tree at sunset was shot hand-held with the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II. I'd never seen this kind of quality and detail in a deer's fur coat from the distance I was standing until I took this shot:







Click for full size (warning, its retina size, 2880x1800, so quite large).


----------



## canon1dxman (Nov 12, 2013)

They get much closer than that....on one trip in Sabi Sabi, one Lion actually rubbed up against the legs of the tracker sat on the front wing!

Mention was made earlier of the thieving at airports. I have first hand experience.....
Flying back from The Kruger to Jo'burg on SAA, I had no choice but to put my camera bag on their trolley to put in the hold because the flight was full and their wasn't any room on board. At Jo'burg the bag didn't appear and I was told it would be on the next flight but I had seen it being loaded so I stood my found on the runway at Jo'burg. The pilot got involved, other crew too. Pilot did a personal search of the hold, nothing. I made it quite clear that I wasn't leaving the runway until they had found the $30K worth of kit and....surprise surprise, it mysteriously appeared after being found in the area reserved for pets in transit. Hidden out of site for obvious reasons....

The Farside clip was cute, but they really did come quite close to the Land Rovers...
[/quote]


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 12, 2013)

I experienced this too. You never know. It is like the lions (hyenas, not so much Jackals), and even sometimes cheetah s seem to not even notice a vehicle or anyone in it. I think it is important for that reason to have two bodies with long and short lenses. Sorry, a bit off topic.

sek


neuroanatomist said:


> Methodical said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Methodical said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Being as you are still here posting, I guessed that you were inside the vehicle


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2013)

One more tip - at least in Tanzania, there are Land Rover safaris and minivan safaris. Choose an outfitter that uses Land Rovers. If you're in a minivan, you may need help from one of the 'real' safari vehicles. We found it amusing, so did the nearby lionesses.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> One more tip - at least in Tanzania, there are Land Rover safaris and minivan safaris. Choose an outfitter that uses Land Rovers. If you're in a minivan, you may need help from one of the 'real' safari vehicles. We found it amusing, so did the nearby lionesses.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wildlife is, by definition, wild - you usually can't get all that close.


Unless you stand really still and they just walk right by you, like this little one did the other day while I was shooting Pelicans in flight. He was about 6-7 feet away (as you can see from the angle). This is the @600mm (300 2.8 IS II + 2x III), ISO 6400, 1/500s on my 5DIII, processed with the new DxO 9 PRIME. Killer combo on all fronts (forgive the white balance):







neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I'll likely get the 300 II at some point soon. However, while that's partly as a more portable bird/wildlife lens, it's main use will be sports, since my older daughter is now starting to participate in several.


I find it a killer combo with the teleconverters and as you say, it can be used for sports, landscapes, and many other things as well. I have hand held it 99% of the time no matter the light.

To the OP, I find 600mm enough reach for most wildlife, because most of what I shoot is either close enough for 600mm or way too far for an 800mm + 2x. Being able to drop down to 300mm is great for closer subjects as well, and I hear the 300 + extenders/extension tubes also make it a great macro lens for less than 1:1 work. To me, it's versatility and price trumped the other options. I'll happily rent a 600mm for trips and other occasions, though.


----------



## Skulker (Nov 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> My wife and I were even closer to the mountain gorillas in Parc National des Volcans in Rwanda…and not inside a Land Rover.



Interesting photo.

Well I never thought you would have a hair style like that ;D


----------



## Skulker (Nov 13, 2013)

I find the 300 2.8 works well with the TC's both the 1.4 and the 2. 

it's a light way to carry from 300mm to 600mm. But it takes a while to swap so you have to be ahead of the game.

I have a 100-400 and a 70-200. The 100-400 is good for wild life but not the standard of the 300. The 70-200 is a great lens and works well with the 2xTC. But of course neither of them are primes.

I've not used the 500 or 600, and of course they can be used with TC's for even more range.

If I was going to get any other lens it would be the 200 -400, and I know you didn't ask about primes but I bet its a really useful lens.


----------



## jrista (Nov 13, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Wildlife is, by definition, wild - you usually can't get all that close.
> ...



First off, great shot! Such a beautiful shorebird.

As an extra note, there is definitely something to be said about having the f/4 aperture at 600mm. Here is a Spotted Sandpiper shot with really nice, creamy boke with the 600mm at f/4:






Slap on a TC, and even at f/5.6, 840mm gets you headshot reach for even a shorebird, still with the phenomenal boke:









neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I'll likely get the 300 II at some point soon. However, while that's partly as a more portable bird/wildlife lens, it's main use will be sports, since my older daughter is now starting to participate in several.


I find it a killer combo with the teleconverters and as you say, it can be used for sports, landscapes, and many other things as well. I have hand held it 99% of the time no matter the light.

To the OP, I find 600mm enough reach for most wildlife, because most of what I shoot is either close enough for 600mm or way too far for an 800mm + 2x. Being able to drop down to 300mm is great for closer subjects as well, and I hear the 300 + extenders/extension tubes also make it a great macro lens for less than 1:1 work. To me, it's versatility and price trumped the other options. I'll happily rent a 600mm for trips and other occasions, though.
[/quote]


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> Slap on a TC, and even at f/5.6, 840mm gets you headshot reach for even a shorebird, still with the phenomenal boke:


Plus, you have a 1200mm f/8 when needed! That makes me a little jealous


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2013)

Skulker said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > My wife and I were even closer to the mountain gorillas in Parc National des Volcans in Rwanda…and not inside a Land Rover.
> ...



Lol. I still have it, albeit with a few gray hairs at the temples - three kids will do that to you. My wife got the cornrows done at the start of the trip, when we spent a week on Zanzibar before a week on safari in mainland Tanzania, then a week in Rwanda, with a day or two at various points between, e.g., Dar es Salaam.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> My wife and I were even closer to the mountain gorillas in Parc National des Volcans in Rwanda…and not inside a Land Rover.



I'de say your head was fortunately placed otherwise this Image would have been 'R' rated and not for CR consumption.

Haven't done this, hope to before I can't, your very fortunate to have been able to do it before it's something we won't be able to do at all, well done.


----------



## RGF (Nov 14, 2013)

I went from a 500F4 Mark 1 on a 1D (1.3 crop) to 200-400F4 on 1Dx (full frame). Decided there was too much overlap with 200-400 so I opted for a 600 II which I will mostly use with 1.4.

200-400 is a great lens and the zoom adds flexibility and the built in 1.4 is wonderful. Wish the 600 had a built in 1.4, perhaps Mark 3 will have it.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> Even in the case of deer, 600mm at a moderate distance gets you some amazing detail.



Of course, if you walk through the UCSC campus sometime, you'll get that shots of deer like that from a 16-35 L II at the wide end. 

I'm only half kidding. If you've never accidentally bumped into a deer and had it turn around and look at you as though to say, "Watch where you're going, you idiot," you've probably never walked through the UCSC campus.


----------



## Morlin (Nov 14, 2013)

I am also looking for a great white prime. If all goes well hopefully in a couple of months. 
I know that many of you want to answer "go and rent one" on my question but it´s hard to find a place where I can rent lenses like those where I live and it costs a lot. I prefer to spend those money on the lens itself when I buy it.

I am thinking of the reach of the 600mm. I would really like it for birds and mammals at a distance. And a 600mm would really make birds more interesting. But the question is how close can bigger animals get without only having partial body pictures of them because they fill the frame to much? I do use a 5d mkiii so at least it´s ff. Also have a 7d. 

I do a lot of deer photography. Also foxes and other mammals. Let´s say you have a fellow deer 25-30m from you will it be too close to get pictures with the whole animal and a bit of the environment? 
It´s so hard for me to imaging real life examples when it comes to the size of the animals and the distance at that focal length. 

Maybe you who have experience of wildlife photography with focal length at 600mm can give me your suggestion on this and show examples of animals photographed at a given distance to show how they fill the frame. 
I would like maximum reach but will there be too many limitations for bigger wildlife with a 600mm? 

As you see a tricky thing to answer so that´s why I am looking for pictures or examples showing what distance something was photographed at.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2013)

Let's say a typical deer is 1 m tall and 2 m longn, and you might want it to fill 2/3 of the frame for a reasonably tight shot, meaning a 2 x 3 m image. With a 600 mm lens on FF, that means you'd need to be 50 m away.


----------



## M.ST (Nov 14, 2013)

I love to use the EF 600 II lens with / or without the TC´s for wildlife shots.

For Tiger images shot from the back of an elephant I prefer the 70-200 2.8 II or 300 2.8 II lens.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 14, 2013)

What other lenses do you have?

If you are planning on buying something as expensive as the 600 f4L IS II, I assume you also buy the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. If you also have the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, you will be fairly safe in most situations.

In general with birds, there is no limit to how much focal length you would want. For wildlife, my experience is that it is very difficult to get much closer than 50-100meters. And, as Neuro's example confirms, that means you can shoot full figure of small deer at 50m, moose at 75m and elephants at just over 100m.

I had the 500 f4L (version I), which went into retirement, and for a replacement, I thought I would be happy with the 400 f2.8L IS II with extenders. But I ended up buying the 600 to get the extra reach and selling the 400. More than 75% of my pictures with that lens is with the 1.4xIII extender. I don't use 1200mm very often, but I know it's there ...


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 14, 2013)

Eldar said:


> What other lenses do you have?
> 
> If you are planning on buying something as expensive as the 600 f4L IS II, I assume you also buy the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. If you also have the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, you will be fairly safe in most situations.
> 
> ...



I bought the 600 f4L IS II (alongside the 1DX). 8) ... I already own the 2x and 1.4x extenders. ... Looking forward to my next safari in Kenya! 8)


----------



## Morlin (Nov 14, 2013)

Ok. I am pretty good at getting close to the animals =) Look like a bush and birds have landed on me several times believing I am a tree. But it truly seems good to be able to fill the frame with a deer in that distance that is mentioned. And also for birds the 600mm might be the better choice for me then. They are extremely expensive so why not get the most reach I can for the money.  I am just a bit afraid of constantly coming home with head shots of deers because they are too close but in those cases I can have the 7D body with the 70-200 instead. 

I have the 70-200 2,8 II and a 2x TC version iii. Thinking of getting the 1,4 TC also. Maybe that combination together with a 600mm ii fills my "need". 

I often read that many use the 600mm with extenders and that might be the proof that I don´t have to be too worried of getting too much reach by getting the 600mm. Especially on a FF-body. 

This is the reason why I am a member here. So many nice people with experience in both photography itself and also knowledge about gear.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 14, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Even in the case of deer, 600mm at a moderate distance gets you some amazing detail.
> ...



I work on a military firing range... it is deer central here...when I turn my head and look out the window I can see about 20 of them... You can get within 50 feet of them before they wander away and NO CAMERAS ALLOWED ON SITE  There is a flock of wild turkeys in the field and a porcupine in one of the trees....

Interstingly enough, a military firing range is the safest place for wildlife... there is nobody to chase them and shooting anything other than a target is a career ending move....


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 14, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> I bought the 600 f4L IS II (alongside the 1DX). 8) ... I already own the 2x and 1.4x extenders. ... Looking forward to my next safari in Kenya! 8)


Nice choice, I'm sure you'll be plenty happy and it should be perfect combo for your safari and lots of other shooting.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 14, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the 600 f4L IS II (alongside the 1DX). 8) ... I already own the 2x and 1.4x extenders. ... Looking forward to my next safari in Kenya! 8)
> ...



Yeppppp!


----------



## eml58 (Nov 15, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > DaveMiko said:
> ...



Well Done Dave, just to be sure, are your converters the Series III ?? To get the best out of the New Version II Lenses you need to be using Series III Converters, the Series II will work, but not as well.

The 1Dx + 600f/4 II is about as good as it gets, mine is pretty well always hooked up set to go with the 1.4x III Converter, provides the perfect accompaniment to the 1Dx + 200-400f/4.

Be careful going through Nairobi these days, I'm heading into the Masai Mara in March 2014 and I've arranged it so I don't overnight going in or out, pick up my Charter flight same day as I arrive, pick up my International same day I come back in, after the disaster they had earlier this Year Nairobi itself is off my list of spots to spend time, anytime.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 15, 2013)

eml58 said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Well, I spent almost 20k for the combo 1Dx + 600f/4 II, so, of course, I could spare (and I did) another 1k, roughly, for the 2x Mk III+1.4x Mk III. ... I think that, after what happened over there recently, Nairobi has to be one of the safest places on Earth now. Security must be even tougher than in Israel. ... That said, I don't plan on taking any chances and I shall spend the least amount possible of time in Nairobi. ... With South Africa is a different matter. I plan on getting there in March or April next year.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 5, 2013)

I find the 500 great. Although I chose it over the 600 mostly because of the price, and have to say if I could afford to, I'd probably upgrade, I have no complaints over image quality, ergonomics, or ruggedness. My walkaround combination since the f/8 autofocus update to the 5DIII is the 500+2x extender, which produces good images when stopped down to f/10, at least in good light. I'm not strong, but I can handhold that for a few hours. When it gets darker, I swap to the 1.4x extender, then the bare lens, but most birds are too skittish to allow you to get close enough for such a short focal length. I also find stacking the extenders can produce usable images if I can't get closer, although this is manual focus only and works best with support.

I'm sure for larger animals the shorter lenses would be more appropriate, but the 'never enough focal length' mantra for birds really is true in most situations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2013)

scyrene said:


> I also find stacking the extenders can produce usable images if I can't get closer, although this is manual focus only and works best with support.



Just a side note on this, you cannot stack the Canon 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders together, unless you use a small (e.g. 12mm) extension tube between them. The MkII extenders can be stacked, and 1.4xIII can be mounted behind a 2xII.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I also find stacking the extenders can produce usable images if I can't get closer, although this is manual focus only and works best with support.
> ...



Interesting! I have a 1.4xIII and a 2xII. Does using an extension tube make any difference to function, e.g. losing infinity focus?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2013)

scyrene said:


> Interesting! I have a 1.4xIII and a 2xII. Does using an extension tube make any difference to function, e.g. losing infinity focus?



Yes, it does mean loss of infinity focus, although you can still focus out quite a distance.

Since you have a 500 II, the 2xIII would be a good addition (except for the no stacking part). AF performance is better with the 2xIII, and the optical performance is better, too (the reason the 1.4x won't fit in the back of the 2xIII is that it has 2 extra elements compared to the 2xII (9 vs. 7).


----------



## scyrene (Dec 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since you have a 500 II, the 2xIII would be a good addition (except for the no stacking part). AF performance is better with the 2xIII, and the optical performance is better, too (the reason the 1.4x won't fit in the back of the 2xIII is that it has 2 extra elements compared to the 2xII (9 vs. 7).



Thanks for the info!

You're right, but I'm afraid it's far down the list of priorities. I could sell the mark II and recoup most of the cost of the new version, but I rather like the idea of keeping both, so it'll have to wait until after my next big lens purchase


----------



## Skulker (Dec 5, 2013)

scyrene said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



I've taken shots of the moon with stacked 1.4x and 2x converters separated with a 12mm extension and a 300mm f2.8. I used live view. But of course the moon is moving quite fast with that sort of magnification.

I think infinity focus may depend on the manufacture of the lens. Clearly it should theoretically loose infinity focus, and I haven't looked to see why it worked for me.

With a good stable tripod or rest this combination can work.


----------

