# I've started shopping for Great whites... and I mean great... someone stop me.



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad." 

I remember fondly when I spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 and I thought that was a lot of money... I'm off to bed... this bug will surely pass before I wake.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 1, 2014)

Once your mind start thinking about the BIG WHITE, you pretty much bought it - THE END 

1D body becomes a piece of cake after ;D


----------



## apacheebest (Jul 1, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Once your mind start thinking about the BIG WHITE, you pretty much bought it - THE END
> 
> 1D body becomes a piece of cake after ;D



HAHAHA, i got this GAS for a 500mm f/4 Version II lately , dont know when it will knock me Off 

Anil George


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad."
> 
> I remember fondly when I spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 and I thought that was a lot of money... I'm off to bed... this bug will surely pass before I wake.



I always try to imagine the 1DX or 'great white' value equivalent in other really good and useful camera gear, so I end up buying lots of other stuff to satisfy my need ;D I do already own three 'little whites' already though... :


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 1, 2014)

Judging from who is answering here, you are sunk.

My prediction, along with sugar plumb fairies dancing in your head, you will be dreaming of clicking "check out now" on B & H tomorrow morning.

I'm thinking 1DX personally, however that's me. Tell us which one you buy.

sek


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad."
> 
> I remember fondly when I spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 and I thought that was a lot of money... I'm off to bed... this bug will surely pass before I wake.


Oh my GAS... 

JD, if you really want/need "help"  and if it's possible to get through this fog of GAS  here it is: 
TRY TO STAY RATIONAL:
1. Can you afford it? That means pay for it out of the wallet? ==> If not: HANDS OFF! (And stop reading)
2. Do you really need it? (Means not necessarily for business but really improving your photography, and often use it)
==> Yes: Enjoy your new toy! But you should continue reading. 
No: continue reading!
3. Is there any relationship/partnership that will suffer from this?
==> Yes: HANDS OFF! People are always more important than some piece of glass.
No: Enjoy your new toy!

I hope that helps!


----------



## FEBS (Jul 1, 2014)

I know the disease.

December 2013 I bought a 300/2.8 II. Last week a 1Dx. But now already thing about the 200-400 1.4.

happy shooting !!


----------



## charlesa (Jul 1, 2014)

I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.


----------



## dancook (Jul 1, 2014)

When I bought the 200mm f2 there was a severe decline in GAS, maybe it'll be a good thing


----------



## Menace (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> .. I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's...



Well, the big question is which one first? 


(I vote for 400 2.8 as I'm highly biased)


----------



## Niki (Jul 1, 2014)

200-400


----------



## tomscott (Jul 1, 2014)

I have too.

There is a big jump in price, the 400 Do would be perfect if its image quality was better than the 100-400mm for its weight and size.

Im guessing the 500mm F4 II is the most popular for birding? being longer than 400 and nearly a KG less? and more than F2.8 is needed for wildlife for decent DOF?

Ive been doing the same and with the high ISO capabilities of the 5DMKIII justifying at the cheapest £6000 more than the 400 F5.6 when its IQ is stellar and comparable to the other big whites although a few stop slower, no IS and its weight is 1/3 any of the big whites. IS isn't necessary when shooting at such high shutter speeds but its nice to steady the viewfinder!!

If only they made one with IS…. It would be perfect.

I went to the Farne islands this weekend and there were plenty of guys with the big whites but they were laden with massive tripods with gimbal heads and looked nakard! Just seems a pain in the ass to shoot with, difficult to track as the closer the birds came overhead you and the camera body need to go really low almost crouching on the ground while attached to a tripod and your just not free when using tripod.

After having my 40D and battery grip with 24-105mm and 5DMKIII with 70-200mm II and 2x extender strapped to my shoulders and my bag on all day with 8 hours of shooting my arms were tired. Im 26 and a pretty fit strong guy so I hate to think what they were like carrying the big lenses and tripod all day.

Another issue I saw was where we were was very close to the cliffs and about a foot over the fence was a huge drop. The cliffs weren't particularly flat obviously and the guys were having trouble getting the tripods stable enough to shoot, then when the light changed and they needed to move position it was like a mass migration, there was me just laughing away to myself.

Also while on the boat the lenses were too big for them to quickly get the lens set up and shoot where as the guys with the 100-400, 70-200mm with extenders, 70-300mm, 400 and 300mm primes managed to get up and shooting really quickly, so there are pretty big positives to being mobile.

Another question is how come they can make a really nice compact 300mm F4 IS and not a 400mm F4 IS that isn't DO, I suppose the reason is it would be smaller cheaper lighter and make the 2.8s less attractive?

Obviously I would love one, a 300 F2.8 400 F2.8 or a 500 F4 who wouldn't but there has to be some kind of balance between weight, usability, size and price. Which keeps bringing me back round to the 400 F5.6…

I think the 200-400mm would be my perfect lens is the best of both worlds but its still 3620g and massive!

It makes me wonder even more when I was shooting with the 70-200mm F2.8 II with just a MKII 2x extender and the IQ I've been very surprised with, I wasn't expecting brilliant results but they really are pretty good… The AF did hunt a little but was still pretty impressive with the 5DMKIII.

This is a 100% crop from that combo.



Puffin, Farne Islands, Seahouses by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

5DMKIII 70-200mm F2.8 IS II 2x extender MKII, F7.1, 1/2000, ISO 640

Obviously I don't really have any experience with the big whites so these are just observations of one trip. So any thoughts are most welcome


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad."
> 
> I remember fondly when I spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 and I thought that was a lot of money... I'm off to bed... this bug will surely pass before I wake.



honestly i was seriously looking at the 200-400 but could not justify the price then i decided the tamron 150-600 was so cheap it was worth a shot for my limited usage its gold while it definitely cant hold a candle to the 200-400 its still impressive and worth a look if you are in a similar situation


----------



## distant.star (Jul 1, 2014)

.
This is not a "shopping" issue.

It's an investment issue.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Once your mind start thinking about the BIG WHITE, you pretty much bought it - THE END
> 
> 1D body becomes a piece of cake after ;D



I buy and sell gear to support my gas... kinda like a heroine junkie selling pot to find the addiction. And so I have to earn the money I use to buy new stuff... So it puts me at an acceptable pace... but I did the math and I'll be in reach... not quite there, but in reach. 

I do my best not to lose money on a lens purchase, that way I can essentially rent it for free when I decide to sell it... but I don't think that is a real option with the greats...


----------



## sanj (Jul 1, 2014)

charlesa said:


> I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.



I request you to reconsider. 'Make sense' is subjective. To me, spending a little money on doing creative things that makes one happy makes sense. Life is short, we should do what we can.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

scottkinfw said:


> Judging from who is answering here, you are sunk.
> 
> My prediction, along with sugar plumb fairies dancing in your head, you will be dreaming of clicking "check out now" on B & H tomorrow morning.
> 
> ...


I've bought the. 200-400 before, just to see how it felt.... but I didn't give a valid form of payment. So I got a taste of the shipping experience, but neither the reward or the dirty looks from the wife.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

charlesa said:


> I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.



I did net fifteen bucks the other day from selling a print... So yeah... buy it now.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad."
> ...



Thanks. When I played golf I didn't want my gear to be the reason I didn't break par... So I bought good gear, let's say comparable to a 7d, and then my only excise for not breaking par was on me. I have a similar attitude with my photo gear... So I'm not sure I can go downthat route... but I'm pretty sure I can hold off on getting a great white until it is warranted.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 1, 2014)

charlesa said:


> I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.



Not everyone here doing photography for living. The enjoyment holding, feeling, shooting the BIG WHITE is priceless. The excitement when you lock on BIF through view finder through BIG WHITE is something I can't describe.

I bought my 400mm f2.8 IS II NEW ($10,500)from Canon US authoutrized dealer about year ago. If you look at the price today: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732109-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html


----------



## Spectrum (Jul 1, 2014)

First time poster, long time reader. Glad to be here...

GAS is chronic and incurable. All you can do is hope that therapy will put it into remission. I have found that buying that big ticket item works wonders for GAS for a while--at least six months or more in remission after purchase. But it will eventually come back...


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> but I'm pretty sure I can hold off on getting a great white until it is warranted.


Good luck with your affliction ;D. Also, here's a recent review of the 200-400 by Bob Atkins and the quote below sums up why I bought the 300 f/2.8 IS II, which with the extenders and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (which I already had), is so versatile:

"Well, for $11,700 you could buy a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, a 1.4x III extender, and a 2x III extender and still have $1700 in your pocket! Of course with 2 lenses and two extenders you’ve a lot more gear to haul around and you don’t have as much telephoto zoom capability, but you do have a faster 300mm lens and you do have 70-200mm (at f2.8) covered too."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2014)

sanj said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.
> ...



+1

Justifying a 'great white' from a business standpoint would be a bit challenging. Wildlife and freelance sports shooters would need to be at the top of their field for revenues to balance an expense like that (most white lenses at events aren't owned by individuals), and if a purchase can't pay for itself it's poor business practice to spend the money. 

But for a hobby, there's no need to justify...as long as one can afford it. 

FWIW, the 300/2.8 II is next on my list.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L? I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present. I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii. 

That would give me the following:

70-200mm. @f2.8.
400mm @ f2.8
90-280mm @ f4
560mm @ f4
140-400mm @ f5.6
800mm @ f5.6

Mmmm... that sounds delicious.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 1, 2014)

Have you tried your 70-200mm with 2x MKIII?

Try it out first before hand you may surprise yourself at how good it is! Certainly did for me.

The most challenging thing is keeping the bird in frame with a prime its even more difficult if its flying toward you. With the zoom my technique is to track the bird at 70mm (140mm with the 2x) then as its coming toward you zoom into 400mm or what ever tele you need to try to fill the frame. Its a lot easier but obviously you loose a little AF speed canon quote 75% but I think this is worst case scenario from digital picture review he explains how the AF speed isn't really an issue with MKII lenses and MKIII extenders. I didn't have any trouble following Puffins and they are quick and unpredictable.

Next on my list is a MKIII extender I think


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L? I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present. I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii.
> 
> That would give me the following:
> 
> ...


I don't think you can go wrong with either, but I prefer the smaller size and (mostly) handholdable weight of the 300mm. The price is a little better, too  And yes, the 70-200 f/2.8, 98-280 f/4, 140-400 f/5.6, 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, and 600 f/5.6 are rather nice for anything other than distant critters and little birds. 

Also, to mirror Neuro's comment, the 600 f/4 II is on my list 8)


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez, if that kinda money is no object, then your dreams are like most of us, only for us, they remain just dreams. Happy shopping and enjoy the investment!


----------



## rs (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Ok... while I'm walking down this road... 400mm or 300mm f2.8L? I have the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii at present. I would need to upgrade my 1.4x mkii to the mkiii and get a 2x mkiii.
> 
> That would give me the following:
> 
> ...



Which lens to go for really depends on budget, long term plans, and shooting style.

The 70-200 II works so well with 1.4x TC's that it can almost render the bare 300/2.8 II pointless for anything but wider than f4 shots. Obviously the sharpness, bokeh and AF speed take a step up, but it's not like they're lacking on the 70-200 II. However, once the 300 II is combined with a TC, the 300 gains a very real advantage.

Therefore, if you go by the adage that you should buy the lens whose native length is what you primarily intend to shoot with, you could argue that the 400 II makes more sense to pair with a 70-200 II as the only big white in your kit.

The 200-400 on the other hand buys you flexibility. It does next to nothing the 70-200 and 300 together with a selection of TC's does, other than allow you to go from 200 to 560 without any messing about with lens changes and adding/removing TC's, and save you a little bit of bulk to lug around. Looking at it the other way, the 70-200, 300 and TC combo does give you an extra stop at 200mm and 300mm, options wider than 200mm, and slightly more reach at f5.6, together of course with a lot of spare change.

Compare the 200-400 to the 400 II, and the cost gap narrows while the prime advantage widens (f4 at 280mm with both, but one stop faster at 200, 400 and all subsequent telephoto lengths).

If I was somehow in your financial position, I'd be torn between the 200-400 and the 400 II.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 1, 2014)

Weight is a big issue too. 

400mm F2.8 MKII is 3850g
200-400mm F4 1.4 is 3620g

300mm F2.8 MKII is 2350g

1500g less than the 400mm and 1270g less than the 200-400mm

Add a 5DMKIII 860g
or a 1DX 1530g

teleconverters 
2x MKIII 325g
1.4x MKIII 225g

The 300mm in this respect wins big with weight and size, and doesn't suffer too badly in IQ, but AF is reduced.

Tough one. The 200-400mm is the all in one field lens, it near enough matches the 400mm F2.8 II at F4.

The dark horse is still the 400mm F5.6

Its only 1250g and out-resolves the 300mm F2.8 at 420mm at 5.6, almost matches the 400mm F2.8 MKII at 5.6. 

It is also £4000 cheaper than the 300mm and £5,500 cheaper than the 400mm. Thats pretty much a no brainier for most. Only problem is putting tele converters on it makes it a 560mm F8 or 800mm F11.

Saying that the 400mm F5.6 with 1.4 MKIII converter outperforms the 400mm F2.8 IS MKII at 560 at F8 in the corners and is only very very slightly softer in the centre. Almost indistinguishable. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=741&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

But it will still focus like an F4 lens rather than the speed of F8.

A 400mm F5.6 IS would be a beast, even better the lens I crave 400mm F4 IS NON DO.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 1, 2014)

I guess these are the problems you want in life. ;D ;D


----------



## applecider (Jul 1, 2014)

Have you handled a larger great white? I'd suggest that you do and decide if you want a hand holdable or not. 

The 400 is ii us m and 600 ii is usm are for me marginally hand hold able (and thus less good for difficult birds in flight). I have no experience with the 200-400.

The 300is ii usm and to a lesser degree the 500 ii usm are hand holdable and the 300 for sure takes extenders really well. The MTF would indicate that the 500 does so very well as well.

So Id go for the 300 or the 500 unless you are in very good shape in which case any of the great white sharks would work for you. If I were to buy a 500 I'd consider camera canada as they have a deal on the 500....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 1, 2014)

Interesting and valuable comments here for anyone thinking about buying. I'm hobby and can almost afford some of these toys but a little thought about other things in life that are important really creates self restraint in me. 

I'd like to travel a little to places where photography would be really exciting. These places can be dangerous, with theft a big issue not to mention one's personal well being. Then there is the issue of lenses and cameras that must board a plane and be lugged around with you constantly if you can't trust the security of the cheaper accommodation or only accommodation that's available. Even taking my 300 2.8 II worries me.

Then as a tourist there is the issue of varied activities and having heavy/bulky gear that wears you out. The 300 with converters is as far as I’m prepared to go because I’ve now verified after a year that I can handle it for some hours hand-held. I realize that a 400 2.8 would have been a BIG mistake, for me, as would the 600 since I don’t want a tripod most of the time. Many folks here have said much the same.

As we all know my 6D is not great for BIF and I regret that but the purchase was made with eyes wide open - an eventual back-up camera with either a new release 7D II as the next addition or maybe a 5D III or a 1DX. 

Similar dilemma. The 1DX is worth drooling over but my friend bought it and yes it is bulky and heavy - man I don’t want that weight!! So I bought a used 1D2 for peanuts to play with. Pretty good AF and fast shutter - ooh nice. Weight added to 300 X2 NOT nice AT ALL. Like the straw and the camel for me. Takes a hike that’s enjoyable and makes it much less enjoyable. However, I have a medical pain/fatigue issue so I’m handicapped and a healthy younger person may not have the same breaking point as I have. Still the principle is applicable. 

Likewise I’ve bought a 40 D for peanuts so I could see how I might react to a crop with the 300 and converters. The 7DII will have to be a LOT better or a crop is not what I’ll buy. AF is just too slow and the accuracy is poor, but it’s old technology. 

The concept of finding a great deal on something similar that can be easily sold while breaking even, is a good way to get your feet back on the ground so that there is more objectivity displayed relative to a potentially irrational purchase.

I’m as happy as the day I bought it - 6D, 300 X2 has been an awful lot of fun for a pretty reasonable price. 

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2014)

applecider said:


> Have you handled a larger great white? I'd suggest that you do and decide if you want a hand holdable or not.



I find the 600 II to be handholdable as a bare lens, less so with an extender. I'd owned my 600 II for over a year before I tried out a 300/2.8 II - that made the 300 II seem tiny and light.


----------



## eos650 (Jul 1, 2014)

I'm in the market for a 400mm f2.8L IS II. I had planned to buy it mid April, once I got my tax return. Unfortunately, on April 1, everyone decided to abide by Canon's MAP and raised the price several hundred dollars.

The 400 will make my life easier, but I can certainly wait a bit longer. My other equipment is up to the task for most of what I do. It just means I have to be a bit more selective about where I shoot from and do a bit more work in post.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

applecider said:


> Have you handled a larger great white? I'd suggest that you do and decide if you want a hand holdable or not.
> 
> The 400 is ii us m and 600 ii is usm are for me marginally hand hold able (and thus less good for difficult birds in flight). I have no experience with the 200-400.
> 
> ...



Sometime soon I'm going to the b&h super store in nyc, so I'll see how they feel.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 1, 2014)

Plan a local birding or sport weekend, and rent a Big White, say, the 500 f/4 I or II, mid-weight to heavy. If you don't have a suitable gimbal head, lens plate, tripod, rent those as well. Can you handle the hand held weight of the Big White? Can you walk around all day without getting tired? Do you like using a Big White on a gimbal head? 

If the answer is yes, consider renting one by one the other Big Whites under consideration. By the end of it all, you may have paid 1/10 the price for one of the Big Whites in rental fees, but you will have a clear idea of which one is for you.

I get the GAS for Big Whites occasionally, specifically for the 600 f/4 L IS II. I put off the day of getting serious (I could budget for one, fortunately, given a little time) until I can easily do 15# biceps curls endurance sets and easily perform a stiff stair-climbing routine with 25# or more weights. I am a scrawny older woman, and not there yet. I also tell myself that fieldcraft matters more than having the most expensive lens - TRUE! In the meantime, I shoot with my beloved 400mm f/5.6L Small White, handheld - the lens Art Morris of Birds As Art calls his "toy lens". It is a snap to carry this around all day, and the image quality is excellent. 

See how you can "beat", or at least keep at bay, Big White GAS?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.
> ...



+1, if a financial return on investment is the point of photography, then my photography is completely pointless.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

Generally I shoot sports. I like the movie Big Year, but I don't really care much about birds. 

The 70-200 has been leaving me wanting lately... which is the reason for the gas. 

And I pulled back on the throttle for the 400mm f2.8L... I looked at that price tag again and it was like cold water in the face...


----------



## Northstar (Jul 1, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > charlesa said:
> ...




+1

The money I started saving when I quit playing golf has quickly been eaten up by my GAS


----------



## Northstar (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Generally I shoot sports. I like the movie Big Year, but I don't really care much about birds.
> 
> The 70-200 has been leaving me wanting lately... which is the reason for the gas.
> 
> And I pulled back on the throttle for the 400mm f2.8L... I looked at that price tag again and it was like cold water in the face...



JD...I have the 300 2.8 is and like you, mainly shoot sports.....the addition of this lens is huge for field sports and night games. It's my money maker.

Look what I see..... ;D :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2-8-L-IS-USM-Lens-with-Hood-Caps-Case-/121364494388?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c41e33834


----------



## viggen61 (Jul 1, 2014)

applecider said:


> Have you handled a larger great white? I'd suggest that you do and decide if you want a hand holdable or not.
> 
> The 400 is ii us m and 600 ii is usm are for me marginally hand hold able (and thus less good for difficult birds in flight). I have no experience with the 200-400.
> 
> ...



Different strokes for different folks!

I know a photographer that almost exclusively handholds a 1D4 with an 800 f/5.6, but others who think a 100-400 like mine is "too much lens to carry"...

Personally, I'd likely opt for the 500 as well. I rented a 500II last year, and it was spectacular! Adding my 1.4xIII helped in the reach department as well, and hardly affected the images my 7D captured.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > charlesa said:
> ...


+1, +1, +1
Dreaming about 200mm f2.0, having already the 200mmf2.8, 2.8 is for business, 2.0 for family and friends.
Justify that.


----------



## Menace (Jul 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> The 70-200 has been leaving me wanting lately... which is the reason for the gas.



+1 

For sports I use 70-200 on my 5D (on BR7) and 400 on 1dx(CF monopod) - works a treat. 

Also, at 5'5" tall with slight build - I can hand hold the 400 / 1Dx combo for BIF. Just depends what one can adapt to - years ago the 70-200 used to feel heavy!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 1, 2014)

Menace said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200 has been leaving me wanting lately... which is the reason for the gas.
> ...



+1 with Menace,

With 2 bodies. 
Indoor: 24-70 II + 70-200 
Outdoor: 70-200 + 400

I used BR dual strap to shoot with these combos. Missing shot is almost impossible. Photo below is hand held, 1DX + 400mm f2.8 IS II. The X provides excellent tracking in AI servo. My 5yrs didn't pass DMV, she was moving left to right constantly while driving toward me.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

Northstar said:


> +1
> 
> The money I started saving when I quit playing golf has quickly been eaten up by my GAS



I liked golf... but I wan't good at it. On my best day I would be a bogey golfer... and on my worst day I didn't leave the bar between the 9th and 10th hole. So... this is better.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 1, 2014)

Northstar said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Generally I shoot sports. I like the movie Big Year, but I don't really care much about birds.
> ...



While I have ya'll ear... is there an appreciable difference between the original and mkii version of the 300mm f/2.8?


----------



## tomscott (Jul 1, 2014)

Weight, sharpness and IS

2550g, Closest Focusing Distance: 2.5m / 8.2 ft. 3 stop IS, Length x Diameter: 252 x 128mm

VS

2350g, Closest Focusing Distance: 1.9m / 6.5ft, 4 stop IS, Length x Diameter: 248 x 128 mm	

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=249&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Not a huge difference. MFD is helpful tho.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> While I have ya'll ear... is there an appreciable difference between the original and mkii version of the 300mm f/2.8?



Bare lenses, not too much optically. Add a 1.4x or especially a 2x TC, the differences become much more significant.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 2, 2014)

Hi Northstar. 
Now that was just naughty! You could start a bidding war with all the people here that want one! ;D

Cheers Graham.



Northstar said:


> Look what I see..... ;D :
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2-8-L-IS-USM-Lens-with-Hood-Caps-Case-/121364494388?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c41e33834


----------



## NancyP (Jul 2, 2014)

Dylan777, your kids sure are cute!
In other news, if you want to make your Big White seem reasonably priced, check out the EF 1200mm thread. Ebay has it at ~$70,000.00 now.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jul 2, 2014)

tomscott said:


> I have too.
> 
> There is a big jump in price, the 400 Do would be perfect if its image quality was better than the 100-400mm for its weight and size.
> 
> ...


The sharpness of that shot is very impressive - better than I can get from the 70-200 with 2x extender.
I was also very happy with the IQ of my 400 5.6 but I sold it a month ago and replaced it with a 300 2.8ii, my first big white. I personally think the 300 is a huge upgrade in IQ and obviously speed and for me, even as an amateur, worth the 'investment'. Shot it at a football match on Saturday for the first time and mostly wide open and was staggered at the results. Almost makes me look like I know what I'm doing. Can't wait to try it with the extenders. The step up from 300 is a stride too far for me though and I'll rest here (for now).


----------



## nonac (Jul 2, 2014)

charlesa said:


> I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.



And why is that? Some people, like myself, enjoy photography as a hobby, not for a commercial endeavor. I have roughly $17k in gear now and I'm looking to add a $10k+ lens next year. I know hobby fisherman that have $25-30k in boats or weekend motorcyclists that have $20k in a custom Harley's. Photography as a hobby is no different.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jul 2, 2014)

nonac said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.
> ...


+1


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 2, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Have you tried your 70-200mm with 2x MKIII?
> 
> Try it out first before hand you may surprise yourself at how good it is! Certainly did for me.
> 
> ...



Its OK but the tamron leaves the 70-200 +2x mk3 combo for dead as far as servo performance goes IQ i guess is not too different and this is coming from a once confirmed Tamron hater! i still carry the 2xTC with the 70-200 as an in case but if I know i'll be shooting long stuff I take the tamron


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 2, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried your 70-200mm with 2x MKIII?
> ...


I find the 1.4x a perfect match for the 70-200 lenses, but the 2x makes the 70-200 long and unbalanced from an ergonomic perspective. The AF is also pretty slow as wickedwombat points out, but it's great to have the 2x with you in case you need it. Also, I did some comparisons and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III is nearly as sharp as the bare 400 f/5.6 @ f/5.6 and f/8. The differences were only visible at 100% magnification.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 2, 2014)

Ok... let's say my pocketbook started suggesting some chapter options... like the 300mm f4 is... a little over a grand... 420mm at 
F5.6...

And I save nearly nine grand.... 
Thoughts m


----------



## tomscott (Jul 2, 2014)

The tamron seems like a good option brilliant range and reviews look promising, but haven't heard brilliant things about the AF? Especially the digital picture review. seems Its a good option up to 500mm 600 looks a bit soft. Pretty much equals or beats any zoom canon offers up to 400mm and beats them all from 500-600mm as there is no zoom with that range.

What about weather sealing? I would worry about where I would use it, usually in fairly harsh environments dusty and wet live in Cumbria so it rains 90% of the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Ok... let's say my pocketbook started suggesting some chapter options... like the 300mm f4 is... a little over a grand... 420mm at
> F5.6...
> 
> And I save nearly nine grand....
> Thoughts m



The IQ of the 100-400L is a bit better than the 300/4 + 1.4x, and gives the convenience of a zoom and not having to muck about with a TC. I'd recommend picking up a used 100-400 – that way, when you eventually give into temptation (you know you will, right??), you won't lose much when you sell the 100-400L because you're not using it anymore.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 2, 2014)

100-400mm is pretty good in the centre which is where you want it to be sharp for birding and wildlife.

Only issue is a new one may be on the horizon for sept, but probably at least twice the price.

100-400mm equals the 400 F5.6 in the centre 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## sanj (Jul 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Ok... let's say my pocketbook started suggesting some chapter options... like the 300mm f4 is... a little over a grand... 420mm at
> ...



Perfect advice neuro. And this lens may be just perfect for OP for a long time….


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 2, 2014)

NancyP said:


> check out the EF 1200mm thread. Ebay has it at ~$70,000.00 now.



Yikes! I would have a hard time spending that much on a car!!!  

$70K on a piece of glass. No problem getting that approved by the Central Committee. Not hard at all. :'(


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 2, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > check out the EF 1200mm thread. Ebay has it at ~$70,000.00 now.
> ...



This is idiotic nonsense, like the prices you see for art, or - postage stamps. Gee... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27890106

In the end it's a question of demand vs availability. Do we really need a 1200 mm lens nowadays? I'd say no.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 2, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



I guess it really depends on how hot your neighbor is and how far her window is from yours.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 2, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



;D ;D ;D


----------



## Markus D (Jul 3, 2014)

1200mm Canon - $70,000. Shipping $30. I'm not going to buy it. If they can't throw the shipping in for free then its not a good deal!! 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2014)

Markus D said:


> 1200mm Canon - $70,000. Shipping $30. I'm not going to buy it. If they can't throw the shipping in for free then its not a good deal!! 8)



Shipping a $70K item for $30 means a crappy carrier and no insurance. Bad deal, indeed!


----------



## Click (Jul 3, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I guess it really depends on how hot your neighbor is and how far her window is from yours.



;D Ha Ha Ha ;D


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 3, 2014)

I've been using Great Whites for years, *but I've NEVER considered buying one*. As a Pro using a piece of gear three (3) time a week means you should probably own it. If less, just rent as needed. As some-one just using a 400mm f/2.8 once or twice a year, renting is a no-brainer.

A hobbyist needs to follow a similar idea. Will you shoot BIF (or surfing, etc) every (or most) weekend(s)? Or will you just use it once or twice a year, while on a trip?

On one of the fora, about ten years ago, there was a guy who claimed to own every Great White except a 1200mm. He also claimed to have never opened a box (that would destroy their value). So are you a photographer or a gear collector (who seldom uses his gear).

BTW big lenses need big support, so you will need a *gimbal head* or a *SharpShooter rifle stock* http://www.sharpshooterindustries.com/ssHome.html Or maybe *both*


----------



## Northstar (Jul 3, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> I've been using Great Whites for years, *but I've NEVER considered buying one*. As a Pro using a piece of gear three (3) time a week means you should probably own it. If less, just rent as needed. As some-one just using a 400mm f/2.8 once or twice a year, renting is a no-brainer.
> 
> A hobbyist needs to follow a similar idea. Will you shoot BIF (or surfing, etc) every (or most) weekend(s)? Or will you just use it once or twice a year, while on a trip?
> 
> ...



C.D...Good points in general but in these times, with interest rates near zero, there's very little investment opportunity cost, which lessens your point. If I have $10k laying around earning .10%, why not buy a used mint 400 2.8ii for $10k, use it for two or three years, and then sell it for at least $9.5k. (as long as I've taken care of it)

If you buy a gently used great white, take care of it, and sell it in 10 years, you will have lost only a little money. renting a 400mm 2.8 a few times a year for 10 years would probably cost you at least $6-7k over the years, AND you don't get the enjoyment of owning the lens! 

just trying to point out a different perspective. ;D

take care, north


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2014)

IMO, in general, rental fees are money wasted. There are exceptions, like kids' skiing gear that they grow out of each year. Yes, if you'll use a supertele once or twice a year, rental makes sense. But with use that's more frequent, buying is more cost-effective.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> IMO, in general, rental fees are money wasted. There are exceptions, like kids' skiing gear that they grow out of each year. Yes, if you'll use a supertele once or twice a year, rental makes sense. But with use that's more frequent, buying is more cost-effective.



+1

in hindsight, of course it also makes sense to rent if you don't have $10k laying around.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 4, 2014)

Northstar said:


> C.D...Good points in general but in these times, with interest rates near zero, there's very little investment opportunity cost, which lessens your point. If I have $10k laying around earning .10%, why not buy a used mint 400 2.8ii for $10k, use it for two or three years, and then sell it for at least $9.5k. (as long as I've taken care of it)
> 
> If you buy a gently used great white, take care of it, and sell it in 10 years, you will have lost only a little money. renting a 400mm 2.8 a few times a year for 10 years would probably cost you at least $6-7k over the years, AND you don't get the enjoyment of owning the lens!
> 
> ...



I'm on board with buying over renting. Generally I either find really good deals on new gear... or I buy like new used gear at a discount. So when I eventually grow bored with the gear, I sell it and don't lose much money... but more often than not, I make money.

Though I do entirely agree with trying out a lens in store to see if it is awkward.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> IMO, in general, rental fees are money wasted. There are exceptions, like kids' skiing gear that they grow out of each year. Yes, if you'll use a supertele once or twice a year, rental makes sense. But with use that's more frequent, buying is more cost-effective.


My best purchase EVER in lieu of renting, despite having ZERO resale value, are my bowling shoes. They were worth twice the price even at half the performance.


----------



## ME (Jul 10, 2014)

The gas will pass, eventually. Though sometimes it is better to just surrender and succumb to your desires. It can be a great relief, if it doesnt leave you in dire financial straits. Or as some have suggested, compromise with other less expensive lenses. Is it too late for this advice? Use your will (or wont power), but dont strain yourself. ???


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 10, 2014)

ME said:


> The gas will pass, eventually. Though sometimes it is better to just surrender and succumb to your desires. It can be a great relief, if it doesnt leave you in dire financial straits. Or as some have suggested, compromise with other less expensive lenses. Is it too late for this advice? Use your will (or wont power), but dont strain yourself. ???



There's a whole snafu with my second 600ex-rt... So I have to deal with that shortly before I consider any other lenses. Actually, I went the other way and bought a 17-40 for shits and gigs... and then sold it less than a week later. So that cured the gas a little.


----------



## icassell (Jul 10, 2014)

I have a Great White (500/4 L version I) and love it (usually on a tripod with gimbal which added significantly to the cost), but my other Great White (400/5.6) continues to get a workout -- it is far more fun as a BIF lens than the 500 monster.

Don't forget the used market. Yes, the 500/4 v. II is a great lens and lighter, but the v. I is considerably cheaper!

Ian


----------



## RGF (Jul 10, 2014)

Stop you - hell go full speed ahead. They are great lenses.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 10, 2014)

RGF said:


> Stop you - hell go full speed ahead. They are great lenses.


Nice one and I think if you shoot with Canon long enough, the great white fever eventually gets you


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Stop you - hell go full speed ahead. They are great lenses.
> ...



I have three small whites, does that count too?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 10, 2014)

You know you want one - just do it!
The only question is which one. To me there are only two choices, either the 800mm or 600mm, I suppose you could include the 500mm for mobility.
Many people go on about lenses being too long - this is the opposite of my experience, in fact on only 2 occasions has my 800mm proved too long normally it's too short!


----------



## canonvoir (Jul 11, 2014)

Don't look for us to stop you!

I'm wanting a 400/2.8 but that's some serious scratch for a hobby.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 11, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> You know you want one - just do it!
> The only question is which one. To me there are only two choices, either the 800mm or 600mm, I suppose you could include the 500mm for mobility.
> Many people go on about lenses being too long - this is the opposite of my experience, in fact on only 2 occasions has my 800mm proved too long normally it's too short!



I most definitely would go for the 300 f/2.8 IS II because it's not too heavy of a monster and you have the option of extending its range using tele converters. Such a lens would have to get a lot of use from me, and I usually don't have a need for 400mm plus.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 11, 2014)

canonvoir said:


> Don't look for us to stop you!
> 
> I'm wanting a 400/2.8 but that's some serious scratch for a hobby.



True, but the lenses rarely drop their value...unless you drop one on concrete. So they are an investment, sometimes they go up in value. There are very few things we can buy which hld their value. Some cars, if you don't use them. Some guitars, a few Hi Fi components, some specific wine, some pieces of art...but Canon's great whites hold their resell value so well city traders have been known to invest in them too.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 11, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > You know you want one - just do it!
> ...



I have the 300 F2.8 but, unfortunately, it get far less use than my 800 F5.6 L. The 300 is a great lens and very portable, plus it works well with extenders. The 800 is just better for my uses.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 11, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...


John, I saw your post in another thread about the 800 even being too short for you many times. I did a CPS loan of the 800 a couple of years ago and found that to be the case, too, even on a 7D. I thought the 800 would solve all of my problems by getting me close, but that's when I realized I really need a 2000mm to get those shots! And as such, that's when I decided to change my approach (literally) to wildlife and work on getting closer to them for the shot. The 300mm (with or without extenders) turned out to be the perfect lens for that purpose because of it's small size & weight, and the IS in the Mk II is so good, I have stopped using a monopod, let alone a tripod for most things. Some other members on the forum and Canon Explorer of Light Art Morris (see his related blog posts here) is also finding this lens + extenders combination to be well suited for his work, so I'm not alone in my opinion. Obviously it's not for everyone, but if you can live without 601mm+ or the convenience of the 200-400 1.4x, it's a nice set up for everything from sports to wildlife, especially with the 1D X and 5DIII.


----------



## RGF (Jul 11, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Mini whites. Not quite the great one, but still white fever


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 11, 2014)

RGF said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


I was trying to think of a witty reply...but I had white fever for the 70-200 in my early days - back when I would say to myself, "How could I ever spend over $500 on a lens?" Then I made the fooli$$$h decision to shoot wildlife


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



The 300 F2.8 (Mk1 or Mk2) is a superb lens and really does well with extenders. I am more than happy with the performance of my 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 with my 2 x Mk3 extender. A few weeks ago I took 2400+ shots at an Air Display (sorry I got a bit carried away!) - my 300 F2.8 both with and without the 2 x extender, on my 1DX, did not miss focus on a single shot! IQ was excellent also.
However for my main pastime (small birds) the 800 F5.6 gives me better results and faster AF. As to getting closer I am normally shooting between 20 and 40 feet. I have to admit though the 300mm wins hands down if I need mobility!
I am interested in your comment on the Mk2 IS. My 300 has 2 stop IS and the 800 4 stop IS however I nearly always have it turned off as it improves the AF performance and, with the 1DX, shutter speed is rarely an issue. In fact the only time I have used my IS (on any lens) this year was once when hand holding my 800mm and then it was only to steady the image in the viewfinder! Shutter speed was 1/2000 sec so IS wouldn't help the image but it did help me get the focus point where I wanted!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Actually I consider the 70-200 f/4's the 'mini' whites.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 11, 2014)

I was reluctant to shell out $80 for a 50mm f1.8...seems like such a long time ago when I ruined most of my Disney vacation photos... ahhh, sweet nostalgia. 



mackguyver said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I was reluctant to shell out $80 for a 50mm f1.8...seems like such a long time ago when I ruined most of my Disney vacation photos... ahhh, sweet nostalgia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah I remember when I thought 150 Euro's for a Sigma 70-300 was way too expensive. Mind you, the EOS 50e + Canon EF 28-80 mm f/3.5-5.6 IV USM I was using at the time was given to me out of old company equipment at the end of my internship. That's what got me into the EOS system by the way.


----------



## Menace (Jul 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I was reluctant to shell out $80 for a 50mm f1.8...seems like such a long time ago when I ruined most of my Disney vacation photos... ahhh, sweet nostalgia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ha ha - I know that feeling. How times change? (or is it us and our outlook that's changed since getting into photography? )


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 11, 2014)

Menace said:


> Ha ha - I know that feeling. How times change? (or is it us and our outlook that's changed since getting into photography? )



What really changed my perspective is when I sold my Canon xs for what I paid for it originally. I might have even made a small profit... everything else in my house takes a loss in value after I use it... to include my wife... but not my gear.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 11, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> The 300 F2.8 (Mk1 or Mk2) is a superb lens and really does well with extenders. I am more than happy with the performance of my 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 with my 2 x Mk3 extender. A few weeks ago I took 2400+ shots at an Air Display (sorry I got a bit carried away!) - my 300 F2.8 both with and without the 2 x extender, on my 1DX, did not miss focus on a single shot! IQ was excellent also.
> However for my main pastime (small birds) the 800 F5.6 gives me better results and faster AF. As to getting closer I am normally shooting between 20 and 40 feet. I have to admit though the 300mm wins hands down if I need mobility!
> I am interested in your comment on the Mk2 IS. My 300 has 2 stop IS and the 800 4 stop IS however I nearly always have it turned off as it improves the AF performance and, with the 1DX, shutter speed is rarely an issue. In fact the only time I have used my IS (on any lens) this year was once when hand holding my 800mm and then it was only to steady the image in the viewfinder! Shutter speed was 1/2000 sec so IS wouldn't help the image but it did help me get the focus point where I wanted!


John, that is a lot of shots, but it's not hard to do with the 1D X. I find myself constantly trying not to take too many photos with that camera - otherwise editing them down is a real chore.

As for the IS, I know we've discussed this before and at 1/2000s IS is pointless for sure, but most of my shots are in very dim light where I'm getting 1/30-1/60s at ISO6400, so IS is the difference between getting the shot or not. The Mk II IS is rated to 4 stops, and I've gotten that even with the 2x III extender attached. The new IS Mode 3, where IS kicks in when the shutter closes is great for birds in flight because it doesn't mess with focus or the viewfinder image.

I loved the 800mm, particularly on a monopod with IS, and I almost gave into the purchase during the last refurb sale, but unfortunately my wife knows how much it costs and an irate wife isn't a pretty thing 



jdramirez said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > Ha ha - I know that feeling. How times change? (or is it us and our outlook that's changed since getting into photography? )
> ...


Yes, times do change and JD, you actually made a profit selling a body??? I've always lost 30% or more on them - mainly because I buy w/o rebates, and sell when they have a $200-400 rebate :'(


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Yes, times do change and JD, you actually made a profit selling a body??? I've always lost 30% or more on them - mainly because I buy w/o rebates, and sell when they have a $200-400 rebate :'(



I'm patient... kinda. I seriously wanted the 50 art, but Damn if I don't wait for a sale.

When I bought the xs, there was a loyalty rebate and I got a cheap 75-300. Sold the 75-300 after a year, sold the xs and the kit lens after 2 years and I made a few bucks because I sold it to a guy who was buying it for his wife. Basically I got lucky.

I lost $300 on my 60d and I suspect I'll lose $1000 on my mkiii. But this is the business we chose... 

Is that a godfather reference?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 12, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, times do change and JD, you actually made a profit selling a body??? I've always lost 30% or more on them - mainly because I buy w/o rebates, and sell when they have a $200-400 rebate :'(
> ...



I bought my 1st 5D III from Canon 1st patch. I believe I paid $3500. After picking up 1dx, I sold for almost $2600 cash. Still cheaper than renting, if that help.

BTW...I bought my 400mm f2.8 IS II NEW in Dec 2013 around $10,000ish. The price went up, I believe BH is selling at $11,500 at this moment.

My advice, wait for body. Hurry in BIG WHITE ;D


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> John, that is a lot of shots, but it's not hard to do with the 1D X. I find myself constantly trying not to take too many photos with that camera - otherwise editing them down is a real chore.
> 
> As for the IS, I know we've discussed this before and at 1/2000s IS is pointless for sure, but most of my shots are in very dim light where I'm getting 1/30-1/60s at ISO6400, so IS is the difference between getting the shot or not. The Mk II IS is rated to 4 stops, and I've gotten that even with the 2x III extender attached. The new IS Mode 3, where IS kicks in when the shutter closes is great for birds in flight because it doesn't mess with focus or the viewfinder image.
> 
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > John, that is a lot of shots, but it's not hard to do with the 1D X. I find myself constantly trying not to take too many photos with that camera - otherwise editing them down is a real chore.
> ...


Airshows are a lot of fun and I was actually scheduled to do a special shoot with the Blue Angels in Pensacola a few months ago that fell through. I'm still sad about that one, but maybe next year.

For wildlife, I shoot in whatever light comes up with the sun, but have been making good use of of the NWS "cloud cover prediction" they now have in their forecast. If it's 50-90%, I head out to a pre-scouted location for landscape shots of the sunrise - if it's 0-50% or 90-100%, I head out early for wildlife with the 1D X + 300 f/2.8 IS II. I have found that I can now shoot before sunrise, which has really changed the way I shoot, and really put a cramp on my sleep. When I used to shoot with my 7D and 400 f/5.6, it was generally 30 minutes after sunrise before I could start shooting...and that's a lot of missed opportunities.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 14, 2014)

Yup it looks like I am a fair weather shooter!
To be out and about at dawn here I would be getting up just after I went to bed!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm suddenly charmed by the 400mm DO. Is the contrast really that bad? 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 15, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I'm suddenly charmed by the 400mm DO. Is the contrast really that bad?
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


Supposedly the newer lenses are much better than these earlier ones that were tested, and I've seen some great work done with the lens, but I haven't tried it myself. I was a bit torn between this and the 300 f/2.8 IS II, but decided to go for the 300 in the end.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm suddenly charmed by the 400mm DO. Is the contrast really that bad?
> ...



Yes if you look at size and converter compatibility, the 300 f/2.8 II IS is the better choice. Not sure when and if I will go that route.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jul 15, 2014)

I have now tried 3 different 400 DO lenses.
I would have ditched my 300 F2.8 in a heartbeat for the first 2 - but they were too expensive! True colours and contrast were slightly muted , but the sharpness and resolution put my (then) 600 F4 to shame - without moving closer for the shorter focal length. Frankly I was amazed at the lenses as they were so good at the things I thought they would be poor at!
Recently I got the opportunity to buy another example at a very reasonable price so I jumped at the opportunity. It was at a local nature reserve so I had the chance to try a few live subjects compared to my 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 both with and without extenders. Now I was amazed in the opposite direction, the 400 DO was good but couldn't live with my 300 F2.8??
The moral is try before you buy. I didn't know they varied so much!


----------



## l_d_allan (Jul 25, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad."



As the kids say ... "1st world problem". Count your blessings that you are apparently pretty well off.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 25, 2014)

l_d_allan said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad."
> ...



+1, that's a bit of a stretch but I find I'm looking at (used) lenses in the 5000 euro range now (!!!) so apparently the comfort zone increases as far as the wallet can take it...


----------



## l_d_allan (Jul 25, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I find I'm looking at (used) lenses in the 5000 euro range now (!!!) so apparently the comfort zone increases as far as the wallet can take it...


You (and the OP) could consider renting the "Chess Board set" from Lensrentals:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/lensrentals-chess-set

shipping is $1100 to $2400, depending on location.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 25, 2014)

l_d_allan said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I find I'm looking at (used) lenses in the 5000 euro range now (!!!) so apparently the comfort zone increases as far as the wallet can take it...
> ...



That's a really great idea ;D


----------

