# Which supertele?



## asmundma (Mar 25, 2013)

Hi
My lense collection is getting complete exept for a supertele. I was keen on the 300 and use it with extenders. Should i get the 300, 400 or 500 ? Plan to use it for sports and wildlife. Then I got concerned about the weight, would I bring it or use my 70-200 with extenders. Right now I leaning towords 500, due to reach and lower weight then the 400.
What's your advice?


----------



## cervantes (Mar 25, 2013)

For sports: 300 perfect, 400 perfect, 500 good
For wildlife: 500 perfect, 400 good, 300 probably less than good
For handholdability and transport via backpack: 300 perfect, 400 bad, 500 good

Since you weren't very specific about your needs I can't give you a clear recommendation.
I use the 500L II since about two weeks frequently and exclusively handheld -> works very well for me. I don't have any experience with the 300 and 400 though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2013)

For sports, it depends on where you are in relation to the action. On the sidelines, field not too big, the 300/2.8 is ideal. For most sports, 400/2.8 is better.

For wildlife, does that include birds? Most of the time, and especially for birds, the longer the lens, the better. That's why I use a 600 II for that, often with a 1.4x or 2x TC. 

Also, it would help to know what camera you're talking about...400 on 1.6x will be too long for some sports.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2013)

I am primarily a bird photographer (though not particularly good). After much thought, I settled on the 300 f/2.8 II with the x1.4 and x2 III series TCs because I do not use a tripod and like wandering around with a relatively light weight package. Everyone who posts about the 300 II with the x2 TC raves about its sharpness - the TC hardly degrades the sharpness at all (described by someone here as the second sharpest 600mm lens). The 300 II with the 1.4 is of not much more weight than the 400mm f/4 DO and similar price but is much sharper (see the Canon MTFs) as well as being blisteringly fast auto focus for BIF. Even Art Morris has been converted to loving the 300 lens.

The 70-200 f/2.8 with extenders is not in the same league as the 300mm f/2.8, and is about the same as the 100-400mm L. Even though I like and still use my 100-400mm for travel, I have to fill much more of the frame to get an acceptable sharp photo, which means you have to get much closer to birds to produce stunning results.

If you use a tripod then there are better alternatives, albeit more expensive. The 400mm f/2.8 II is even sharper than the legendary 300mm but is far heavier, and it will give an incredible sharp 800mm with the 2xTC. The 500mm f/4 with a 1.4xTC is very popular with birders. The most serious birders go for the longer lenses.

So take your choice. 300mm ± TCs for walk around (though Neuro manages heavier lenses) or the longer heavier for tripod work or the 70-200mm but at closer distances - you are spoilt for choice.


----------



## RGF (Mar 25, 2013)

ISO a lot of wildlife shooting and I have both the 500 and 300. I use the 500 much more than the 300. If the 200-400 were ever to appear I would seriously consider that lens


----------



## asmundma (Mar 25, 2013)

Thanks a lot for useful input. Fyi using 5d3. Whats the AF speed of 300 with 2C?


----------



## Apop (Mar 25, 2013)

Hey,

Since you have the 70-200 f2.8 , I would def. go for the 500mm f4 !

The 300 is superb off course, but it is pretty close to your 70-200 in reach.

The 500 is still hand holdable and since you use full frame cameras the choice of going for 500 for sports / wildlife is even easier ! (in my view)

I briefly had the 300f2.8 IS and 500 f4 IS, but got rid of the 300 f2.8
I found 300mm not long enough (even with 1.3 crop body)

I haven't checked this but i can imagine the appearance of a subject size between lenses (ratio) can be expressed as

500^2/300^2 = 2.777 times bigger (same distance a subject would appear 2.8 times bigger)

200 vs 300 = 2.5 bigger
200 vs 500 = 6.25 bigger

bigger meaning surface area of subject ( ratio's again)
Sorry if that logic is flawed, but i think it should be pretty solid since it's a 2 dimensional problem
Hope it is helpful


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 26, 2013)

asmundma said:


> Thanks a lot for useful input. Fyi using 5d3. Whats the AF speed of 300 with 2C?



For sports, the best lens for soccer and football would be a 400 f/2.8. If you can practice a lot and get it right, you can get great shots with little cropping. If you are uncomfortable with your framing, a 300 f/2.8 and cropping in post works great too. For wildlife, I'd go 500 and up.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 26, 2013)

The problem with wildlife is that it is wild..... and that means hard to get close to.

My longest lens is 400mm on a crop camera. It is rarely long enough to get close to shy animals. 

We had a great Grey owl at work most of the winter.... I saw it every day for two months. Only once did it get close enough that 400mm x 1.6crop came close to filling the frame. The rest of the time I was thinking how nice 800mm or 1200mm would be.... and that's a large bird!

If I were going towards a super tele I would be drooling after a 600mm F4, and at that, partly because it plays well with the teleconverters (or so I am told)..... but that's just my opinion.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2013)

asmundma said:


> Thanks a lot for useful input. Fyi using 5d3. Whats the AF speed of 300 with 2C?



On the 7D, it could be a little slow. With the latest 5DIII and the II series lens and III series x2 TC, the AF is very fast and fine for birds in flight. Believe me, that 600mm combination is pretty incredible and only slightly shorter than the 500 mm with a 1.4xTC, and considerably more versatile and portable. The II series lens is far better with TCs than the I series.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2013)

Apop said:


> Hey,
> 
> Since you have the 70-200 f2.8 , I would def. go for the 500mm f4 !
> 
> ...



The logic is flawed, unfortunately - the resolving power depends on the focal length of the lens, not the length squared as it is a 1 D problem. Two lines can be resolved if the image on the sensor has them separated by two pixels. The size of the image depends on the focal length of the lens. So, a 300mm lens gives you 50% more reach than a 200mm, a 400mm 33% more than a 300mm, and a 700mm 16.6% than a 600mm, all things being equal.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 26, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > Hey,
> ...


But does not the reach expand your subject in both axis/dimensions, therefore if you are talking surface area or % of the sensor covered, then what apop says is correct? Agreed, reach, but not % of sensor...


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2013)

Resolution and signal to noise, which are linear functions of focal length, not surface area are the factors that are important, because you can enlarge an image. You can increase the area of the image from say a 200mm lens to be the same size as for a 300mm lens on the same camera by increasing the number of pixels in each dimension in PS by 1.5 in each dimension, and the difference between the two images will be a factor of 1.5 in resolution, not 1.5^2. Or, in the good old days of film, you would have enlarged the negative by 1.5 times more to give the same size photo but with 1.5x less resolution. You also increase noise to signal on enlargement, but N/S depends on the square root of the area of the image, i.e. its linear dimension.

Consider an analogous example: an APS-C has a crop factor of 1.6 because the image is effectively larger by 1.6 in both axis directions. We all say that the crop has a 1.6 times advantage in reach, not 1.6^2 (= 2.56), the increase in area. The S/N is worse than a FF by, in theory, a factor of 1.6, not 2.56.

What a telephoto lens does is, in effect, to let you get closer to your subject proportional to the focal length of your lens. Suppose a bird is 100m away. Then you will get the same size image when you have a 200mm lens 20m away, a 300mm lens, 30m away, a 500mm lens 50m away, a 600mm lens 60m away, a 700mm lens 70m away etc. It is focal length and not focal length squared that is important.


----------



## Apop (Mar 26, 2013)

Yeah that was what i was thinking
that same subject is +/-270% the surface area the subject would have been if taken with 300mm , when you use a 500mm for the same subject

I have never really given the 300+tc's much thought, it does sound very interesting for the weight, 300 f2.8/420f4/600f5.6

I can imagine you want to stop down to 6.3? maybe even more when at 600mm? or is it comparable to a bare 500 ..., thedigitalpicture for what its worth shows indeed that the 300 IS II works very well with converters

However, a 500f4 vs 600f5.6 (possibly 6.3/8) still makes some difference to me (when you need that shutterspeed for action)
I wonder how auto focus speed would compare ( i can imagine the bare being faster, but by how much)


A new 300 f2.8 IS II is also slightly more expensive than a used 500 mm f4 IS
I picked up a 500f4 IS in mint condition (production yr 2009 or so) in a store with 1 year warranty and a 1.4 tc for over 1000 euros less than the cost of a new 300 f2.8 IS II, that also made the choice a lot easier for me.

Depending on what wildlife you encounter both can work fine, but i think a 300 mm on a full frame can ask for some heavy cropping from time to time.
I had a d800 and 200-400 out on safari, it delivered great images, however even with 400 mm and the good cropping ability i came up short for pretty much all smaller birds(for my liking), some eagles, even some mammals , and at other times 200 mm was way 2 much 








Stu_bert said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Apop said:
> ...


----------



## Apop (Mar 26, 2013)

the d800 with 36mp, when you take a crop image (1.5 crop factor), the pixels that remain on target = 36/1.5^2 =36/2.25= 16

So essentially a 300mm vs 500mm lens means that you got the ratio of those 2 squared --> more pixels on target

(500/300)^2 is about 2.778 as many pixels on target ( surface area of subject)

I think thats much more important then saying it's only 1.6667 times the focal length

200 to 300 may be only 1.5 times the focal length , but its 2.25 times as many pixels on target
So an object appears 2.25 times larger in your view finder as well.


and 420mm f4 vs 500mmf4, it may onle be a 1.19 factor difference in Focal lengths, you still get over 40% more pixels on target with the 500mm







AlanF said:


> Resolution and signal to noise, which are linear functions of focal length, not surface area are the factors that are important, because you can enlarge an image. You can increase the area of the image from say a 200mm lens to be the same size as for a 300mm lens on the same camera by increasing the number of pixels in each dimension in PS by 1.5 in each dimension, and the difference between the two images will be a factor of 1.5 in resolution, not 1.5^2. Or, in the good old days of film, you would have enlarged the negative by 1.5 times more to give the same size photo but with 1.5x less resolution. You also increase noise to signal on enlargement, but N/S depends on the square root of the area of the image, i.e. its linear dimension.
> 
> Consider an analogous example: an APS-C has a crop factor of 1.6 because the image is effectively larger by 1.6 in both axis directions. We all say that the crop has a 1.6 times advantage in reach, not 1.6^2 (= 2.56), the increase in area. The S/N is worse than a FF by, in theory, a factor of 1.6, not 2.56.
> 
> What a telephoto lens does is, in effect, to let you get closer to your subject proportional to the focal length of your lens. Suppose a bird is 100m away. Then you will get the same size image when you have a 200mm lens 20m away, a 300mm lens, 30m away, a 500mm lens 50m away, a 600mm lens 60m away, a 700mm lens 70m away etc. It is focal length and not focal length squared that is important.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2013)

Apop
I still disagree and have presented the arguments, and will say no more.

Regarding lenses, the 500mm f/4 IS is a wonderful lens, but when comparing fine details of lenses, it depends what series they are. The series II lenses are even better than the I. So:

500mm IS L vs 500mm II 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The series II has a significant edge, and weighs 3190g vs 3870 (vs 2350 for the 300), as well as having 2 stops more IS.

500mm IS L vs 300mm II + 1.4xTC

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
The 420 combo is at least as sharp, and looks slightly sharper.

500mm IS L vs 300mm II + 1.4xTC
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=2

There is not much difference in IQ, but the 600 combo has greater reach, weighs much less, and has 4 stops IS. On the other hand, a series II 500mm or 600mm will outperform the 300mm II plus extenders, have better weights but at a higher price.

So, you pays your money and takes your choice.


----------



## Kerry B (Mar 26, 2013)

My main interest is photographing wildlife including birds. I have recently aquired a Canon 300f2.8mkii lens and use it with the new mkiii 1.4 extender. Image quality on my 5Dmkiii is awesome and much better than the 7D combo. The full frame body really does make best use of this lens set up. And yes I am fussy with regard image quality.

I would say without a shadow on doubt that the image quality on the 300mm lens with extender on the 5D mkiii is much better than the bare 300mm lens on the 7D. Even when cropping in the image quality shines.

For sports the 300mm is a great lens, for wildlife in general I have found the 300 to be ideal, we all want more length but have to work with the tools we have. Bird photography does call for longer lenses, however I have learn't over the years only to photograph birds which are within reach. Understanding their behavious is a real bonus. 

Those persons with super tele lenses such as those in the 500/600mm bracket will always want more reach. 

If cost is no issue then go for the bigger lenses, however in my modest opinion the 300mm with and without extenders is giving the best in terms of quality and range.


----------



## Apop (Mar 26, 2013)

yeah the 300 with 1.4 tc looks very good indeed, but still 40% more pixels on subject with a 500mm lens

I do really like that the 300 with 1.4 tc can still use all the 39 cross type sensors of the 1d mkiv, where the 500 can only use 19


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2013)

Kerry B said:


> My main interest is photographing wildlife including birds. I have recently aquired a Canon 300f2.8mkii lens and use it with the new mkiii 1.4 extender. Image quality on my 5Dmkiii is awesome and much better than the 7D combo. The full frame body really does make best use of this lens set up. And yes I am fussy with regard image quality.
> 
> I would say without a shadow on doubt that the image quality on the 300mm lens with extender on the 5D mkiii is much better than the bare 300mm lens on the 7D. Even when cropping in the image quality shines.
> 
> ...



+1
I did the same upgrade from 7D, and as shown in bird pictures posted elsewhere in these forums, in practice, the 5DIII with the 300mm II + extenders is as good as the 7D + 300mm II + extenders, despite the extra reach. Neuro finds the same. The really good thing about the upgrade is the far better and faster autofocus on the 5D III. 

By the way, I really recommend the x2 TC III as well the 1.4xTC - the extra reach is worth the outlay.


----------



## asmundma (Mar 27, 2013)

Thanks again, a lot of good views. Any particular experience with 300 and AF speed?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 27, 2013)

The 300 series II on the 5D III is close to instantaneous. The 1.4 TC series III is still too fast AF to notice any slowness, and the 2x is still very fast and perfectly adequate for birds in flight. They were slower on the 7D.


----------



## BrettS (Apr 10, 2013)

cervantes said:


> I use the 500L II since about two weeks frequently and exclusively handheld -> works very well for me.



So you took the plunge on "the monster"?

As did I.


----------



## RGF (Apr 15, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Apop
> I still disagree and have presented the arguments, and will say no more.
> 
> Regarding lenses, the 500mm f/4 IS is a wonderful lens, but when comparing fine details of lenses, it depends what series they are. The series II lenses are even better than the I. So:
> ...



Thanks for the link to comparing the Great Whites.

I am still undecided which one (s) to get.

Currently have the 500F4 IS and have seriously considered the 200-400 (if it ever comes out) and a 600 II. The problem is that 600 II is big and which makes carrying it on a plane and working with in a safari vehicle in Africa a royal PIA. 

The decision is further complicated by Canon dropping the APS-H cameras. I still shoot 1DM4 on safari and for wildlife when I need reach but other 5DM3 is my goto body. I'll be borrowing a 1Dx soon so if I loose the 1.3 crop from the APS-H sensor, I may need the extra reach. I am not optimisitic about the 7D M2 - may be okay but the AF may not be as good as the 5DM3. We will see if fall (maybe). 

A good buddy has the 400 II and recommends that (400 + 2x has more reach than 500 + 1.4x but according to TDP will be less sharp). Of course the shorter Great Whites have a closer minimum focus distance which is always nice.

Bottom line: I think this will be a wait and see year for me. See what Canon does, IF of the 7DM2, 200-400, possibly even new 100-400. And of course save my pennies so that I can buy 2 (if I save hard) great whites next year.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 15, 2013)

If it makes you feel any better, the 1DX file cropped to the same FOV as the 1D4 file has higher IQ. You don't lose any reach really, if you shoot RAW.


----------



## RGF (Apr 15, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> If it makes you feel any better, the 1DX file cropped to the same FOV as the 1D4 file has higher IQ. You don't lose any reach really, if you shoot RAW.



Really??? 18 MP FF cropped to APS-H (which is a 40% reduction in number of pixels) will equal 1D4, even at low ISO?

How will the 5DM3 which has 22 (or so)MP do?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 15, 2013)

I found at least for soccer and football the improvements in the 1DX sensor outweighed the resolution loss. Wildlife is another deal though, as I'm not familiar with focal lengths of 500 and 600mm.


----------



## RGF (Apr 15, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I found at least for soccer and football the improvements in the 1DX sensor outweighed the resolution loss. Wildlife is another deal though, as I'm not familiar with focal lengths of 500 and 600mm.



when you say outweighed resolution loss, what ISO and how large do you print?


----------



## cervantes (Apr 15, 2013)

BrettS said:


> cervantes said:
> 
> 
> > I use the 500L II since about two weeks frequently and exclusively handheld -> works very well for me.
> ...



I did indeed. And I'm going to post a detailed report on that soon...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 15, 2013)

AlanF's posts make the most sense to me. I've tried the 500 f/4 series 1, as I have said elsewhere...and the copy I tried, was very soft, and also didn't focus accurately or consistently. It was tested and supposedly nothing was wrong. After this, it seems to me the series 2 are the only choice, if you want a big white lens.

I would suggest the 300 and 600 series 2, plus both series 3 extenders...unless you don't ever want to shoot birds. This combination gives you 300mm, 420mm, 560mm, 600mm, 840mm, and 1200mm.

For much closer subjects, especially in low light, I would say buy the 200 f/2 and forget the 70-200 f/2.8 series 2. The 200 f/2 has better color than perhaps any other lens in existence, despite those on here who think it's "not such a special lens". I'm sorry, but yes it is. I don't own one at this time.

If you find that you prefer to shoot in low light, but your subjects are kind of distant, then the 400 f/2.8 is the obvious choice. Say, a person at 100 to 300 feet away. I have craved this lens, but I think for me the 300 f/2.8 makes more sense. The FOV at 400mm is going to be too narrow a whole lot of the time, for me.

The 500 f/4 series 2 is best for birding (combined with the 1.4x iii as needed), especially if you need to carry it a long way (lighter and smaller than the 600, and not much less reach).

If you would really like a zoom, wait for the 200-400 f/4, probably released this summer. It seems to me, it would be incredibly handy...and cost less than buying two or more other lenses covering the focal range from 200 to 560mm. Of course, it's far from being as low-light-capable, as an f/2.8 lens...especially with its TC switched in.

As for autofocus, I personally opted for the 6D rather than the 5D3. I have found it doesn't take much tweaking to get very nice servo AF via the 6D. The thread that stated the 6D wasn't responsive while focusing, is just wrong. I realize the 5D3 choirboys will hate on this, but I'm just stating my experience. And yes, I've tried the 5D3. The 6D seems to excel at servo tracking in light requiring ISO 25,600 on an f/4 lens (with center point selected), and absolutely nails it a high percentage of the time (perhaps 70%). But this climbs to near 100% if you set the servo for accuracy rather than speed for "second shot"...of course this slows the fps...which is fine with me in these situations. I would rather have all the shots in focus and not waste time and memory on blurred ones. So in these situations, slowing the fps by 20 to 30%, doesn't seem like much of a loss. And this is using a much-maligned series ii, 2x TC (I got it free and don't mind using it at all, on certain lenses. It does hamper contrast and color, but leaves plenty of sharpness intact...on the right lens. On the wrong lens, it's not quite acceptable, at best).

I of course admit, in decent light, the 5D3 is the one to have. Or the 1DX for any situation, if you don't mind it's mass and cost.

I also agree, that the new full frame cameras have increased their resolution more so than it seems they should have. I don't know if this is due in equal parts to the sensors themselves and to the processing...or if it's one more than the other. Either way...I'm astounded at how much I no longer need a crop sensor for "reach". (And please no chiding about how I'm "not the first to notice this"...I know I'm not!).


----------



## eml58 (Apr 15, 2013)

I shoot with both the 5DMK3, 1Dx & 1DMK4, primarily wildlife, I use the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 V2, 400f/2.8 V2 & 600f/4 V2, most used Lens has been the 300f/2.8 V2.

For Wildlife (Africa) it's about where your shooting, South Africa & Botswana more the 200/300 Lenses (More Bush), Kenya & Tanzania it's more the 400/600 (Larger Open Veldt).

I rarely use the 1.4x & 2x Convertors, but when I have I find the V3 Convertors work exceptionally well with the V2 Lenses.

You might want to hold off & wait for the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) which I'm hopeful will be finally available mid this Year, I have used the Nikon Version & for wildlife this will be a top piece of Kit I feel.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 15, 2013)

RGF said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Apop
> ...



I use the 600/f4 in Africa at least 2 to 3 times a year, along with the 400 & 300, all Version 2 Lenses, I generally shoot the 600 & 400 from a Wimberley ii Head set up on the RRS Safari Monopod Rig in Southern Africa areas & East Africa from a Beanbag (Different areas have different vehicle Configurations, as you may know), I carry the gear in a Gura Gear Bataflea 32L Back Pack, it's by far the best I've used & the only one that the 600 fits nicely into one side.

For absolute stellar sharpness, the 300f/2.8 V2 for me has been the winner, plus it's the most used Focal Length, but if your shooting say The Migration in Tanzania, or Open wilderness in Kenya, you need either the 600/f4, or the 300/400 with 1.4/2 Converters. Unfortunately until the 200-400 is released, we are stuck with carrying at least 2 of these Lenses to get the cover we need, I generally carry the 300/400, but swap to 300/600 for Tanzania & kenya. I think once the 200-400 is released, I'll Buy that & sell the 400, but it'll still be 2 Lenses, 300/200-400 or 200-400/600.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 15, 2013)

RGF said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I found at least for soccer and football the improvements in the 1DX sensor outweighed the resolution loss. Wildlife is another deal though, as I'm not familiar with focal lengths of 500 and 600mm.
> ...



For football I've printed 50% crops at ISO 8000 at 8x10, ISO 1600 with 75% crop at 10x14.

Again though, I realize the FOV of a 500 and 600 is going to be quite different, but those shots beat my 1D4 by a long way.


----------



## RGF (Apr 15, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Thanks. I'll be borrowing one ina few weeks from CPS and I'll be able to compare then.May upset my budget a bit, a whole bit.


----------

