Need recommendations on canon big whites 500 vs. 600 vs. 200-400 vs. 1.4x maybe?

[Amit Rana]

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 getting a 500 f4 IS II vs. 600 f4 IS II vs. 200-400 1.4X. I was initially considering the 200-400 1.4X but was a bit concerned about it's performance with the extender engaged at 560mm. The 600 IS II was not on my list due to the high cost but the recent price drop has me thinking again.
In an ideal world if funds were not an issue I could own an 600 & 200-400 and have a perfect kit :S3: . In reality I cannot afford two big primes hence the deliberation.


I would highly appreciate any recommendations, experiences with these big whites especially comparing the performance -IQ, AF speed and accuracy of the 500 with 1.4X extender vs 600 vs 200 - 400 with inbuilt 1.4X for shooting water birds such as herons, storks, pelicans, flamingos etc,.

My current gear : 5d Mk III , 100-400, 24-105, 50 . I plan on adding a crop body soon (either the 70D or the rumored 7d Mk II)

Interests : Wildlife and Wildscapes . Focus on Mammals , water birds and some raptors & larger owls. I usually don't make images of small birds yet (hence ruling out 800).

Places of Interest - Typical Indian National Parks and an occasional African park. Since most of the parks in India do not allow you to walk on foot in the park I will be shooting from an open 4X4 jeep with the help of a bean bag. Using a tripod and wimberley will be fairly limited.

Sytle : I prefer some creative space around my subjects. I'm not into tight (close head shot etc) portrait kind of images.

Constraint: Space- in 4X4 jeeps can be a little restrictive at times. So on occasion you may need to hand hold for a quick shot. Cost - Can afford only one big telephoto for now.

Any input is highly appreciated.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Amit, Are you a guy Amit or a girl Amit? I know a few Indian names but not yours :).

Where do you live?

I would humbly suggest that you visit my blog at www.BIRDSASART-Blog.com (http://www.BIRDSASART-Blog.com) and do a search for 600II and for 200-400 in the little white box on the upper right. I have written what would be the equivalent of several books on these two great lenses. From reading your comments above it would seem that the 200-400 would be best for you. On the blog I write about using an external TC with the internal TC engaged. In today's post in fact. That gets you out to 784mm full frame if need be. As I said, there is tons to study and learn from on the blog.

Please also consider using our B&H link below for the 200-400. If that might work for you please e-mail me and I will shoot you the B&H Landed Cost Calculator so that you can tell if is cheaper to get it in India or from the great camera store :). It calculates the total cost to your doorstep including shipping and duties.

ps: we'd love to see some of your images.

<iframe width="120" scrolling="no" height="150" frameborder="0" style="border:none;" border="0" src="http://mer54715.datafeedfile.com/widget/aff_widget_prdt_generate-2.0.php?aff_num=10536&aff_net=1&size=120x150&mode=m&bucket_num=6051&link_target=y&sid=" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0"><p>Your browser does not support iFrame.</p></iframe>

[arash_hazeghi]

the zoom it's a great choice for wildlife, mammals, wildscapes, it will be short for raptors in general but that's not your priority. Having the advantage to "swing-in" the TC in dusty places is another big advantage.

[Amit Rana]

My apologies for the delay with the reply Arash and Artie.

First off, thanks you so much for sending me the pointers Artie. You work is quite simply brilliant. I had come across your blog sometime back, looking for information on the canon 500 IS II and I was fascinated.
After reading your reply, I did a search on the site and was amazed at the amount of information you have on the canon 200-400. To answer your questions - I live in India and yes I’m a male.
Besides the 100-400 I have some experience shooting with the 500 (IS I and IS II), limited experience with the 200-400 & 600 IS I and no experience with the 600 IS II. Here are my initial impressions


500 IS II - Very light and maneuverable. Worked very well for mammals portraits but the fixed prime sometimes restricted the ability to get better compositions with elephants, tigers, large deer, bison etc. In these cases, I used the 100-400. Nonetheless, the 500 worked well for most bird photography (excluding smalls birds such as kingfishers).
600 IS I – too heavy to use in safari jeeps and I could not handhold this beast for any shots. I could not use this for mammal photography as it was too much of lens and posed too many composition nightmares. Unfortunately, the park I took this lens to had very few birding opportunities so I can’t comment on the birding part.
200-400 – was stellar with AF locking almost instantaneously when shooting within the 200-400 range. It was a bit heavy as compared to the 500 IS II but very maneuverable for mammal photography. However, when I shot using the extender enabled, I felt the AF slowed down and more importantly the images were a bit soft. No doubt, the versatility was huge.


Again this was not a park with a lot of birds so my data point is very limited and my initial impressions should be taken with a pinch of salt. I’m wondering if it could have been a calibration (MFA) issue at the long end of the lens. Arash your technique of MFA is nothing short of being spectacular.

The 200-784mm focal length will definitely address most of my shooting needs. After reading the blog, I spent some time reviewing my images to determine my most used focal length range. It turns out 360mm to 560mm (or 600mm)is my most used range with over 40% shoots at 400 and 40% at 500 and 20% above 500. In summary, I will tend to use the canon 200-400 with extender on quite a bit.
Do you believe the 200-400’s performance (with respect to IQ, image contrast) at 500mm (with internal extender engaged) will be at par with the bare 500mm IS II ?
I will post some image in the next few days. I will also look into the B&H link and keep you posted.


I look forward to your reply.

[Marina Scarr]

If mammals is your focus, I'd be going for the 200-400 with 1.4 crop.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Marina,

Did you mean "with a 1.4X TC"? IAC, I agree.

Amit, Thanks for your reply.

re:

Do you believe the 200-400’s performance (with respect to IQ, image contrast) at 500mm (with internal extender engaged) will be at par with the bare 500mm IS II ?

Images made with a TC will always be sharp than images made with a prime lens alone. Most folks would need an electron microscope to discern any differences....

That said, sharpness and edge to edge IQ with the 2-4 at 500mm will knock your socks off.

Do post some images!

[Amit Rana]

I rented the 200-400 lens for a couple days to do some photography at a wildlife park close to home. This is a summary of my observations:



Stellar performer in very good light but not a good candidate for mediocre (or low) light.
Heavy lens and not very easy to use on a bean bag (better candidate for tripod).
Requires high shutter speeds for better sharpness (could be user error).
Quality of images drops proportionally once the subject distance increase above 22meters.
F4.0 Prime had a slight edge in image quality and AF.


My 2 cents - the lens is best suited for safaris where light is abundant and the subjects are closer to you (such as African parks). Please do take the above statements with a pinch of salt since I had only 3 odd days with the lens.

This elaboration is for any folks interested in learning more about how I arrived at the above conclusion:


Image quality: The image quality was pretty good throughout the focal range 200-560. Even with the extender on, image quality did not take too much of a hit. However, there were two important observations - once the subject distance was greater than 22 meters (just an approximation) the image details suffered significantly. This was clearly visible on all images where the focused subject was further away. I can’t figure out why – but even in good light this was a very prominent trend. Anybody else notice this?
Bokeh Aesthetics: The bokeh is very nice but I personally prefer alternate prime's bokeh.
Shutter Speed: The second noticeable data point was the shutter speed needed to get tack sharp images – almost all images less than 1/800 were not that sharp. Anything above 1/1600 was a definite keeper. The lens is not that forgiving in this case as compared to the 500 IS II. I assume a more refined shooting technique for lower shutter speeds can help.
Ergonomics & Handling:The lens is heavy so hand holding shooting was not doable (expect for very short durations). Having to rely heavily on the bean bag, posed a new challenge - the zoom ring overlapped with the bean bag and hence required the lens to be lifted each time I wanted to zoom in/out. I assume you could work around this situation by using a less wider bean bag. Also, the subjects were very skittish so I could not take advantage of the versatility of the lens. However, the switch to engage the extended was very convenient and easy to use.



In my case, I shot primarily at and above 400mm (for over 90% of my shots). Also light is a huge challenge for the type of forests in India, where thick canopies are very prevalent. A 500+ at f/4 would have been highly welcomed in such situations.


Will post some images soon.

[Arthur Morris]

Aside from the fact that zoom lenses do not work well on bean bags I pretty much disagree with everything else that you said. My gut feeling is that your sharpness observations are in fact due to operator error.... Did you use it on a tripod in low light???

[arash_hazeghi]

I agree it's operator error. when you shoot a far subject the sharpness drops because of atmospheric dispersion effect such as heat shimmers, pockets of dust or warm/cool air between you and the subject etc. these effects are not visible to the naked eye but they will affect sharpness. It is not a flaw in the optics. This is especially true if you live in a humid/hot location.

Hand holding this lens is def. doable. You will find many people that handhold the 600 day in and day out.

it takes some experience making sharp photos with super telephoto lenses and develop a good handhold technique, a few days of renting, especially if you have no prior experience is not sufficient to make a judgement.