# Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC



## Dylan777 (Mar 7, 2014)

Hi guys,
Between the Canon 600mm f4 II and Canon 200-400mm w/ 1.4x TC, which one would you prefer? and Why?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754508-REG/Canon_5125B002_EF_600mm_f_4L_IS.html

Thanks
Dylan


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2014)

The 600 II, because I often need all the focal length I can get. The 600 II is sharper at 840mm f/5.6 than the 200-400+1.4x at 560mm f/5.6 (link). 

I bought my 600 II before the 200-400+1.4x came out, but I'd make the same choice today.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 600 II, because I often need all the focal length I can get. The 600 II is sharper at 840mm f/5.6 than the 200-400+1.4x at 560mm f/5.6 (link).
> 
> I bought my 600 II before the 200-400+1.4x came out, but I'd make the same choice today.



Thanks Neuro


----------



## candyman (Mar 7, 2014)

I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 7, 2014)

You asked which _I_ would prefer, and that's easy: the 200-400. Why? Because I'm technically incapable of using sneaker zoom (aka primes).


----------



## Lightmaster (Mar 7, 2014)

the 200-400mm.. it´s just more flexible.

maybe not the best choice for birder... but for sport and overall wildlife i think it is.

what is the sharpest lens worth when you don´t get the shoot you want?


----------



## Jeffrey (Mar 7, 2014)

I have rented both lenses, like various aspects of each lens, but for me the decision hands down is the 600mm lens. Simply an amazing lens even with TC's attached.


----------



## Vern (Mar 7, 2014)

I have the 600II and since avian photography is an area of high interest for me, I would need this lens even if I had the 200-400. My biggest wish is for built-in 1.4X's on all future 600 and 800 offerings so I can get some of the quick focal length flexibility for re-framing but keep the speed and quality of the primes.

200-400 would be ideal for larger wildlife (safari) and sports action. Improving performance at high ISO's in future sensors makes it even more attractive. When I go on safari, I will buy one.


----------



## Skatol (Mar 7, 2014)

The two have different functions. 600 for birds and such, 200-400 for sports/action of larger subjects. really depends on the intended use. As a birder the 600 with 1.4TC wins hands down and this is often not enough.


----------



## candc (Mar 7, 2014)

I don't think there is any question that they are both the best there is at what they do and that is 600+ or 560-. That's why people buy one or the other. Either you want to be able to shoot at 560 and back it down quickly or shoot 600 and be able to go to 840 or 1200 with the tc's. I am considering buying the 600ii because I shoot that range a lot and that lens is just the business. Other posters have said that its sharper with the 1.4xiii at 840 f/5.6 than the 800!


----------



## Eldar (Mar 7, 2014)

Milk or honey? Yes please, both


----------



## docsmith (Mar 7, 2014)

They are different beasts. The 600 mm is for when you want all the reach you can get. Ultimately, you'll be "zooming" by cropping the image in post. The 200-400 would be for when you need an optical zoom. Safari has already been mentioned. But there is a reason they were all over the place in Sochi. Ice skaters close to your position then the ice skaters move away from you. You need the optical zoom. The 600 mm wouldn't work well for that.

I voted 600 mm. I'd love to own both someday. But if the two were on a table in front of me and I was only allowed to pick one, I'd pick up the 600 mm. For what I shoot, I need all the reach I can get.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 7, 2014)

For $1000 instead of $12000, and a fraction of the weight, get the Tamron 150-600mm. Here is it compared at 200mm and 400mm with the Canon 200-400mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## candc (Mar 7, 2014)

What Alan says is true. I dont have the canon to do a comparison but from what iv'e seen, The tamron will give you 90% performance at 10% cost of the canon. For most of us it doesn't pay, you pay a lot for that 1stop at 400 or even more extreme: how about the extra 2 stops with the sigma 200-500 f/2.8?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2014)

candc said:


> ...you pay a lot for that 1stop at 400 or even more extreme



That's nothing new... 300/4 vs. 300/2.8, 400/5.6 vs. 400/4 DO vs. 400/2.8, 200/2.8 vs. 200/2, 17-40/4 vs. 16-35/2.8, etc.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 8, 2014)

A few months ago I had to make the same choice and I picked the 200-400/1.4x. I do not regret this choice.

Ultimately it really boils down to what you like to photograph. I use this lens for a wide variety or purposes - wildlife, sports, and landscapes. For these purposes there is no contest - the 200-400 is the best lens that can achieve all three.

If I were only photographing wildlife, or more specifically birds, then the 600/II would be the better choice. You simply need as much length as possible. If an 800/4 existed that was actually portable, I would recommend that. That being said, you can certainly accomplish a lot with 560mm.

For a real world example see this set http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157641149672084/ Three of these images were taken at 560mm, but three were not. The versatility of the 200-400 certainly wins out here.

For sports I almost never use the extender. I also find myself switching a lot between 200mm and 400mm. It is one case where a zoom is invaluable.

Finally for landscapes I am all over the place. That was really the deciding factor for me. I wanted a lens I can use for landscapes to catch the shots many landscape photographers miss. For these I rarely shoot at 560mm. 

This set illustrates the flexibility - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157640572094314/ Most of the landscape shots were not taken at 560mm, while most of the close up bird shots were. A 600/4 would have probably done an even better job, but the 200-400 certainly did a very good job.

Someday I may pick up a 600/II if I have a sudden influx of cash, but it is not a huge priority given the excellent performance of the 200-400 at 560mm already.

BTW, the Tamron is a very nice lens, but the 600/II and 200-400 are in a completely different class. There are vast differences in AF speed, image quality, and the extras that go into a top end lens.


----------



## sanj (Mar 8, 2014)

Skatol said:


> The two have different functions. 600 for birds and such, 200-400 for sports/action of larger subjects. really depends on the intended use. As a birder the 600 with 1.4TC wins hands down and this is often not enough.



Perfect.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2014)

Thanks for your thoughts guys. The poll shows 50/50, interesting.


----------



## candc (Mar 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > ...you pay a lot for that 1stop at 400 or even more extreme
> ...



True enough, there is a point where cost and weight explode. the law of diminishing returns seems very apparent when it comes to lenses


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> A few months ago I had to make the same choice and I picked the 200-400/1.4x. I do not regret this choice.
> 
> Ultimately it really boils down to what you like to photograph. I use this lens for a wide variety or purposes - wildlife, sports, and landscapes. For these purposes there is no contest - the 200-400 is the best lens that can achieve all three.
> 
> ...



Thanks kirispupis for your feedbacks and photos 

I recently bought 400m f2.8 IS II - mainly for indoor swimming and ballet. All I can say is AWESOME and now going for bit longer for outdoor activities


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Milk or honey? Yes please, both



I wish I can say that Eldar


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2014)

AlanF said:


> For $1000 instead of $12000, and a fraction of the weight, get the Tamron 150-600mm. Here is it compared at 200mm and 400mm with the Canon 200-400mm.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0



Very funny Alan ;D


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

You can already reach 400mm so only you know whether you need 600mm.

I do believe though that unless you intend to sell your excellent 400mm 2.8L IS II the choice of 600mm is obvious.

You already have 400mm... 

If you are going to carry something expensive and heavy get the 600mm...


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > For $1000 instead of $12000, and a fraction of the weight, get the Tamron 150-600mm. Here is it compared at 200mm and 400mm with the Canon 200-400mm.
> ...


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

 At maximum focal length


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2014)

tron said:


> You can already reach 400mm so only you know whether you need 600mm.
> 
> I do believe though that unless you intend to sell your excellent 400mm 2.8L IS II the choice of 600mm is obvious.
> 
> ...



Tron, my 400mm f2.8 IS II "ain't gonna go no where" 

This 600mmish will mainly be used for BIF and surfing. Speed & reach are important. Summer is right around the corner and I live 10mins away from: http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/

However, to have high quality long zoom lens is also important in many cases... :


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

Well, your dilemma reminds me of mine at the opposite site of focal lengths.

I sold my 16-35 2.8L (version I) and I wonder whether to get the 16-35 2.8L II.

Around this focal length I have just the 14mm 2.8L II, TS-E17 4L, TS-E24mm 3.5L II, 35mm 1.4L, 24-70 2.8LII : : : ( ... oh and the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 (this is not a joke I had forgotten it!)

I guess I should not get the 16-35 2.8 II and instead get the fisheye 8-15 zoom but still...

P.S To tell the truth I obviously do not carry all of them at the same time...
P.S2 I wish for a coma free 16-35 2.8L III ...


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 8, 2014)

tron said:


> Well, your dilemma reminds me of mine at the opposite site of focal lengths.
> 
> I sold my 16-35 2.8L (version I) and I wonder whether to get the 16-35 2.8L II.
> 
> ...



+1 on skipping the 16-35 and getting the 8-15. I used the 16-35 a lot more when I didn't have a mid-range zoom (16-35/50/70-xxx) With the 24-70 II as good as it is, I opt for carrying the 14 a lot more (14/24-70) if I need AF.


----------



## candc (Mar 8, 2014)

tron said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Its no joke at 500 for the tamron they look about the same, at least in the center, the tamron even looks a bit better to me?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

candc said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Almost the same at center, Tamron just a little worse at midframe and garbage at Corner.
This is not better exactly. And since in reality Tamron at 600 is about 580-585mm you have to use the tool at 600mm for Tamron if you want to compare :


----------



## candc (Mar 8, 2014)

The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.


----------



## jrista (Mar 8, 2014)

candyman said:


> I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200



I zoom with my feet. ;-) 

I chose the 600 II when I bought a big lens. Would make the same choice today, especially given that it is just as good as the EF 800 f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC attached (840mm f/5.6) and has the option to use the 2x TC for 1200mm f/8.


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

candc said:


> The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.


You can also check this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=2

Even a 100-400 L with the 1.4III extender is comparable with Tamron (just a little worse at the center but better at mid-frame and edges...)


----------



## jrista (Mar 8, 2014)

candc said:


> The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.



The Tamron is better in the center compared to the 100-400+1.4x. It is similar, but with different aberrations, midframe. The only place it really performs more poorly than the Canon 100-400 is the corner. And arguably, the center is the most important place in a lens like this for the primary target audience (i.e. birders/wildlifers w/ 7D|70D.) 

For the price, the Tamron is an excellent lens, and I honestly think Canon will have a tough time competing with it with the current 100-400mm lens. Once Canon releases a 100-400mm II, then I think things might shift a bit back towards the 100-400mm lens being the better performer (albeit at a shorter focal length.)


----------



## sanj (Mar 8, 2014)

Tron I checked.
Was really disappointed when I did further investigation. The Canon shows worse color fringing at f8. Hmmmm.


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

As I said at the center a little worse but better at mid-frame and much better at the corners. I am not suggesting to chose this but
I mentioned it as an exaggeration, just as Tamron was suggested as an alternative to the big whites. But true it is value for money...


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2014)

candc said:


> The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.



Thanks candc,
I agree  To have zoom range from 150-600 is very nice.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 8, 2014)

If Canon makes a 100-400 II for a reasonable price that significantly outperforms the Tamron, it could also put the skids under the 200-400.


----------



## candyman (Mar 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200
> ...




Good one  


Somtimes zooming with feet may result in causing the subject to fly/run away because you step on branches (by accident) With the zoom you can sit in the same position, rotate with the gimbal and zoom close and further away (even add the 1.4 ext)


----------



## Plainsman (Mar 8, 2014)

....esoteric, perhaps elitist thread but nevertheless interesting especially to someone who has to make a choice. Surely no one with both of these in his/her collection?!


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 8, 2014)

jrista said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200
> ...


If I had the money, I'd go with the 600II as well. It seems like you never have a long enough lens....

You can zoom with your feet, but many time you can't because of terrain, water, or common sense (a 24mm lens and a grizzly bear are not a good combination). For those cases you either need a long lens or a bear-proof suit. 
https://www.nfb.ca/film/project_grizzly/


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> It seems like you never have a long enough lens....


+1000


----------



## Nicolai.b (Mar 8, 2014)

For me it is the 200-400 (I have had it for a few month now, and it´s really a nice lens), I love the versatility, for me it´s a keeper.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 8, 2014)

To me the question is a bit odd. The 600mm is made for a totally different use than the 200-400. They are both exceptional lenses and outstanding for their use. When going on a trip, where I don´t bring both, it has not been difficult to choose which one to bring. 

It would be more difficult to compare the 200-400 with the 300 f2.8L IS II, with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. The 300 is clearly less flexible, but it is smaller, it gives you exceptional IQ, AF speed and a stop advantage and also very good performance with the extenders. You also have significant money saved for something else.

It´s a substantial cost to get both the 200-400 and the 600, but it would have to be for something really exceptional if I were to part with any of them.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 8, 2014)

I voted for the 200-400, simply because I don't shoot birds (or surfers). But I have no professional use for either of these lenses, and can't justify their prices for my hobby work.

(Somewhat off-topic, but no more so than the Tamron 150-600 posts) I own neither of these lenses (nor anything longer than 200mm, unless I slap in my 1.4x), but am waiting patiently for the successor to the Canon 100-400. Personally, I'm not a fan of zooms with more than a 3x range, and would like to see the 100-400 replaced by a 150- or 200-400 f/4.5-5.6, rather than a 100-400 II.


----------



## jrista (Mar 8, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



Indeed. I zoom with my feet while using one of Canon's longest lenses. The longest, when you factor in the 2x TC. My point was that there is no reason to get the 200-400, the 600 is longer in every case, and still just as flexible because, well, you can "zoom" with your feet.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 8, 2014)

tron said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.
> ...



I have tried the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC. The AF was awful. FoCal would not AFMA with it either.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Thanks for your thoughts guys. The poll shows 50/50, interesting.



Interesting, the poll still showing 50/50 between these two. And of course, the Tamron option :


----------



## tron (Mar 8, 2014)

I will tell you this: If you get the 200-400 you will still need the 600 :


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 8, 2014)

For my purposes (birding) the 600mm II is the clear choice.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 8, 2014)

No easy answer.Between the two, if I was into birding or need the distance etc I would choose the 600.

But as someone mentioned earlier once you have one of the two, you are very likely to want the other, eventually. In fact I think if you get the 200-400 you would want the 600 more, than if it were the other way round.

If it was for personal use (rather than professional use) and I was forced to choose, I would go for the 600.


----------



## eml58 (Mar 9, 2014)

Eldar said:


> To me the question is a bit odd. The 600mm is made for a totally different use than the 200-400. They are both exceptional lenses and outstanding for their use. When going on a trip, where I don´t bring both, it has not been difficult to choose which one to bring.
> 
> It would be more difficult to compare the 200-400 with the 300 f2.8L IS II, with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. The 300 is clearly less flexible, but it is smaller, it gives you exceptional IQ, AF speed and a stop advantage and also very good performance with the extenders. You also have significant money saved for something else.
> 
> It´s a substantial cost to get both the 200-400 and the 600, but it would have to be for something really exceptional if I were to part with any of them.



A agree Eldar, both these Lenses are a substantial investment for most that decide to buy either, or both, and one would imagine a serious amount of thought goes into that decision.

The 600f/4 is not your close in type Lens, it's uses are varied but going on CR and the many fine Images I've seen with the 600 exhibited here, Birders are the Lenses main stream users, followed by people like myself, Wild Life at a distance. 

The 200-400f/4 is clearly more your closer in Lens, with the option to go out to 560 albeit at a small light disadvantage with f/5.6, More suited to your Wildlife/Sports Photographer.

If I'm heading to Open Plains style Geography, Serengeti, Mara etc, I would place the 600 +1.4x in the Bag first, the 200-400 second.

If I'm heading to Okavango Delta, South Africa, Timbavati, it's the 200-400 in the bag first with the 300f/2.8 second.

In my own Imaging if I had to choose just one Lens for 90% of my Imaging, it would be the 200-400.


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > To me the question is a bit odd. The 600mm is made for a totally different use than the 200-400. They are both exceptional lenses and outstanding for their use. When going on a trip, where I don´t bring both, it has not been difficult to choose which one to bring.
> ...


You are not making it easy for Dylan, in fact you will make him want both ... for starters. Then he will have to add the 300mm 2.8L IS II ;D


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2014)

Well I understand. I do have the 500mm f/4L IS II and maybe next year the though of 300mm f/2.8L IS II will start to cross my mind :


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 9, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Absolutely not true. There are a great many occasions where it is simply not possible to zoom with your feet.
- Most sports events
- Landscape photography where you can only take the shot from one spot
- Wildlife - where moving could scare away the animal, or where you are in a blind
- Closeup photography

The 600/II is a great lens, but which one to buy really depends on whether you are a birder or not. I absolutely agree that for birders the 600/II is more appropriate (the 600/I has far fewer advantages as the 200-400 is considerably sharper). However for most other purposes, including those above, the 200-400 wins out.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 9, 2014)

I voted for the 200-400.
1. I want an 800mm lens, not 600, and even then there's a chance the SX50HS successor will take better photos at an extreme distance.
2. I've had one or two encounters with wildlife that aren't a mile away recently (always while travelling without my camera, of course), and it would be a little disappointing to happen across a moose and only be able to take close-up shots of its face before it darts back into the bush.

Really a combination of the two (800 and 200-400) would be ideal.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 9, 2014)

tron said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

Ahh, but everyone should know by now that the Tamron works best at f11. The image is actually decent, but the formula of value per dollar still revolves around available light.







JonAustin said:


> I voted for the 200-400, simply because I don't shoot birds (or surfers). But I have no professional use for either of these lenses, and can't justify their prices for my hobby work.
> 
> (Somewhat off-topic, but no more so than the Tamron 150-600 posts) I own neither of these lenses (nor anything longer than 200mm, unless I slap in my 1.4x), but am waiting patiently for the successor to the Canon 100-400. Personally, I'm not a fan of zooms with more than a 3x range, and would like to see the 100-400 replaced by a 150- or 200-400 f/4.5-5.6, rather than a 100-400 II.



If there's any way they can improve IQ at the long end by taking away some of the range at the short end, that would be my preference as well. I wouldn't mind if it were a straight up constant aperture 200-400f5.6 either, as long as it has top of the line IS and IQ that rivals the old prime then it would be an amazing lens.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 9, 2014)

tron said:


> You are not making it easy for Dylan, in fact you will make him want both ... for starters. Then he will have to add the 300mm 2.8L IS II ;D


He he; I told you so Dylan, that when you start on this route, by deciding to go for the 300, it might be a very expensive one. Then you upgraded to the 400/2.8, which, combined with the extenders, is a very flexible and high quality package, with better reach. But then you start thinking about the improved IQ at long reach with the 600 and the option of going all the way to 1200mm. And when you have done that (I assume you will ), you start thinking about the flexibility of the 200-400 or combining the 600 with the 300, which you just sold .... :

The Great Whites are very addictive and requires either fairly deep pockets to get a combo, or the ability to live with the limitations of just one of them


----------



## KitsVancouver (Mar 9, 2014)

candc said:


> The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.



Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron. Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).


----------



## KitsVancouver (Mar 9, 2014)

I only shoot birds once a year (eagles) so I don't really need the reach that often. I wanted to take photos of my 5 and 3 year old kids so I got the 200-400. For anything other than birding (and some other niche things), I would think the 600 is too long. 

The lenses really are quite different.


----------



## trandzung (Mar 9, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> I only shoot birds one a year (eagles) so I don't really need the reach that often. I wanted to take photos of my 5 and 3 year old kids so I got the 200-400. For anything other than birding (and some other niche things), I would think the 600 is too long.
> 
> The lenses really are quite different.



+1. I vote 200-400. I saving now...


----------



## AlanF (Mar 9, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.
> ...



In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10. If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy. I could not handle them. I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.


----------



## candc (Mar 9, 2014)

dang!


----------



## candyman (Mar 9, 2014)

candc said:


> dang!




Using THAT at the Olympics you know who will be the winner ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 9, 2014)

Eldar said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > You are not making it easy for Dylan, in fact you will make him want both ... for starters. Then he will have to add the 300mm 2.8L IS II ;D
> ...



Eldar, I still recalled that conversation with you and you are 100% correct 

*Off topic:*
Here are my thoughts shooting with 2 bodies. 
1. 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II - shorter range indoor/outdoor = amazing IQ
2. 70-200 f2.8 IS II + 400mm f2.8 IS II - mid range indoor/outdoor = amazing IQ
3. 70-200 f2.8 IS II with 1.4x TC III + 400mm f2.8 IS II with 1.4x TC III - longer range outdoor = happy with IQ

600mmish is in the consideration. I'm not good with math, but 600mm with 1.4x TC III would give decent lenght for BIF and surfing photography.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 9, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > To me the question is a bit odd. The 600mm is made for a totally different use than the 200-400. They are both exceptional lenses and outstanding for their use. When going on a trip, where I don´t bring both, it has not been difficult to choose which one to bring.
> ...



Thanks eml58 for a clear drawing between the two 

Be able to visit places you mentioned above would be a dream come true for me - maybe one day when the kids grow up a little bit more. 

I live in California, 10min -15mins away from Huntington Beach. It's very well known place for surfing. The summer here is quite special. Be able to capture the pro surfers will be interesting in my photography collection.

http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/


Best,
Dylan


----------



## KitsVancouver (Mar 9, 2014)

AlanF said:


> KitsVancouver said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...


I believe you are. I would be surprised if it was even 10% of people who would prefer the Tamron. Let's just pretend everyone (on this forum) wins a free lens at the camera store and they have a pile of Tamrons and a pile of Canons. I really really really doubt that given the choice, very many people are going to walk out with the Tamron. Because I deal with contracts and by nature, "paranoid", I would even say that the choice would not change much if you told them they could not sell the lens.


----------



## Aichbus (Mar 9, 2014)

ok, enough of this now. Next topic: What's the better lens: The EF 2.8 14 L or the EF 5.6 800 L?


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 9, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Great birding on that pier too. not often you get to shoot _above_ a bunch of large birds while they go fishing. I was down there for a wedding recently (which means I now have relatives in the area) and absolutely wish I would have brought my 400f5.6.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 9, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > KitsVancouver said:
> ...



You might as well ask suppose somebody offered you a 100 carat diamond studded solid gold mounted Sigma 50-500 or a plain Canon, which one would they take? That situation is just as unlikely as everyone on this forum being offered what you would suggest. If I was given a 200-400mm Canon I would never use it. And that is a fact, not a let's pretend scenario. But, if someone were to offer me a 200-400mm free of charge, I would of course accept it - that is human nature.


----------



## kasperj (Mar 9, 2014)

Just a quick observation from someone who owns the 200-400 1.4, and prior to purchase went through the same considerations.

The deciding factor for me was the compositional "freedom" that only the zoom will give you. Often you want to get in close on the subject, maybe for a vertical portrait, then back up for a horizontal shot which shows the environment. This can of course also be accomplished with 2 cameras / lenses that together cover the focal lengths needed, but switching between cameras or having to change lenses or add/remove an extender, will invariably result in missed moments


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 9, 2014)

Aichbus said:


> ok, enough of this now. Next topic: What's the better lens: The EF 2.8 14 L or the EF 5.6 800 L?



The 800 F5.6. Bought my 1DX in November 2013 and have hardly used any other lens on it, in fact I have yet to even mount a lens shorter than 300mm on it - hope they will fit!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 9, 2014)

Aichbus said:


> ok, enough of this now. Next topic: What's the better lens: The EF 2.8 14 L or the EF 5.6 800 L?



Neither. The 14/2.8L II is better than the original, and the 600/4L IS II + 1.4xIII is better than the 800/5.6.

If you really want to compare just those two lenses, it depends on your needs. The 14/2.8L makes a better hand-thrown projectile weapon, and the 800/5.6 makes a much better club.


----------



## eml58 (Mar 10, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Sigma 50-500 or a plain Canon, which one would they take?



I was Photographing the Bull Run at Pacu Jawi couple days back, of the 11 to 15 serious Photographers 4 were using the Sigma 50-500 on a mix of Canon/Nikon & Olympus, One of the Photographers is a close friend and his Images were excellent coming from this Lens on a D800 all shot on a Monopod.

I was using the 200-400 on a Tripod, have to admit when it came to running from the bulls path I envied my friends rig.


----------



## eml58 (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Be able to visit places you mentioned above would be a dream come true for me - maybe one day when the kids grow up a little bit more.
> 
> I live in California, 10min -15mins away from Huntington Beach. It's very well known place for surfing. The summer here is quite special. Be able to capture the pro surfers will be interesting in my photography collection.



Hi Dylan, I couldn't afford to get to most of these places until my mid 40's, I'de say you have plenty of time.

Huntington Beach is a lovely spot I agree, My Family & I visited the area in 2011, we drove from San Diego to Vancouver over a 5 week period, probably some of the most amazing Coastline on the Planet.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aichbus said:
> 
> 
> > ok, enough of this now. Next topic: What's the better lens: The EF 2.8 14 L or the EF 5.6 800 L?
> ...



Neuro, your title "CR GEEK" is well earned


----------



## KitsVancouver (Mar 10, 2014)

AlanF said:


> KitsVancouver said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


The point in question is whether the Tamron or Canon is preferred, ceteris paribus. 

The only reasons I can imagine for buying the Tamron over the Canon are price and weight/size. You already said you don't want a big lens so you've explained that your utility formula places a higher value on size/weight. Because this forum is full of gearheads and guys who care about IQ, I still believe that at least 90% of those on this forum would choose the Canon over the Tamron if they could afford it. 

You can go buy the Tamron.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Be able to visit places you mentioned above would be a dream come true for me - maybe one day when the kids grow up a little bit more.
> ...



Well eml58,
If you ever come by again....I would love to buy you a beer or two  and some Vietmanese food


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

tron said:


> And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D



If the size and color is same as my 400mm f2.8 IS II, she couldn't tell the diff. That why I ruled out Tamron ;D


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D
> ...


But I guess she can count... She cannot think that these things multiply by themselves ;D


----------



## KitsVancouver (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D
> ...



I'm not sure how often you go birding, but even shooting big bald eagles from across a river bank, 400mm is too short. In order to fill the frame with just the bird, I had to use a 2X extender with the built-in 1.4x extender. It was almost enough for me to go buy a 600mm but I would almost feel guilty having a lens I only used once or twice a year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you really want to compare just those two lenses, it depends on your needs. The 14/2.8L makes a better hand-thrown projectile weapon, and the 800/5.6 makes a much better club.
> ...



Lol. 

There was a question posed quite a while back on another forum - if you were to be marooned on an island and could choose only one lens, which one? I argued for the 800/5.6 on the grounds that it would be the most useful. The barrel would make a good club to open coconuts or fight off inimical wildlife, the large front element could be used to start a fire, etc.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


And if you had a camera to put behind the lens you could search for passing ships... ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

My vote goes to EF 200-400 f/4 L IS w/1.4x TC .... as I prefer zooms to primes, coz I just don't have the patience to change lenses.


----------



## eml58 (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D
> ...



That is truly very Funny, deceitfully crafty, and smart.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Nice opportunity to blackmail him for a 10% commission or we rat on him to his wife. ;D


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 10, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Maybe, but then again his wife my well be on the pradarumors.com and lvrumors.com sites chatting to her friends about the latest Louis Vuitton. She may be saying, "he thinks I do not know, but he has his eyes on this stupid lens he'll hardly ever use anyway. I hope he gets it, as I have had my eyes on the latest LV shoe and bag set for a while now. Those and a nice 2 carat gem. He won't even know, they all look the same to him!!!"


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > KitsVancouver said:
> ...



As someone else wrote, it would be more sensible to have discussion on the 300 vs the 200-400 as they overlap in focal length and the 600mm is for a different purpose. I made the decision to buy the 300mm f/2.8 II plus extenders because I care about both IQ and weight.

There is very little to choose between them in IQ. But, the 300 weighs 1.27 kg (2.8 lb) less. At 300mm it gives a stop wider aperture and better IQ at f/2.8 than the 200-400 at f/4 – see:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
At 420mm and f/4 it is nearly as good as the 200-400mm at f/4.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2
At 600mm, it is slightly better than the 200-400 at 560mm with the in-built TC at f/5.6.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1

Whereas I would never use the 200-400, I could see myself using the 600 with a 1.4xTC on the rare occasion I wanted to sit in a hide for a day, not too far from my car. So, I would take up the offer on a free 600mm.

You can go on a hike with your arm wrenching 200-400 while I will jauntily carry my 300mm as I am more concerned with celeris than ceteris.


----------



## Roo (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D
> ...



Reminds me of a story I once heard about a doctor here. Every time he replaced his 911 with a new model he got the same colour because his wife couldn't tell the difference...


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 10, 2014)

AlanF said:


> As someone else wrote, it would be more sensible to have discussion on the 300 vs the 200-400 as they overlap in focal length and the 600mm is for a different purpose. I made the decision to buy the 300mm f/2.8 II plus extenders because I care about both IQ and weight.
> 
> There is very little to choose between them in IQ. But, the 300 weighs 1.27 kg (2.8 lb) less. At 300mm it gives a stop wider aperture and better IQ at f/2.8 than the 200-400 at f/4 – see:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> ...



Sorry, but I have to disagree. The 300 is a truly amazing lens but it cannot really be compared to the 200-400 X 1.4.

People tend to buy the 300 first as a big white as it is the cheapest of the lot. The difference in price between the 300 and the 400 is pretty big, and from memory the 200-400 1.4X is a bit more on that.

So the comparison between the 200-400 (560) and the 600 is perfectly valid. And remember extenders can still be added to them both.

I frequently use the 400 and while I love the 300, they are both for very different uses.


----------



## Kerry B (Mar 10, 2014)

I am from the old camp and like to be able to carry my equipment with relative ease, hence the 300f2.8mk11, with the 1.4 extender a superb 420mm f4 lens comparible to the 400mmf4 on a 200-400 lens. The 2 x extender gives you a very good and lighweight 600mm f5.6 lens with excellent image quality.

This versitile combination costs much less than both the 200-400mm and 600mm pairing. If you want further reach use a crop camera.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 10, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> I am from the old camp and like to be able to carry my equipment with relative ease, hence the 300f2.8mk11, with the 1.4 extender a superb 420mm f4 lens comparible to the 400mmf4 on a 200-400 lens. The 2 x extender gives you a very good and lighweight 600mm f5.6 lens with excellent image quality.
> 
> This versitile combination costs much less than both the 200-400mm and 600mm pairing. If you want further reach use a crop camera.



Yes but you use the 300 for its IQ and portability. 

The 200-400 and 600 are different beasts altogether. And do not forget you can still put a 2X on a 600 and get great IQ at 1,200!!

Your point works very well too if you replace 300 with 400. But that costs a bit more. 

I may be wrong but I doubt that those who buy a (or more) new US$12,000 lens put it on a crop body (1D MIV not included) but that is something else.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 10, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> I am from the old camp and like to be able to carry my equipment with relative ease, hence the 300f2.8mk11, with the 1.4 extender a superb 420mm f4 lens comparible to the 400mmf4 on a 200-400 lens. The 2 x extender gives you a very good and lighweight 600mm f5.6 lens with excellent image quality.
> 
> This versitile combination costs much less than both the 200-400mm and 600mm pairing. If you want further reach use a crop camera.


Look at the "Any Thing shot with a 1DX" thread 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8079.msg376746#new 
and look at Edward´s (phenomenal) images of the bull run. 

Which one would you prefer in a situation like this, 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x or the 300 f2.8L IS II, with or without extenders?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Kerry B said:
> 
> 
> > I am from the old camp and like to be able to carry my equipment with relative ease, hence the 300f2.8mk11, with the 1.4 extender a superb 420mm f4 lens comparible to the 400mmf4 on a 200-400 lens. The 2 x extender gives you a very good and lighweight 600mm f5.6 lens with excellent image quality.
> ...



Neither. Either the 600 with a 2xTC at a safer distance, or, if I had to run quickly, the lightweight Tamron.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Rienz, I just removed you from my "buddy list" .........Just kidding ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


LOL..... ;D

1. Happy wife = happy me
2. Happy me = more L lenses. My need list is done. My want list is never end...

Win win situation here


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...


hmmm let's see:

Since a=b, b=c => a=c 

We have:

Happy wife = happy me, Happy me = more L => Happy wife = more L

Even school math can be confusing sometimes ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your thoughts guys. The poll shows 50/50, interesting.
> ...



Zoomy has upper hand now, interesting :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...


By the way, I was seriously considering blackmail for 10% commission, but since you have not removed me from your buddy list, I think I should also be nice and reduce my commission to only 7% of the lens price ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Your G.A.S is not any better than mine. Are you sure you want to do that? ;D ;D ;D

*OFF TOPIC:*
I'm heading to China this weekend. My co-workers and I will visit Guilin, the mountain range in the weekend there. I'll pack 5D III(x2) and 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II with 1.4x TC III. 

Can't even take my A7r with me, since I have no decent UWA for this system


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



. Buy a 16-35 f/2.8L II . There is time.
 . Hide well at home your 400mm f/2.8L IS II 
  . Come back with your new white lens ... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

tron said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Tron, it sounds like a plan  

I did have a thought about renting 16-35 II or maybe 14mm II. It only cost $150 for 2 weeks :


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


DON'T RENT IT. BUY IT! Feel some temporary G.A.S relief and save the 150$. You are going to buy it anyway. We all know that. Resistance is futile


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 10, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



Lol....lucky you...keep her close and let her know how much you cherish her...every day. Mine left me 2 years ago and is in the process of Divorcing me. The cool thing is that now I can spend my money on what I like...but I'd rather have her company than not, even after the hell she's put me and my family through over the last 2 years.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 10, 2014)

If I'm anything close to a good representation of the average single man, there's a lot of people thinking about getting a Big White sooner than later right now.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Mar 10, 2014)

For Guilin, you definitely want an UWA. I would take either my 16-35 or my 17 TSE. If you take one of the boat rides, you will miss many shots without an UWA. 

Make sure your dishes and cutlery on the boat are clean too.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

tron said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Tron, it sounds like a plan
> ...



I'll stay humble this time and put that $1300 toward to 600mmish lens


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Lol....lucky you...keep her close and let her know how much you cherish her...every day. Mine left me 2 years ago and is in the process of Divorcing me. The cool thing is that now I can spend my money on what I like...but I'd rather have her company than not, even after the hell she's put me and my family through over the last 2 years.



I'll keep your advice GMCPhotographics 

One of my co-workers went through this situation last year. It wasn't easy process for him. I'm trying to cut down my traveling as well. The wife wasn't happy lately, since we now have 2 kids 3& 5yrs. Believe it or not, this is my 2nd times to China in 2014. I still have at least 3 more trips coming ??? 

Your situation, I hope everything will go well for both parties.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 10, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> For Guilin, you definitely want an UWA. I would take either my 16-35 or my 17 TSE. If you take one of the boat rides, you will miss many shots without an UWA.
> 
> Make sure your dishes and cutlery on the boat are clean too.



Thanks KitsVancouver for the info.

renting an UWA is my best option at this time


----------



## HankMD (Mar 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > And now Dylan a tough question. Actually a very tough one: Does your wife know? Does she even know about this poll? ;D ;D ;D
> ...



I painted my Tamron white in preparation for a future upgrade (to Canon 600/4 II)


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Honestly for guilin forget long glass,
I took a 70-200 and 2x tc there, i used the 70-200 bare for the night performance in yangshuo but very little otherwise
tried it with the 2x tc from the boats but its just not long enough, 90% of my shots were 16-35 f2.8L II and a few 50mm f1.4

i'm back in shanghai this weekend and the surrounding area next week but epicly busy with work. might try go take some pics on the weekend maybe do some night stuff.

edit: just checked your gear if i were you get the 14mm samyang take your 24-70 and the 135L and done forget everything else.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D 
I thought you bought the Sony 10-18mm UWA lens, I know it had some funky color issues to the left edges of the frame, but I thought the image itself quite decent, wouldn't that lens do the job for your trip?

By the way, speaking of GAS, I ordered two white lens hoods (for my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II & 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS lenses), they should be arriving before next Monday ... so I can pretend that my 100-400 L IS is a 200-400 L lens ;D ... and here is the screen shot of the order


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 12, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 12, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



I returned the Sony to BH. Besides the funny looking colors, the IQ doesn't look right(that just me of course).

Are you having fun with 70d + 100-400?  Any photos want to share?

For me, it will be hard to go back to crop. I do miss 1.6x factor sometimes


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Are you having fun with 70d + 100-400?  Any photos want to share?


Yes very much ... its a nice combo and when I receive the white lens hood, I'll pretend its a 200-400 L IS lens ;D ... here are a few pics from last Thursday (all the images are cropped to death)


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you having fun with 70d + 100-400?  Any photos want to share?
> ...



Awesome
I really like 2nd and 3rd photo


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Thanks for the kind words ... I was quite surprised by how much I could corp the images from the 70D and still end up with a relatively decent image.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 13, 2014)

I believe this thread is one of those who lost track of the theme ... :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I believe this thread is one of those who lost track of the theme ... :


Sorry, excuse the poor ... some of us can only dream of owning 600 or the 200-400, so participating in these threads & pretend that our el-cheapo lenses are related, is the closest we can get to those fancy lenses   ... having said that, I apologize for side tracking this thread and now I shall quietly leave this thread so it can serve its intended purpose.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 13, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I believe this thread is one of those who lost track of the theme ... :
> ...


No worries and please continue with your contributions. It was merely an observation


----------



## eml58 (Mar 13, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I believe this thread is one of those who lost track of the theme ... :



It has, but the derailment of the 600/300/200-400 & Tamron 50-600 thread makes this one look positively on the ball.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Hi guys,
> Between the Canon 600mm f4 II and Canon 200-400mm w/ 1.4x TC, which one would you prefer? and Why?
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html
> ...



Couple CR buddies asked me about pulling trigger on 600mmish lens 

I have decided not to get the 600mmish for at this moment. Maybe when the kids grow up and I have more time for wildlife. It just too much money for one lens that I might not use often.

My 400mm f2.8 IS II + 1.4x III TC will be my telephoto lens for now.

Dylan


----------



## Eldar (Apr 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys,
> ...


And the majority of CR readers will say; Lucky you!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys,
> ...



Why don't you use the 2x TC? Too much loss of IQ?


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I haven't try it yet. I expect similar result as 300mm f2.8 IS II with x2 TC III. With 1.4x TC III, the IQ is still wonderfull. 

Primary reason I bought this lens is be able to shoot indoor @ f2.8. I use my 400mm very often for indoor swimming and ballet.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 26, 2014)

if money is the issue why not look at the tamron 150-600?

I mean thats why I picked it up as its a bargain and for my usage its perfect. ie just getting into supertele shooting
and birding.

If I were shooting long stuff all the time or professionally I would opt for the 200-400 though, eventually I can see myself stepping up to this lens but until that time I think the Tamron suits my limited needs perfectly for now.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 26, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> if money is the issue why not look at the tamron 150-600?
> 
> I mean thats why I picked it up as its a bargain and for my usage its perfect. ie just getting into supertele shooting
> and birding.
> ...



"Not enough time in the day" is my issue. Still very busy with kids in the weekend,plus works. Maybe when the kids off to college ;D

We just got back from Spring Break, school festival - shooting with 5D III + 70-200 f2.8 IS II + 1.4x TC III = AWESOME


----------

