Canon Big White Conundrum - 200-400 vs 400 f2.8 IS II vs 500 f4 IS II

AbChromatic wrote:

I’ve decided to take the plunge and get a big white to pursue my interest in wildlife photography. Like some other folks on this forum, I’m on the fence with regards to 200-400 vs 400 f2.8 IS II vs 500 f4 IS II. I would highly appreciate any recommendations, experiences etc with these big whites.

My current gear : 5d Mk III , 100-400, 24-105, 50

Interests : Wildlife and Wildscapes . Focus on Mammals , water birds (flamingos, storks, pelicans, etc) and some raptors. I have not developed a strong interest into small birds yet (hence ruling out 600).

Places of Interest (Typical Indian National Parks): Ranthambore, Kazirangha, Kabini, Kanha, Corbett etc and an occasional African park.

Based on my research (summing up info from other posts and lens reviews) there maybe two main options:

Option A
1) 1 body + 1 lens

Existing 5D Mk III + Buy a 200-400 built in 1.4X

Pros:
1) Convenience: Need to carry only one body and lens combo.

2) Versatility: ability zoom in and out without having to add/remove extenders and change lens in the field etc.

3) Need only 1 body so need to incur expense of second body or other lens.

Cons:
1) Not sure of the quality n level of detail at 560mm (with converter engaged). I have tried this lens once and had mixed feelings. Nonetheless, a very limited data point to build any strong opinions.

2) Weight is heavy.

3) Price Tag.

4) May need to buy a crop body as focal length is limited on the long end for most birds.

Option B
1) 2 bodies + 2 lens

Existing 5d Mk III + either 500 f/4 IS II (with the option of adding 1.4 or 2x extenders)
OR 400 f2.8 IS II (with the option of adding 1.4 or 2x extenders )

And

2nd Body Lens combo
Buy a new crop sensor 7D Mk I (or II when it comes out) + 70-200 f2.8 IS II (replacing existing 100-400)

Any input is highly appreciated.

in this case, my number one choice would be canon 400mm f2.8II with 1.4x and 2x TCs. canon 400 f2.8 is probably the finest prime there is. it is probably the best for birding, wild life, and sports. i am not sure about 200-400 tele. i think you'll get tired of it fast. it is not long enough and i am certain once you engage the 1.4x TC, the iq will take a hit much worst than the 400 f2.8II prime with TC. i have the canon 600 f4.0II prime which is fantastic but the price is too steep and i wouldn't use a TC with it my 2cent.

cheerz.

As a general rule you normally can't get enough focal length when shooting wildlife, particularly birds, and normally includes large ones

the 200-400 would therefore be the least useful unless you want the 200- 400 range

the 400  will give you max 800 mm with a 2xtc, and only 560 mm with the 1.4 tc

the 500 on the other hand will give you 700 mm and 1000mm with t/cs

i went for the 600mm because it will give  a good performance at 840mm with the 1.4tc and a very usable performance at 1200mm, absolutely no regrets, but then I can use my 300mm prime with a 1.4 TC to give me something in between 300 and 600

the new mark 3 tcs work best with the mark 2 teles

in essence it's a balance between focal length requirements, size/weight, and cost, which in the end only you can decide, that said, if a newer high end aspc crop body is released by canon as rumoured, that may have some baring on your decision

I'm loving mine, it's replaced my aging 100-400mm and 500mm f/4; the flexibility that the lens offers over a primes is a huge plus.  While the image quality at the far ends of the zoom ranges can't compete with a prime it's more than good enough unless you are are a hardcore pixel peeper, and even then you'll struggle to see the difference mid-run.  It compares well with the big primes for size and weight too; especially against the 400m f/2.8.

Finally, don't forget that you can also use it with an external TC as well as the internal one (or even stack them if you are desparate), so the flexibility the lens offers is amazing, especially if you have a body that has f/8 AF support and clean high ISOs to make up for lost stops.

Andy

AbChromatic wrote:

I’ve decided to take the plunge and get a big white to pursue my interest in wildlife photography. Like some other folks on this forum, I’m on the fence with regards to 200-400 vs 400 f2.8 IS II vs 500 f4 IS II. I would highly appreciate any recommendations, experiences etc with these big whites.

My current gear : 5d Mk III , 100-400, 24-105, 50

Interests : Wildlife and Wildscapes . Focus on Mammals , water birds (flamingos, storks, pelicans, etc) and some raptors. I have not developed a strong interest into small birds yet (hence ruling out 600).

Places of Interest (Typical Indian National Parks): Ranthambore, Kazirangha, Kabini, Kanha, Corbett etc and an occasional African park.

Based on my research (summing up info from other posts and lens reviews) there maybe two main options:

Option A
1) 1 body + 1 lens

Existing 5D Mk III + Buy a 200-400 built in 1.4X

Pros:
1) Convenience: Need to carry only one body and lens combo.

2) Versatility: ability zoom in and out without having to add/remove extenders and change lens in the field etc.

3) Need only 1 body so need to incur expense of second body or other lens.

Cons:
1) Not sure of the quality n level of detail at 560mm (with converter engaged). I have tried this lens once and had mixed feelings. Nonetheless, a very limited data point to build any strong opinions.

2) Weight is heavy.

3) Price Tag.

4) May need to buy a crop body as focal length is limited on the long end for most birds.

Option B
1) 2 bodies + 2 lens

Existing 5d Mk III + either 500 f/4 IS II (with the option of adding 1.4 or 2x extenders)
OR 400 f2.8 IS II (with the option of adding 1.4 or 2x extenders )

And

2nd Body Lens combo
Buy a new crop sensor 7D Mk I (or II when it comes out) + 70-200 f2.8 IS II (replacing existing 100-400)

Any input is highly appreciated.

It sure depends on what you will be shooting mostly. The ONLY reason to go with the 400mm 2.8 II is if football is 50% of what your shooting. If it is, then ya got to get it. I chose to go with the 500mm f4 II, the 200-400mm still is short for so many things, and even though there is a converter built in, my 500mm will also take them and it's an absolute killer at 700mm f5.6 wide open.

The two body approach for wildlife/birds is a great way to go, 500mm on a stick and a 100-400mm,70-200mm or 70-300mm L on the shoulder for closer, fast appearing birds etc. Kind of the same kit I use on the sideline, except at night (300-400mm's 2.8's).

I don't pretend to have the answer, but the 200-400mm is just so expensive and short. The 500mm II will give you better everything on the long end for several thousand less. That being said, I won't shoot too many events w/o a zoom, the action is too unpredictable. For football and wildlife however, it's tough to get too much reach optically.

Good luck!

I rented the 200-400 but found the IQ took too much of a hit with the 1.4x engaged. But I consider myself a sharpness freak and I'm comparing it to the IQ my 300 f2.8 IS II and 1.4xIII provides.

But you need to find out for yourself. I suggest you rent the lenses before buying.

Thank you so much for the valuable suggestions everyone. Based on the posts above, it appears:

a) 400mm will generally be a little short for wildlife. So 400 2.8 may not be the best option unless you’re into sports photography as well.

b) 200-400 will be too short and engaging the extender to increase reach will cause a significant drop in the IQ. So this may not be the best option given the limited reach and high cost of this lens.

c) Two body is best approach for wildlife to gain a good mix of reach and versatility.

This brings 600 IS II back into the mix . Does anybody have any recommendations for 600 IS II vs 500 IS II + 1.4X III ?

I use the Canon 200-400mm. While I cannot say how much it differs from the 500mm prime in sharpness, I can say that I see a very minimal change in sharpness from 400mm to engaging the internal extender. I am very happy using all 560mm and I am yet to see any lack of sharpness that is due to the performance of the lens - rather it will be due to the lack of performance of the guy behind the camera. I am not aware if other users have used the 200-400mm lens extensively when commenting on the significant decrease in sharpness, but both from personal experience as well as from most of the longer reviews I have managed to identify on the net, there seem to be very few concerns in regards to lack of sharpness with the internal extender engaged )maybe I have not found the most critical reviews yet). Personally I am very happy with the lens. The sharpness and speed is great and I love the flexibility of being able to move between 200-560mm. While it is correct that you can rarely get enough reach for wildlife (especially birds), it is my experience that with wildlife moving around (and moving out of the ideal distance of your prime), the zoom give much more possibilities of getting some good shots in the box with one camera only. Just my 5 cents.

If you are comfortable with the size, weight, and cost of the 600mm, then that's probably as good as it's going to get for wildlife with the mark 3 t/cs

the 500mm is as I understand it as good but with less weight(handholding  will be easier), smaller size( for carrying and working with), and cost(quite a bit cheaper)

the only draw back of the 500 when comparing the two is that it will not do 840mm at f5.6, and 1200mm at f8, the 500mm only reaching 700mm and 1000mm respectively with t/cs

The 600 will give you more pixels on the subject, and that can be important with distant subjects that require you to crop into an image

AbChromatic wrote:

Thank you so much for the valuable suggestions everyone. Based on the posts above, it appears:

a) 400mm will generally be a little short for wildlife. So 400 2.8 may not be the best option unless you’re into sports photography as well.

For small birds or very skittish wildlife that you just can't get close too, then I'd agree that 400mm will probably be too short, and so will a 500mm and maybe even a 600mm for that matter. For everything else this is a rule of thumb that has been around for ages - long enough that it probably needs some reconsideration in light of the higher pixels now available. Consider how large an image you *really* need for your output medium of choice, , then think about how much extra "reach" you can gain from cropping an image from a modern DSLR. Sure, being able to zoom right in and still see lots detail is nice, but how often do you do that in practice, other than to pixel peep?

b) 200-400 will be too short and engaging the extender to increase reach will cause a significant drop in the IQ. So this may not be the best option given the limited reach and high cost of this lens.

I can only imagine that the person that suggested this has/had a bad copy as it's not all that significant on mine, even at the limits of the zoom range, although there is some drop off as you would expect with any zoom. I have no qualms about using the in-built TC, and will quite happily combine this with an external 1.4x if I have to, for a very light and compact 400-800mm.

c) Two body is best approach for wildlife to gain a good mix of reach and versatility.

Pretty much true for any style of photography, but especially when using primes. While I don't generally shoot birds, especially smaller ones, my preferred combo for wildlife is the 200-400mm on one body and a 70-200mm with optional 1.4x TC on the other. If you want versatility (and I do) then you can't beat a zoom, so while the 200-400+TC might not be quite as sharp as my 500mm, it's more than good enough for my needs and the extra flexibilty of the zoom more than makes up.

As another poster suggested, you should definitely try before you buy with any of the lenses under consideration though.

Andy

I'm considering another solution.

I'm thinking of buying either a EF 200 F/2 or a EF 300 F/2.8 with one or two 2x teleconverters.

EF 200F/2 will give 400 F/4 and 800F/8 with teleconverters.

EF 300 F/2.8 will give 600 F/5.6 and 1200 F/11 (only contrast AF).

I'm currently trying to find out if this strategy makes sense. If this is viable, it will be significantly cheaper than buying a 400/2.8 or a 600/4.

I've met a couple of Swedes this summer at Runde (Norway) who used Nikon 200/2 with teleconverters. One of them had an additional 600/4. They claimed that Canon users used more than one TC with their lenses.

My main camera now is a 1D4 with a 7D as reserve.

tarjei99 wrote:

I'm considering another solution.

I'm thinking of buying either a EF 200 F/2 or a EF 300 F/2.8 with one or two 2x teleconverters.

EF 200F/2 will give 400 F/4 and 800F/8 with teleconverters.

EF 300 F/2.8 will give 600 F/5.6 and 1200 F/11 (only contrast AF).

I'm generally leary of using my 2x TC as it softens the image a little too much on all but the sharpest of primes, such as those you list, and is generally not even worth bothering with on a zoom.  Stacking two of them would definitely be pushing things too far for me, even on the sharpest of lenses, so I highly recommend you try and test before purchase.

Andy