# 400 2.8L, 500 4L or 600 4L for wildlife



## bkorcel (Sep 11, 2012)

I'd like to hear from people who have purchased one of these lenses for wildlife photography and why you chose one vs. the other two.

400 2.8L looks better overall for lower light usage...typically when wildlife is most active. However the F4 models have a bit more reach but sacrifice 1 stop.


----------



## Jeffrey (Sep 11, 2012)

I rented the 400mm f2.8 L and the 600 mm f4.0 L, and shot with them on my 1D-X without using extender tubes. I liked the 400mm much better for shooting birds. Having said that though, when light conditions warrant using f2.8 the depth of field becomes quite short and the bird is typically not well illuminated. The bottom line for me is to continue using my 400mm f5.6 L and not shoot in super dimly lit situations.


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 11, 2012)

All depends on how close you expect to get to your subject. Here's a Black Bear sow shot with the 5D Mark II and the old non IS 300mm f2.8. Saying that I would go for the 500. I've had my 500 since November of 2001 and it is my most used lens. The new 500 Mark II should be here next week and I can't wait. The new 500 to me looks like the sweet spot, especially if you can believe the MTF curves that Canon publishes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2012)

Wildlife, likely the 500/4. Birds, especially small birds, the 600/4 II - IQ with 1.4x III is on par with the 800/5.6, but much lighter plus f/4 if you don't need the reach.


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 11, 2012)

What specifically was the reason you like the 400 2.8 more? I've toyed with the concept of getting 1 stop faster shutter speed...not necessarily pushing the light limits of the lens or camera. In practical terms does that 1 stop actually make any difference say with birds in flight?



bkorcel said:


> I'd like to hear from people who have purchased one of these lenses for wildlife photography and why you chose one vs. the other two.
> 
> 400 2.8L looks better overall for lower light usage...typically when wildlife is most active. However the F4 models have a bit more reach but sacrifice 1 stop.


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 11, 2012)

Nice shot. But I think I would rather have the 500 than the 300 for this kind of shot! LOL! CPS loaned me their 500 for a couple of weeks and I found it a challenge trying to find the subject when it was in flight. for stationary objects it was great, especially on the wimberly. As you state the MTF on the new models offer theoretical advantages but I'm curious to how they relate to real world usefulness. Reach is obviously an advantage shooting most any wildlife...you often dont have the opportunity to get closer...even with bears.  

How important to you is f2.8 vs F4 or F5.6 in the scheme of things?



Waterloo said:


> All depends on how close you expect to get to your subject. Here's a Black Bear sow shot with the 5D Mark II and the old non IS 300mm f2.8. Saying that I would go for the 500. I've had my 500 since November of 2001 and it is my most used lens. The new 500 Mark II should be here next week and I can't wait. The new 500 to me looks like the sweet spot, especially if you can believe the MTF curves that Canon publishes.


----------



## Jeffrey (Sep 11, 2012)

Exactly the point regarding birds in flight. I had the lenses on a Wimberley mount too. Ducks on landing were great and relatively easy to find using the 400mm lens. Forget about birds in flight using the 400mm f2.8 or 600mm lenses, at least at my skills level. The 400mm f5.6L USM is a dream to use for birds in flight.


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 11, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Nice shot. But I think I would rather have the 500 than the 300 for this kind of shot! LOL! CPS loaned me their 500 for a couple of weeks and I found it a challenge trying to find the subject when it was in flight. for stationary objects it was great, especially on the wimberly. As you state the MTF on the new models offer theoretical advantages but I'm curious to how they relate to real world usefulness. Reach is obviously an advantage shooting most any wildlife...you often dont have the opportunity to get closer...even with bears.
> 
> How important to you is f2.8 vs F4 or F5.6 in the scheme of things?
> 
> ...



If I had the 500 on I would have had to put the 25mm extension tube on too to get her in focus.


----------



## fotografnuntaiasi (Sep 11, 2012)

The 300's is for birds, bugs and peaceful animals and for bears, wolfs and other dangerous things I should star thinking to have the 600's or to run faster.


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 11, 2012)

You know the old saying "horses for courses". Well, my favorite subject is wild horses. With the 500 I've missed a lot of shots because I had too much lens on and couldn't back off. I'm waiting patiently for the new 200-400.....

(5D Mark III and 500mm f4 L IS)


----------



## westr70 (Sep 11, 2012)

I really appreciate this discussion. I've been pondering the 500mm for bif but maybe I'll continue to use my 400mm. Any others with experience with the 500mm with birds in flight?


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 11, 2012)

Also pondering the use of a 1.4x with both. With the 2.8 it would yield an F4 at 560mm. Any resolution tradeoff between that combo and the 500mm f/4 outright? One would think but who knows.(Someone who has tried it and made the comparison).




westr70 said:


> I really appreciate this discussion. I've been pondering the 500mm for bif but maybe I'll continue to use my 400mm. Any others with experience with the 500mm with birds in flight?


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 11, 2012)

westr70 said:


> I really appreciate this discussion. I've been pondering the 500mm for bif but maybe I'll continue to use my 400mm. Any others with experience with the 500mm with birds in flight?



Check this post:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8876.0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Also pondering the use of a 1.4x with both. With the 2.8 it would yield an F4 at 560mm. Any resolution tradeoff between that combo and the 500mm f/4 outright? One would think but who knows.(Someone who has tried it and made the comparison).



Check the TDP ISO12233 charts. My sense is that the 400 II takes a bigger IQ hit with the 1.4xIII than the 500 II or 600 II. The new 500/600 + 1.4x seem equivalent to the MkI 600 and the 800, respectively, while the 400 II + 1.4x seems to fall short on IQ vs. the 500 MkI (and the bare 500 II is even sharper).


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 11, 2012)

So the primes alone still seem to take the cake. How about F4 to F2.8? One would not think it's much of a difference. Does anyone think twice about it? or just make it up with a higher ISO?



neuroanatomist said:


> bkorcel said:
> 
> 
> > Also pondering the use of a 1.4x with both. With the 2.8 it would yield an F4 at 560mm. Any resolution tradeoff between that combo and the 500mm f/4 outright? One would think but who knows.(Someone who has tried it and made the comparison).
> ...


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 11, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> So the primes alone still seem to take the cake. How about F4 to F2.8? One would not think it's much of a difference. Does anyone think twice about it? or just make it up with a higher ISO?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think twice about it all the time. Not because of the light loss, but the loss of image quality. I know adding the 1.4 Extender will give me more reach and I know I'll have to pay for it when I pull the images up on the computer screen. Plus living here in Nevada with the dust, I dread each time I remove the camera from the lens/extender. And, the fumbling in the field changing the extender and the resultant lost shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2012)

Waterloo said:


> I think twice about it all the time. Not because of the light loss, but the loss of image quality. I know adding the 1.4 Extender will give me more reach and I know I'll have to pay for it when I pull the images up on the computer screen.



It used to be that the bare lens always beat the lens+TC. Now, that statement needs to be revised to, in some cases within the same generation of lenses, the bare lens will always beat the lens + TC. The 600 II + 1.4x III is actually a little sharper than the 800/5.6, plus it's got a little more reach and is a heck of a lot lighter, for no additional money. So, at the point the only reason to go with an 800/5.6 is if you plan to put a 1.4x on that, which will beat out the 600 II + 2xIII. Likewise, the 500/4 II + 1.4x III is sharper than the bare 600/4 MkI, and also longer and lighter, perhaps making the 500 II + TC a better choice than the older 600 (more expensive, though). Note that the above assumes the 50% AF speed reduction you get with a 1.4x TC is acceptable (but the superteles focus so fast, 50% slower is still going to be fast).

However, the 400 II + 1.4x is not as sharp as the bare 500/4 MkI.

So, if comparing the current (MkII) lenses, you're better off getting the focal length you will use most. 

Keep in mind that while you can crop, often you cannot back up to get a wider AoV, especially with a long lens where you'd have to back up a lot. Depending on what you shoot, you may want to have a second body with a shorter lens, like a 70-200/2.8 II to pair with a 400/500, or a 100-400 to pair with a 600.

The 200-400/4 + 1.4x if it ever becomes a reality, is worth considering. The zoom is convenient - but of course, only if 560mm f/5.6 is long enough and fast enough. If not, the 500/600 II may be better choices.


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2012)

Having not used the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x I would recommend this lens. It's a zoom and has a built-in extender. The convenience trumps prime quality if you are only interested in a single super tele.

I have the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 800mm f/5.6L IS. Also used a EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II. All of em are good for wildlife and sports for varying light condition, subject size and framing.


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 12, 2012)

Which of your primes sees the most wildlife work? I'm sure you have a favorite.



dolina said:


> Having not used the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x I would recommend this lens. It's a zoom and has a built-in extender. The convenience trumps prime quality if you are only interested in a single super tele.
> 
> I have the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 500mm f/4L IS, EF 800mm f/5.6L IS. Also used a EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II. All of em are good for wildlife and sports for varying light condition, subject size and framing.


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 12, 2012)

I am surprised the 400 2.8L II with 1.4x is not as sharp as the 500 f/4. Was the 1.4x a II or a III?



neuroanatomist said:


> Waterloo said:
> 
> 
> > I think twice about it all the time. Not because of the light loss, but the loss of image quality. I know adding the 1.4 Extender will give me more reach and I know I'll have to pay for it when I pull the images up on the computer screen.
> ...


----------



## canon816 (Sep 12, 2012)

Id go long and get the 600mm.

I have a 600 F4 and a 3002.8. Its really the perfect pair to have for wildlife photography. 

I even find that the 600 is too short and often wish I had a bit longer glass. But I will add that the wildlife I shoot is really wild, which means getting in position in the dark, sitting still and waiting hours... sometimes with no luck.

If the wildlife you are shooting is more tame then you don't need the extra glass.

BTW... once you spend some time with a long lens it becomes second nature to find birds in flight. When I first started shooting 600mm i struggled to get a bird in the view finder... now its no problem at all. Just practice practice practice. (Also orienting your lens hood so that the knob is pointing straight up and in line with your hot shoe helps. you can look over the top of the camera and use these points as an open sight to align it with a bird, then as you move your eye to the viewfinder just tilt the lens up a little bit and you find what you are looking for....)


----------



## dolina (Sep 12, 2012)

EF 800mm f/5.6L IS if the light is good, I do not need to walk much and if the subject's tiny like say less than 6-inch in length.

Given that these parameters are not always so I previsualize and shift from different glass when situations merit it.

Again if you want the most flexible lens go with the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x. The only drawback is that it's a f/4 without the extender and f/5.6 with the extender. Other than that it's a perfect product. 

Dimension, weight and price would be like the EF 500mm f/4L IS II.



bkorcel said:


> Which of your primes sees the most wildlife work? I'm sure you have a favorite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> I am surprised the 400 2.8L II with 1.4x is not as sharp as the 500 f/4. Was the 1.4x a II or a III?



I was surprised, too. It was the 1.4x III.


----------



## bkorcel (Sep 13, 2012)

I am quite familiar with sitting in the dark, sitting still, and waiting for hours.  Quite a bit of good info posted here in a short amount of time. I'm getting from all of this that F4 or F2.8 is pretty irrelevant...more important is having the reach in a good prime, no extenders if at all possible...unless you are going to the zoo where a 300mm might be good enough. Buy as much lens as you can afford even if you have to go into debt to do so. 




canon816 said:


> Id go long and get the 600mm.
> 
> I have a 600 F4 and a 3002.8. Its really the perfect pair to have for wildlife photography.
> 
> ...


----------



## vkiran (Sep 13, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> I am quite familiar with sitting in the dark, sitting still, and waiting for hours.  Quite a bit of good info posted here in a short amount of time. I'm getting from all of this that F4 or F2.8 is pretty irrelevant...more important is having the reach in a good prime, no extenders if at all possible...unless you are going to the zoo where a 300mm might be good enough. Buy as much lens as you can afford even if you have to go into debt to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1 for the reach. I have settled on carrying 600 on the full frame body and a 70-200 on my 7D. I keep the 1.4x extender handy on occasion for extra reach for birds.


----------



## CanonWife (Sep 16, 2012)

We just returned from a two-week shoot which included shorebirds and migratory birds in Tule Lake, CA and the Klamath basin in OR. The only lens my husband used nearly the entire time was his 600mm f/4 II for birds in flight, birds standing in glass calm water, and even small animals such as a mink on the bank of a river. The detailing is amazing. From 40 ft. the mink's head shows the skin pores on its nose and every lock of water-drenched hair on its head! I drove the RV while he shot out the window on a bumpy gravel road. This lens brings your subject up close and really personal. Birds in flight were so detailed we could see the scales on their feet tucked in while flying. It's a pricy lens but surprisingly light and will out-do your expectations. Have your wife get you one for your birthday like I did.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 16, 2012)

CanonWife said:


> Have your wife get you one for your birthday like I did.


I'm afraid that getting a wife will be more expensive that just purchasing the lens myself. 8)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;D


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 16, 2012)

I have the 400mm f2.8 IS version 1. I also have the 1.4X and 2X extender (both vIII) For me this is a versatile combination, for both sports and wildlife, giving me 400, 560, and 800. The 500 and 600 (and 800) are probably fabulous lenses, but the f2.8 is critical when I shoot night sports, so this was the way to go for me.

I also have a 300mm f4 IS. This is a really nice alternative when traveling or when the 400 is not practical. It works very well with the 1.4X, and with my 1M4, the 2X. 

I must admit though the 600 is on my must have list...


----------



## CanonWife (Sep 16, 2012)

kaihp said:


> CanonWife said:
> 
> 
> > Have your wife get you one for your birthday like I did.
> ...



Canon has an easy payment plan. ;D


----------



## Waterloo (Sep 30, 2012)

CanonWife said:


> We just returned from a two-week shoot which included shorebirds and migratory birds in Tule Lake, CA and the Klamath basin in OR. The only lens my husband used nearly the entire time was his 600mm f/4 II for birds in flight, birds standing in glass calm water, and even small animals such as a mink on the bank of a river. The detailing is amazing. From 40 ft. the mink's head shows the skin pores on its nose and every lock of water-drenched hair on its head! I drove the RV while he shot out the window on a bumpy gravel road. This lens brings your subject up close and really personal. Birds in flight were so detailed we could see the scales on their feet tucked in while flying. It's a pricy lens but surprisingly light and will out-do your expectations. Have your wife get you one for your birthday like I did.



You don't happen to have a twin sister who is available? Do you?


----------



## bkorcel (Nov 2, 2012)

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the 600 f4 IS with the MKII version with and without extenders? From an IQ perspective, how much difference is there really (lighter weight and improved IS aside)?


----------



## canon816 (Nov 2, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the 600 f4 IS with the MKII version with and without extenders? From an IQ perspective, how much difference is there really (lighter weight and improved IS aside)?



Use this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=336&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the 600 f4 IS with the MKII version with and without extenders? From an IQ perspective, how much difference is there really (lighter weight and improved IS aside)?



A lot. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is better than the bare original 600/4 (and also better than the bare 800/5.6). Even with the 2xIII, the new 600 II is very good.


----------



## Greatland (Nov 2, 2012)

I think that comparing the new 600 with the old one is a bit like sending someone to a gun fight with only a knife. Yes the old 600 was an excellent lens. The new 600 is, Lighter, better balanced, has improved glass, improved IS, and works better with the extenders with virtually nothing lost at all with the new 1.4 III extender..The only drawback is the price and if you want the best that money has to offer you pay the price! For wildife bigger and longer is better and while I agonized over whether to purchase the 800, which I have rented from LensRentals, I opted for the 600 because of all of the aforementioned, including the fact that the weight difference between the 800 and the 600 is negligible and with the extender I get the 800....btw, I used the 800 with the 1.4 III extender on my Polar Bear trip in the Arctic back in July and there was a difference between the sharpness using the extender and not using the extender....I like to go BIG with many of my shots and I could not do that using the extender...that problem is solved with the new 600.....


----------



## Mick (Nov 3, 2012)

I bought he 500, arrived yesterday and as I've posted before, am he worlds biggest sceptic about upgrades. Whilst I know they cost a lot, I've done a few shots and as with the 70/200 I was blown away. I couldn't believe from the mtf there would be a differance. Well there is. It's unbelievably light. I can now handhold it easily. It's silent and even with the extender focus's very fast. It appears a bit sharper perhaps but it's the colours and contrast, vibrant and accurate that impress. It is a justified upgrade. As for the cost what I tell those who think I'm mad, remember, put your money in a bank and its looses money, buy a big white and you'll loose almost nothing in 5 years if you keep it in good condition. One point, it arrived with two lens foot, a longer attached one and a shorter one. Any idea why?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2012)

Mick said:


> One point, it arrived with two lens foot, a longer attached one and a shorter one. Any idea why?



The shorter one is a monopod foot. 

Should have mentioned in the other thread - I really like the RRS LCF-53 replacement foot, compared to the Canon foot with a Wimberley plate or the Kirk foot, which shares the swept-forward design of the stock foot. The RRS foot extends further back, so you can balance the lens on a gimbal with a TC attached.


----------



## dolina (Nov 4, 2012)

What carry on bag do you guys use for your wildlife setup?


----------



## bkorcel (Nov 4, 2012)

Street Walker Pro if I'm going to be using the 300 2.8 a lot (Holds the lens with Camera attached). I can even squeeze in a 24-70 and a couple of extenders. You can use it to carry a 400 but I don't think you can with the camera attached. You may only have room then for a couple of extenders in the case along with the detached body.

Tamrac 5793 for a 600mm or 500mm with camera attached. Pockets can accommodate extenders but if you are packing a 600, you need to carry your extra bodies and smaller lenses in another carry on.

You need to check the carry on size restrictions with your airline. However since these are backpacks and wearable you can take another rolling carry on and stow your backpack under the seat. The Tamrac makes it kind of crowded down there but it's doable.

I'm against using the HUGE all in one rolling backpacks for air travel as you don't want to put all of your eggs (golden) in one basket even if you can carry it on. They get extremely heavy and will likely get bumped around more. I would rather use a backpack and a photo vest or coat with large pockets to store extra stuff.




dolina said:


> What carry on bag do you guys use for your wildlife setup?


----------



## dolina (Nov 4, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Street Walker Pro if I'm going to be using the 300 2.8 a lot (Holds the lens with Camera attached). I can even squeeze in a 24-70 and a couple of extenders. You can use it to carry a 400 but I don't think you can with the camera attached. You may only have room then for a couple of extenders in the case along with the detached body.
> 
> Tamrac 5793 for a 600mm or 500mm with camera attached. Pockets can accommodate extenders but if you are packing a 600, you need to carry your extra bodies and smaller lenses in another carry on.
> 
> ...



Thanks for pointing out the tamrack. This is what the Lowepro lens trekker 600 aw ii should have been.


----------



## Shizam (Nov 4, 2012)

I'm late to the party but having owned all three lenses with the intention of 'shooting wildlife' the 500mm is the no-brainer of the three, it really comes down to weight and the fact that you said 'wildlife' not 'birds'.

First lets take the 400mm off the list immediately, it weighs as much as the 600mm (8.6lbs) and has considerably less reach just to get 1 more f-stop of brightness, this is really a sports lens where you need that f2.8 aperture, not a nature/wildlife lens.

Now its the 500mm (7lbs) vs the 600mm (8.5lbs) for 'wildlife', lets say wildlife ranges in size from birds to moose and you'll generally want to travel reasonable distances on foot, you're going to rather have a 1.5lb lighter lens that allows you to travel further than that 20% closer crop. Being able to travel that extra 1-3 miles is going to make more of a difference than that close crop.

Now, if you had said 'I want to shoot birds', it would be a different story, the 600mm lens is critical for shooting birds for two reasons: get 20% more resolution on the tiny details or allowing you to be 20% further from your subject so it doesn't up and fly away. See my related answer here for more info http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/7942/1819


----------

