# Rented a big white and wow



## Chisox2335 (Nov 9, 2014)

Recently went on my honeymoon which was a safari. Thanks to everyone soho gave advice. I rented a 500mm mki at one location. The pictures are amazing. I paired it primarily with my 70d and it was awesome. Now I want one. It will be a while before I get one but curious what ppl think. Would I be better off with a 500 mki or a 300 mki with 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. I know the 300 would give me more versatility but would the quality be on par with the 500 mki? Is a new 500 mkii worth 3-4k more than the mki?

Attached picture was taken with my 70d and the 500mki. Hopefully it loads with decent resolution I'm uploading off my ipad.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 9, 2014)

Nice shot! Looks like it came through just fine.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Nov 9, 2014)

I'd keep that one just fine!

Jim


----------



## Click (Nov 9, 2014)

Very nice shot. Well done


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 9, 2014)

Thank you all. I liked the 70d before but with the 500mm on it I got some truly amazing shots. It really convinced how much the glass truly has to do with it.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 9, 2014)

Hi,

The above picture is vers good. The 500mm is a very nice lens. I do have the 300mm version II. The combination of that lens with mkiii extenders is very good. However the use of the mkiii extender 2x with this lens does reduce some IQ. The 500mm will be better in that case. The price gap you mentioned beween the mki and the mkii is very high. Be aware that the weight of the mkii is reduced compared to the mki and that the cooperation with a version iii extender is better for the mkii lens. That last point for sure with the 1dx, 5d3 and 7d2. If thats the same for the 70d I don't know, but I presume as this is also a newer camera. However, I did not test it with a 70D.

The verslons II of the 300, 400, 500 and 600 Lenses are really the best you can find find on the market right now.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 9, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Hi,
> 
> The above picture is vers good. The 500mm is a very Nice lens. I do have the 300mm version II. The combination of that lens with mkiii extensies is very good. However the use of even the mkiii exterder 2x with This does does reduce some IQ. The 500mm will be better in that case. The price gap you mentioned beween the mki And the mkii is very high. Be ware that the weight of the mkii is reduced compared to the mki And that the coöperaties with An extender is better for the mkii lens, that last point fir sure witte the 1dx, 5d3 And 7d2. If thats the same for the 70d I presume but i did never see of test that.
> 
> The verslons II of the 300, 400, 500 And 600 Lenses are really the best you can find find on the parket richt now.



Thanks for the input FEBS. The 500 mki was amazing. It's hard to believe they could improve on it.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 9, 2014)

For my 2 cents, the 300 plus the 2X. Miss fewer "closer" shots, and IQ barely affected at 600mm. I posted pics a few month ago where you could see the screws on a security camera almost a half mile away at 1:1 with the 300mm plus 2x TC. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21478.0


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 9, 2014)

I wish people would read the OP's question more clearly before spouting out their personal experiences with neither lens they are talking about.

Of the MkI IS teles the 500 is noticably better IQ and faster to focus than the 300 MkI IS with a TC, indeed with the 2xTC the MkI 300 is not a particularly good lens.

Best advice with teles is that they are a big investment so get the focal length that gives you the reach you normally need. If you are a 500mm shooter get a 500mm, if you want 300 then get that, just don't get a 300 to shoot 420 or 600 90% of the time. There is a cavet to that though, the MkII IS teles are so well matched to the MkIII TC's that the MkII IS 300 and 1.4 TC performance is so close as to give the nod to the 300 for it's flexibility, the iQ difference is marginal though the 80mm less might be more important. With a 2xTC even the MkII IS 300 loses IQ and aperture to the MkI IS 500.

See here 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

and here
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1

In order I'd get 
MkII IS 500mm
MkII IS 300mm (only if 420 works most of the time you want more than 300)
MkI IS 500mm
MkI IS 300mm


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 9, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> For my 2 cents, the 300 plus the 2X. Miss fewer "closer" shots, and IQ barely affected at 600mm. I posted pics a few month ago where you could see the screws on a security camera almost a half mile away at 1:1 with the 300mm plus 2x TC. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21478.0



Forgot about that thread. Some seriously impressive pictures in there. That's the route I'd prefer to go as there is more versatility. Maybe I should rent the 300 mkii with the 2x to see if I'm happy with the shots I can produce.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I wish people would read the OP's question more clearly before spouting out their personal experiences with neither lens they are talking about.
> 
> Of the MkI IS teles the 500 is noticably better IQ and faster to focus than the 300 MkI IS with a TC, indeed with the 2xTC the MkI 300 is not a particularly good lens.
> 
> ...



Where I live there is not a lot of big wildlife save some local deer that I'm usually able to shoot with a 70-200. Most of the photo opportunities I have are birds. This would clearly point me towards the 500mm lens. While I did some hand held shooting with it, it was big. I think the 300mkii with converters would be slightly more manageable. When I shoot I prefer to walk around and don't neccassily always want to shoot off a tripod or monopod. This may need to change if I decide to get a big white though.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 9, 2014)

Building in the background (upper left) that I photographed with the 300mm mk2 plus the 2x III


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 9, 2014)

Here is the shot I was talking about with the 300mm ii plus the 2X iii. After what I'd read about the TC degradation, I was amazed.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 9, 2014)

Meh, this looks much better on my computer. Thinking CR compresses these shots or something?

Oh, I get it. If you click on the pic you get the full image. This is a tiny little area of the taller portion of the building...


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 9, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> Meh, this looks much better on my computer. Thinking CR compresses these shots or something?
> 
> Oh, I get it. If you click on the pic you get the full image. This is a tiny little area of the taller portion of the building...



Nice, I wish canon rumors did restrict file size but they'd need a lot more server room otherwise.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 9, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> Where I live there is not a lot of big wildlife save some local deer that I'm usually able to shoot with a 70-200. Most of the photo opportunities I have are birds. This would clearly point me towards the 500mm lens. While I did some hand held shooting with it, it was big. I think the 300mkii with converters would be slightly more manageable. When I shoot I prefer to walk around and don't neccassily always want to shoot off a tripod or monopod. This may need to change if I decide to get a big white though.



If birds are your main target, then for sure go for the 500. You will find out soon that even 500 will be to short.
In fact, all lenses are to short for birds. You want to have always more.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 9, 2014)

My Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 produces very good images with the Canon 2 x Mk3 extender, however a 500 or 600mm will do a better job at these sort of focal lengths.
I am not trying to put you off getting the 300 F2.8 it is just that, if you need longer focal lengths, it is better to get a longer lens.I do use my 300 F2.8 with extenders (and it is good) but only when my longer lens would restrict my mobility too much.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 9, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Chisox2335 said:
> 
> 
> > Where I live there is not a lot of big wildlife save some local deer that I'm usually able to shoot with a 70-200. Most of the photo opportunities I have are birds. This would clearly point me towards the 500mm lens. While I did some hand held shooting with it, it was big. I think the 300mkii with converters would be slightly more manageable. When I shoot I prefer to walk around and don't neccassily always want to shoot off a tripod or monopod. This may need to change if I decide to get a big white though.
> ...



I'd primarily use it on a crop. Agreed you always want more though.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 9, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> My Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 produces very good images with the Canon 2 x Mk3 extender, however a 500 or 600mm will do a better job at these sort of focal lengths.
> I am not trying to put you off getting the 300 F2.8 it is just that, if you need longer focal lengths, it is better to get a longer lens.I do use my 300 F2.8 with extenders (and it is good) but only when my longer lens would restrict my mobility too much.



Not at all. I appreciate the honest feedback.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 10, 2014)

I'd primarily use it on a crop. Agreed you always want more though.
[/quote]

A crop sensor will help with range but not by as much as the 1.3 or 1.6 crop factor would suggest - in fact my current FF camera at least equals and possibly beats my (ex) 1.3 crop camera(1D4). Additionally FF cameras generally give a better ISO range which can be very handy with long lenses.
However do not change your camera until and unless you find it is holding you back - glass is more important!


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 11, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> I'd primarily use it on a crop. Agreed you always want more though.



A crop sensor will help with range but not by as much as the 1.3 or 1.6 crop factor would suggest - in fact my current FF camera at least equals and possibly beats my (ex) 1.3 crop camera(1D4). Additionally FF cameras generally give a better ISO range which can be very handy with long lenses.
However do not change your camera until and unless you find it is holding you back - glass is more important!
[/quote]

After seeing the pictures my 70d took with the 500 mki I'm definitely just going to save now for a big white. Also have the 6d I use frequently.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 11, 2014)

All the Big Whites are wonderful lenses but they are addictive!
Research your personal needs carefully before you decide which one to buy, as they all have different pro's and cons. If you can stretch to it a Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 is a portable lens that offers real reach and works well with a 1.4 Mk2 or Mk3 extender. If less mobility is required then the 600 F4 lenses start to shine. Personally I find the 800 F5.6 suits my needs - but I did get it at a very reasonable price.
Try them all out before you decide - it is a big purchase so make certain you get the right one for your needs.
Good luck!


----------



## NancyP (Nov 11, 2014)

I have been meaning to rent a Big White, but to tell the truth, I am a bit afraid to do so. I love my Little White 400 f/5.6L, and am afraid I will get an expensive case of G.A.S. should I rent a 500 or 600 f/4. : I am super curious, though.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 11, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I have been meaning to rent a Big White, but to tell the truth, I am a bit afraid to do so. I love my Little White 400 f/5.6L, and am afraid I will get an expensive case of G.A.S. should I rent a 500 or 600 f/4. : I am super curious, though.



I have the 300/2.8ii and the 200-400. After my Safari last, on which I took several photos of birds, I even did find my 200-400 1.4x to short. Now something starts already to think about a 600/4 or a 800/5.6. I know the GAS feeling. When you see the difference of the big whites, your mind is sold.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 11, 2014)

FEBS said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I have been meaning to rent a Big White, but to tell the truth, I am a bit afraid to do so. I love my Little White 400 f/5.6L, and am afraid I will get an expensive case of G.A.S. should I rent a 500 or 600 f/4. : I am super curious, though.
> ...



How does your 300 with the 2x compare to the 200-400 at 560mm?

Your arsenal is quite impressive.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 12, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


Thank you, as you can see, GAS really got me 

From IQ point of view the difference between 300+2x or the 200-400 1.4 at 560mm are very comparable. The 300 combo is lighter, from the other side the 200-400 is much more versatile and no extender switching. 

I keep the 300 now mostly for sports (sometimes with 1.4x), the 200-400 is as said much more versatile and is a beautiful lens on safari.


----------



## aardvark (Nov 12, 2014)

Not sure I would agree the 500mm is a portable lens ..not a word I would use, but packed its not too bad! However,if you have to carryon on some of the African airlines, it can be tricky with (all) your other equipment. The 200-400 is even slightly bigger, but a number of the top photographers swear by it!

Nice photo - of the Leopard (looks like 9 to 12 months). Where was it taken?




johnf3f said:


> All the Big Whites are wonderful lenses but they are addictive!
> Research your personal needs carefully before you decide which one to buy, as they all have different pro's and cons. If you can stretch to it a Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 is a portable lens that offers real reach and works well with a 1.4 Mk2 or Mk3 extender. If less mobility is required then the 600 F4 lenses start to shine. Personally I find the 800 F5.6 suits my needs - but I did get it at a very reasonable price.
> Try them all out before you decide - it is a big purchase so make certain you get the right one for your needs.
> Good luck!


----------



## cervantes (Nov 12, 2014)

I got the 500L II about a year ago. Needless to say it blew my mind. What I got since then are an awful lot of fantastic images (see some examples with and without TCs here: http://www.focrates.com/gear/gear.html - just scroll down to the bottom of the page), and suprisingly my GAS was cured... If you already have the best of the best what is there left to excite you?

Get it if you have the money AND are prepared to spend A LOT of time and effort!
Greetings!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 12, 2014)

AS cervantes says - if you can afford it the Canon 500 Mk2 go for it!
It is VERY sharp, has great colour, blisteringly fast AF, lightest in it's class, works well with extenders etc.....etc
Wish I had never tried one!


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 12, 2014)

aardvark said:


> Not sure I would agree the 500mm is a portable lens ..not a word I would use, but packed its not too bad! However,if you have to carryon on some of the African airlines, it can be tricky with (all) your other equipment. The 200-400 is even slightly bigger, but a number of the top photographers swear by it!
> 
> Nice photo - of the Leopard (looks like 9 to 12 months). Where was it taken?
> 
> ...


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Chisox2335 said:
> 
> 
> > FEBS said:
> ...



I'd love the 200-400 that'd be my dream lens. I can probably convince my wife to let me buy a $6000 lens buying a $11000 lens will probably require I agree to buy a bigger house first though haha.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Nov 12, 2014)

cervantes said:


> I got the 500L II about a year ago. Needless to say it blew my mind. What I got since then are an awful lot of fantastic images (see some examples with and without TCs here: http://www.focrates.com/gear/gear.html - just scroll down to the bottom of the page), and suprisingly my GAS was cured... If you already have the best of the best what is there left to excite you?
> 
> Get it if you have the money AND are prepared to spend A LOT of time and effort!
> Greetings!



Nice website. I found it fun to read and informative. 

I would have a hard time justifying the price tag to the new wife on the mkii. I probably could on a used mki.


----------



## cervantes (Nov 13, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> cervantes said:
> 
> 
> > I got the 500L II about a year ago. Needless to say it blew my mind. What I got since then are an awful lot of fantastic images (see some examples with and without TCs here: http://www.focrates.com/gear/gear.html - just scroll down to the bottom of the page), and suprisingly my GAS was cured... If you already have the best of the best what is there left to excite you?
> ...



Thanks for the compliments!

Well I think when you look at the difference between sale and resale price the gap between V1 and V2 gets much smaller. At least give the V2 a try via renting or in the shop - you can make a much more informed desicion then.

Best wishes!


----------

