# If you could have only one...



## Fatalv (Apr 14, 2015)

I have the option of picking up a high quality telephoto lens with some savings. Originally I was looking at a high end telescope for some astro photography work but have been leaning towards a telephoto instead. I've been pleasantly happy with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and other L glass for astro and have been interested something longer for birding/wildlife. 

So… which would you choose?

Current gear is 7D/5DMK3. 8-15 f/4L, 16-35 f/2.8 II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 50 1.4, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 2x Extender III.

As a side note, I've used the 2x extender on the 70-200 with mixed results. Do the extenders perform better on the telephotos listed? Optimized for primes by chance?

I was currently leaning towards the 400 f2.8 strictly for the light gathering ability for astro work and the ability to stack extenders and still have autofocus. But I keep wondering if I should go longer since I'm likely to only afford to own one of these lenses.

Thanks in advance for the advice!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 14, 2015)

Extenders magnify any imperfections in a lens. The expensive big whites are as good as technology allows and still be affordable by ordinary people. That's why they have better images when used with TC's.

Don't forget to budget another 2K for tripod and head.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 14, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Extenders magnify any imperfections in a lens. The expensive big whites are as good as technology allows and still be affordable by ordinary people. That's why they have better images when used with TC's.
> 
> Don't forget to budget another 2K for tripod and head.



Thanks for the reply!

I partly forgot about tripod/head as I was thinking astro in my mind and it riding on an EQ mount. I'm currently using a Arca Swiss Monoball Z series/Gitzo 1320 tripod and Manfrotto monopod. Mostly have been using the tripod for long exposure work (waterfall, city, etc.). 

Would the monopod suffice or should I be thinking a gimbal head? Forgive my ignorance, I've been used to hand holding for BIF and other wildlife, but (as you remind me) I don't think that's feasible with the options above.


----------



## rpt (Apr 14, 2015)

The 600L. For birding. f4 beats f8 that I currentl get when I add the 1.4x to my 100-400L...


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2015)

Fatalv said:


> Thanks in advance for the advice!



If you want to get the most iq from your sensor for larger output size, you have to crop as little as possible. 

Unless you're shooting in a controlled setting, having a zoom gains you flexibility for wildlife and journalism. I understand the 200-400 with built-in tc was a much desired lens for this reason. The exception is if you want to get "as long as possible" for birding and expect to crop even with a 600mm lens. But remember that if the bird starts flying towards you, yu're out of luck


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2015)

If you say "wildlife" and "there can only be one" it has to be the 600f4.
People still like to use that lens with 2X-TC.
I've played with an 800mm mirror lens and getting ideal framing with that was still uncommon (IQ was horrible but for $300 you can get a feel for the focal length, and how hard it is manually focusing at that distance).
Using my 400f5.6 getting too close is uncommon, but it does happen (usually seeing wildlife on the side of the road) and then the 70-200ISII would probably be the ideal lens to have on backup. You see a lot of sports photographers saying they switch back and forth between that lens and a big white (with a body on each of course).

For the tripod, I've been using an Induro AT413, that thing is massive, probably about as sturdy as anyone could want, and at a little over $200 it's a great value for anyone that doesn't have to go far with it.
What it is not is light weight, but for the studio and car camping you probably can't do better.
Honestly the few times I have tried to use it for wildlife, with a full size gymbal, I wished I was using a monopod. Setting up three legs still feels like it takes forever (with the gymbal you have to re-level the feet every time you move).


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 14, 2015)

I am a very, very big fan of the 400 f/2.8 ii.

I have used both the Mark III extenders with it and while I was mainly just messing around, the few serious shots I did take were excellent. It definitely takes them better than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, which as someone posted above, is to be expected considering the quality of the lens.

Which to buy? Only you can answer that, as you know what you are going to do with the lens. If wildlife is important than I would presume reach is a priority. For the work where I need a big white, then it is always the 400 f/2.8 ii.

Good luck with your choice, a nice one to have!


----------



## Ruined (Apr 14, 2015)

400 f/2.8 because as you stated you can have only one and it can serve dual roles as astro/wildlife.

While into wildlife now you will probably get back intro Astro in a big way at some point and then you will regret not getting the f/2.8 lens.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 14, 2015)

I cast my vote for the 200-400, because I prefer the flexibility of a zoom and the convenience of the built-in TC. 

But then, my wildlife subjects rarely include birds, and I don't have any designs on astrophotography applications.

Good luck with whatever you choose!


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> I cast my vote for the 200-400, because I prefer the flexibility of a zoom and the convenience of the built-in TC.



Another advantage as a zoom in a natural environment is the ability to re-frame, i.e. change to composure of the subject vs. potential distractions in the background while cropping as little as possible. When shooting with my 100L (other than usual 70-300L), I often find it annoying to be essentially fixed to a "take it or leave it" decision.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 14, 2015)

As an owner of 400mm f2.8 IS II, I voted for my lens. It works very good with x2 TC III.

If I have the money, I would buy all. I rented the 600mm, nothing but excellent IQ.


----------



## TeT (Apr 14, 2015)

200 400, always like the zooms ...


----------



## JoFT (Apr 14, 2015)

Definetely none of those. I prefer the 100-400 and the 1.4x Extender....


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 14, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I cast my vote for the 200-400, because I prefer the flexibility of a zoom and the convenience of the built-in TC.
> ...



Yep. I just completed a three-day portrait session (high school yearbook) last week, and for the first time, used a zoom (70-200 II) instead of a prime (100/2.8L). Even with a fixed lens-to-subject distance (tripod-mounted camera to stationary bench), I appreciated the ability to tweak focal length a bit from subject to subject.


----------



## meywd (Apr 14, 2015)

I am still nowhere near getting any of those, but when I save the money I will have to go through the same process, since you mentioned astro and birding I think the 600 is the one and that's what i voted, however i think there is another option, with 2xTC the 300mm f/2.8L IS II is great for both needs and still hand holdable, yeah i know the 70-200 is heavy enough but with a shoulder strap and few breaks it will not be bad ;D

If I could get more than one then definitely the 300mm and the 600mm.


----------



## slclick (Apr 14, 2015)

Ha! I thought it was one of those 'If you only had one lens' polls. Therefore I went for versatility. (200-400)


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 15, 2015)

I'd be tossing up between the 400 and the 600. For most things I'd shoot with it (sports, landscapes - and often in lower light), 600mm might be a little too long, so I'd opt for the 400. I could always use an extender for longer reach. But in your case, the 600mm sounds like a good option.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Apr 15, 2015)

I would have added the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS to that list - mainly because I love mine!
I used to have the 600 F4 L IS Mk1 and it is a great focal length for wildlife. Even though it may seem a bit long for larger species it allows you stay well out of their comfort zone and get shots of more natural behavior. The Mk2 600 is everything that the Mk1 is just lighter and better - especially with extenders. Probably why I voted for it!

The 500 F4 Mk2 should also be considered as it offers far greater mobility and much easier hand holding. So much so that the tripod could be left behind!

With any of these lenses it would be silly to skimp on support! For my 300 F2.8 & 800 F5.6 I use the Wimberley2 head on top of a 3 series Gitzo systematic (3530LS). Having tried the more recent Gitzo tripods in 3,4 and 5 series, there is no practical advantage to them - the "old" 3530LS is well up to the job of damping down vibration with my 800 mm, not I don't (well very, VERY, rarely) use IS.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 15, 2015)

Well, I may be voting with my pocketbook, but first I need to rent and see what I can actually handle. It is a big step up from a 400 f/5.6L, which is trivially light. Handheld birds-in-flight photography is reasonable with the 400 f/5.6L, but what about the Big Whites? I see guys saying they handhold the Big Whites. I shoot with tripod too, but do like to be relatively mobile.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 15, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Handheld birds-in-flight photography is reasonable with the 400 f/5.6L, but what about the Big Whites? I see guys saying they handhold the Big Whites. I shoot with tripod too, but do like to be relatively mobile.



The 400 f/2.8 ii can be handheld for short periods, even though it is quite a weight. Personally, I do not enjoy handholding it. Of course for the best performance, it needs to be on a tripod or monopod.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 15, 2015)

Fatalv said:


> . I've been pleasantly happy with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and other L glass for astro and *have been interested something longer for birding/wildlife. *
> 
> So… which would you choose?
> 
> I was currently leaning towards the 400 f2.8 strictly for the light gathering ability for astro work and the ability to stack extenders and still have autofocus. But I keep wondering if I should go longer since I'm likely to only afford to own one of these lenses.




Birding/wildlife will push you to the 600.

The VII lenses are optically optimized to work with the III extenders *and* AF optimized for a current body such as 5DIII, 1DX or 7DII.

No comments on the suitability for astro work on any of those lenses.

I'd suggest checking out the weights of the 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4.

The f/4 lenses will still autofocus with a 2x extender, center point only on a f/8 AF capable body. 

I would suggest picking 2 and renting them before committing.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 15, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Well, I may be voting with my pocketbook, but first I need to rent and see what I can actually handle. It is a big step up from a 400 f/5.6L, which is trivially light. Handheld birds-in-flight photography is reasonable with the 400 f/5.6L, but what about the Big Whites? I see guys saying they handhold the Big Whites. I shoot with tripod too, but do like to be relatively mobile.



"Hand hold-able" is a personal thing.

If you search for birding lens threads, the 500mm lens is by far the most common choice.

There are the VI and VII 500mm f/4 IS lenses.

There is also the Canon 500 f/4.5 USM non-IS. This particular lens is obsolete and no longer serviced by Canon (and most likely, not serviceable at all if it should fail), but it is significantly less expensive than either of the IS lenses. This lens is focus by wire and it will not manual focus at all without power (or if the USM fails)- the "manual focus" is similar to the STM lenses and the 85L f/1.2. The optics are still on par with the latest and greatest. Minimum focus distance is less on the newer versions.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 15, 2015)

Thanks for all the replies everyone!

Some really good info in the thread so far. I've been looking through the Bird Portrait thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.7590. I figured it would be a good place to see what these lenses can do.

I'm starting to think about hand hold ability and how important it is to me. Someone mentioned renting the lenses which is an excellent idea! I'm a CPS member so I'm thinking about planning a trip and borrowing a lens through the loan program.

Additional comments and opinions are welcome! Keep it coming


----------



## Besisika (Apr 15, 2015)

200-400 for versatility as well.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2015)

I have both the 600 f4L IS II and the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. Both are excellent lenses. Before I got the 600 I had the 400 f2.8L IS II. The reason for getting the 600 was the option of going all the way to 1200mm with the 2xIII, when we got f8 AF on the 1DX.

It is easy to get a bit lost in the tempted versatility of the 200-400. Having the option of going to 560mm at the flick of a switch is great. And if your main interest is wildlife, that is a great choice. 

But if you are interested in birds, it´s simply not long enough. I use the 600, with the 1.4xIII extender more or less permanently attached, for birds. Even that is very often too short.

As for handholding, the 200-400 is in my view the most difficult, because you have to operate the zoom ring with the arm that carries all the weight. I have a convenient rig, with a monopod with a tilt head and a traditional flag bandoleer for that. I do hand hold the 600. But it is heavy and requires practice. A better alternative, if that is a prime requirement, is the 500 f4L IS II. Smaller, lighter and cheaper, but still quite long.

The 400 f2.8L IS II is a phenomenal lens and I have regretted selling it many times. The ability to go to f2.8 is missed and with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders you do get good reach with excellent IQ.


----------



## emag (Apr 15, 2015)

My vote is 400/2.8 and both extenders. Reach when you need it, speed when you don't. I find f/4 plenty fast enough for astro (I use a 300/4 when I don't use a scope) but I wouldn't kick a 400/2.8 out of bed for eating crackers. I've often wondered how the Sigma 200-500/2.8 would work.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 15, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Which to buy? Only you can answer that, as you know what you are going to do with the lens. If wildlife is important than I would presume reach is a priority.



I always found it difficult to wrap me head 'round the concept that wildlife equals ultra-long reach. True, there are lotsa "shoot 'em safari animals on the horizon" shots, but if you look at other good wildlife shots it's more about getting to mid-range distance. 



slclick said:


> Therefore I went for versatility. (200-400)



There is the point how versatile such a large and heavy lens can be in any case though ... it's not one of the op's choices, but I'm rather happy with my cheap 70-300L and if you want longer reach imho the new 100-400L2 with tc is definitely to be considered even if you end up with f8.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 15, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Which to buy? Only you can answer that, as you know what you are going to do with the lens. If wildlife is important than I would presume reach is a priority.
> ...



I really would not know as I do not shoot wildlife and only use my 400 f/2.8 ii for work. That's why I was being presumptuous about needing reach for wildlife.


----------



## Creeping_Death (Apr 15, 2015)

Hey,

if you think that adding a big white to your setup would be great because you could serve two purposes, astro and wildlife, than it might be a good option, but you should really think about where your priority is.

If you really want the best performance for astro, I would always go with a high end telescope as it will be better than all of the big whites regarding image quality, and it will probably still be cheaper. The thing is, those lenses have to be optimized to do a couple of things well, whereas a dedicated telescope can be optimized for its one purpose: imaging pinpoint light sources at infinity. So it is just natural that you can push the boundary of physics a little further if you only have to concentrate on one task.

Also, I don't know what kind of astro equipment you have, but investing in a good mount and an autoguider will be the basis of advanced astrophotography.

If you still want to go with the lens as it would be a great compromise, I would choose the 600 f/4 as it features the largest aperture (in terms of lens diameter) and a reasonably long focal length. Most deepsky objects are very small, so you would really like to have that kind of focal length to go with a full frame sensor as it is necessary to get decent magnifcation for the objects you are imaging. But then you should pay attention to the weight of the total setup (lens, camera, guide optics and autoguider) and if your EQ mount can handle it.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 15, 2015)

Fatalv said:


> I'm starting to think about hand hold ability and how important it is to me. Someone mentioned renting the lenses which is an excellent idea! I'm a CPS member so I'm thinking about planning a trip and borrowing a lens through the loan program.
> 
> Additional comments and opinions are welcome! Keep it coming



As I understand it, you do not get to pick the dates for the equipment loan. The loan time has been shortened as it now includes transit time.

The other issue is paying for shipping insurance. I would bet money that Canon does not pay for insurance through FedEx- they either have a separate policy, or take the risk (as a multi-billion dollar company, the "self-insure" risk is affordable).

You may want to find out just how much it will cost you to ship and insure the replacement cost of something like a 200-400 or 600 II... or find a way to attach it to your homeowners insurance for shipping. Seriously. The retail shipping rates for express shipping are quite dear (your loan period includes shipping time). Being close enough to pick up and return equipment directly would be a huge benefit here.

Oh, and make sure that you are up on the packaging requirements, or else the carrier will not pay out the insurance claim.

The 500 II seems to win the general "hand held shooting" contest based upon reading other threads- not ownership in my case, and of course, each person is different. Hand holding for a few minutes in an hour is different from more often or longer (sounds stupid, but it is important to keep time in mind). You also have to drag the equipment to the site.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 15, 2015)

I've used a 400mm f2.8 LIS for many years and it's easily the most versatile of all the big whites when coupled with a set of tele converters.


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 15, 2015)

I checked the 500mm f/4 II. But the reality is, if money wasn't an issue, I would choose an option you don't have listed: the new Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS. Super lightweight for carrying around and hand-holdability. It's received excellent reviews/ratings for sharpness, autofocus, bokeh, etc. And, it works great with any of the extenders being talked about. Obviously, you need a 1DX, 5D MKIII, or the new 7D Mk II to make autofocus work when paired with the 2X III extender - but this same limitation would apply with the all others listed too with the exception of the 400MM f/2.8 II. In fact, with the option I've listed, you could then also buy the new 100-400mm f/4-5.6 II and still be in it for less money then either the 400mm f/2.8II or the 600mm f/4 II. 

However, this goes out the window, if your focus is completely on shooting big game and/or birds. I just like some versatility, and what I suggest, you could pack into the back country for short trips. I don't know too many people who would be interested in doing that with the 600mm f/4. Or the big 400mm f/2.8...

my two cents anyway.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 15, 2015)

Creeping_Death said:


> Hey,
> 
> if you think that adding a big white to your setup would be great because you could serve two purposes, astro and wildlife, than it might be a good option, but you should really think about where your priority is.
> 
> ...



My current astro rig is an Orion Atlas EQ, Starshoot Autoguider, Adam Losmandy Dual Saddle, etc. I have a AT65EDQ that gets me in the 420mm range. For moon shots the 70-200 f2.8L II + 2x actually produces better images thus far. I have Adam adapters to mount either my 5D or 7D sufficiently and have stack of Andromeda and some other milky way long exposures. (I should really post them sometime).

I was looking at a TEC 140 before I starting thinking the camera lens route. I figured at around $7k-$8k for a full TEC setup why not look into a big white and be able to use it for terrestrial work


----------



## Creeping_Death (Apr 15, 2015)

Hey, 

the Atlas EQ and the Guider should be a good combination to do some serious imaging. I think it really depends on how deep you want to dive into the astrophotography hobby and how much quality you demand for your images. I am sure that you can get very satisfactory results with one of the big whites. But the longer you stay in the field of astrophotography, the more obsessed with perfectly round, pinpoint stars you usually get  

I also have the 65Q and I am a little suprised that it underperforms the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter. When i got mine the optics were pinched, which resulted in astigmatism and slightly unsharp stars so you might want to check whether yours is ok in this regard. 

The thing is really what kind of objects (whats your favorite? Galaxies, planetary nebulas, large nebulas?) you want to image in the future and how much time you want to invest. Only a few objects are as large as the Andromeda Galaxy, so once you have imaged the brightest objects you will usually want more reach. And as only a few telescopes are corrected to the full frame image circle, they will be costly the more focal length and aperture you want. 

But it really depends on your style of astrophotography. If you are the type of guy who spends 5-10 hours on a single object, then a TEC like you mentioned or any other high end refractor (Takahashi, TMB, AstroPhysics etc) will be the thing you want. On the other hand, if you say that your interest in wildlife and astro is really balanced, and you rather shoot multiple objects per night and you don't insist on filling the frame, then you could be really happy with a big white.

Me personally, I really prefer to have a telescope with a dedicated focuser. And if you still go deeper into astro, this would also allow you to switch to a cooled CCD camera if you wish to later on. But if you could buy the Canon lens used, you could still give it a try and sell it later if you develop into this direction.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 15, 2015)

Creeping_Death said:


> Hey,
> 
> the Atlas EQ and the Guider should be a good combination to do some serious imaging. I think it really depends on how deep you want to dive into the astrophotography hobby and how much quality you demand for your images. I am sure that you can get very satisfactory results with one of the big whites. But the longer you stay in the field of astrophotography, the more obsessed with perfectly round, pinpoint stars you usually get
> 
> ...



For astrophotography I usually take a trip or two to Cherry Springs State Park each year. If you are not familiar with it, CS is one of the best dark parks in the eastern US. Andromeda was my first major DSO target. I'm into DSOs so galaxies and nebulas mostly. My goal for astro was to find a decent DSO object for each month that I could work on imaging throughout the year in my backyard (light polluted Pittsburgh) but also for random trips to the dark park.

I was looking at the TEC since a large refractor would still allow me to image from not so great skies when not at CS and also be one of those lifetime investments. As far as the AT65, I feel that the focuser was the limiting factor on quality vs. the 70-200 II. I was reaching a point that even though it was dual speed the smallest change was never perfectly focused. I honestly didn't expect a $600 telescope to be a match for a $2000 camera lens though. I had heard about the pinched optics but I'll have to do some more testing on this front (I haven't had a chance to use the autoguider yet other than software tests). 

I'd say I do astro about as much birding at this point, but I could see more use for a telephoto just based on the number of camping/outdoor excursions I do without bringing all the astro gear. Hence why I'm debating the options I am. Don't get me wrong, I'm still debating the TEC as it would be a great lifetime scope. I'm just torn with making the proper decision with what is likely the only chance I will get before the funds need re-appropriated towards something slightly more practical


----------



## Creeping_Death (Apr 15, 2015)

Okay, the way you describe it it sounds like you really will have much more opportunities for birding while being outside/camping than those occasions where you will find yourself under great skies.

In this case, I would recommend that you get the lens you really want for birding (right focal length and weight for you), use it for astrophotography whenever you have the chance to, and if you start do develop more and more interest in astro buy a telescope later. It doesn't have to be a high end scope, you could really make a nice step up from the 65Q if you spend around $2k at some point in time for a larger scope with a longer focal length. 

Once you get the autoguider working properly, you will be able to do up to 10 minutes single exposures with a litte experience, and you will have some really nice shots to show once you get home from a dark sky site. Its just that the less known objects will stay pretty small


----------



## quod (Apr 15, 2015)

600 because the 100-400 II is a great lens, which eliminates some of the allure of the 200-400, my runner-up lens. The 600 is an excellent birding lens.


----------



## rpt (Apr 16, 2015)

quod said:


> 600 because the 100-400 II is a great lens, which eliminates some of the allure of the 200-400, my runner-up lens. The 600 is an excellent birding lens.


+1


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 16, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



For most shots, you're probably correct, as even 400mm on full frame isn't *that* long (without a 2x tc, that is).

I just made it a habit to comment on this because my impression is that people wanting to get into wildlife w/o actually doing it before (b/c of the lack of equipment) might think it's all about scanning the horizon with 1200mm on a crop camera. But the perspective is completely flat on these shots, something that doesn't appeal to me personally.

Last not least, lugging around too much equipment kills flexibility and fun, which is something to be considered if you're not an actual pro photog (in which case only the result matters and nothing else).


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 16, 2015)

Fatalv said:


> I was looking at a TEC 140 before I starting thinking the camera lens route. I figured at around $7k-$8k for a full TEC setup why not look into a big white and be able to use it for terrestrial work



Just for a pause here, but you do realize that all of the Canon VII lenses are significantly above this dollar range at MSRP, correct?


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 16, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > I was looking at a TEC 140 before I starting thinking the camera lens route. I figured at around $7k-$8k for a full TEC setup why not look into a big white and be able to use it for terrestrial work
> ...



Yes, I'm aware of the price difference. I've been looking at both CPW Street Price and Adorama. With the recent price drops the big whites have come down some. Currently the 500 f/4 @ $8.35k CPW which is fairly in the league of the TEC.


----------



## ktatty (Apr 17, 2015)

I have the 400 2.8 because i need the 2.8 for field sports at night on a full frame. For birds i use the 1.4 ext- or a crop body w/o extender. I would go with the 500 f/4 if I didn't need the 2.8- the weight difference between the two makes the 500 easier to move around with( i still need a monopod) and you have more reach for birds. The weight difference on paper doesn't seem like much, but it is quite a difference when handling the two.


----------

