jstampa

So I've always had a nice SLR/DSLR. Never really learned to seriously use them until now. I'm really spending hours daily learning and practicing. I've been doing so for a while now. I've got a lot of the basics down. I'm now working on different situations and compositions. I still have a ways to go but I'm much further ahead then I was several years ago. Here's my question. My wife and I will be taking some serious trips over the next 2 years. Iceland and Alaska, Antartica, Africa and Costa Rica. We live in Florida for now (too hot for me anymore). I'm going to be starting a new venture in Alaska during the summers. We will be spending summers in Alaska. I am looking for a serious lens for the trips we will be going on. Mainly for Africa and Antartica. Since they are once in a lifetime I am looking for the best bang for the buck. I have all the smaller lenses I need. I am looking for a Canon exotic lens. Much to my surprise my wife has agreed (I almost fell over when she agreed) with me getting a really good lens. I'm looking at the 2 new Canon lenses coming in December. The EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM or the EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM. I have the 100-400. I am thinking of selling that and getting the new 70-200 2.8 and one of the exotics. I like to longer zoom of the 600 but I also like the F2.8 of the 400. Not sure which way to lean. I am not a BIF shooter. I do like to shoot wildlife. Thats my main thing. I also like other stuff but I'm looking for a lens for wildlife. Any suggestions would be helpful. As for the bodies we have, we have a Canon 5D mark iv and the new EOS R. One is hers and one is mine. We share Lenses. Thanks.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You're in a good position. You know more or less what you want, and your wife approves. I would do what I always do before I buy something - read lots of reviews and comparisons.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The 400 f/2.8L IS II is by far the greatest lens I've used. But, what I don't see in your post is hands-on experience with lenses of this size and weight. The 400 / 500 / 600 primes are nothing like the 100-400. You'd be best served renting a candidate model for a weekend or week from someplace like LensRentals.com rather than making a 5-figure purchase based only on expectations.

Regarding a 70-200 f/2.8 vs 100-400, this to my eyes would be a mistake. The shorter zoom is a superior tool, but only indoors / low(er) light where it excels. In all other situations where you need 201 - 400mm, the 100-400 is the superior tool. The rental idea will help confirm the 400 / 500 / 600 are nowhere near as versatile as the 100-400 and the 100-400 is far more versatile than any version of the 70-200 except the f/2.8 IS in low light.

You also should be looking at both the 1.4x and 2x v III extenders. The 1.4 can be employed on your 100-400, I'll assume the vII of this lens. Both extenders are extremely useful for all three of the monster primes, where doubling the 400 to 800 is only an f/5.6 lens where your 5DIV will drive the AF to f/8.

Finally, you'll need a sturdy tripod for any of the primes, preferably with a gimbal head.

jstampa

Yes, renting is a good idea. I will have to try that idea first. I have not used such large primes. I really want to take the best equipment for these once in a lifetime experiences. I have some time to practice and use them so thats to my advantage. I almost thought about the Canon 200-400 with built in 1.4. It's pricy but I still like the 2.8 idea.

I do have the vII of the 100-400. I also have the 1.4 vIII. I actually need to use that one some more. I used it this weekend with the extender. I had some issues with pictures coming out really dark. More practice may fix that.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Try using exposure compensation which I believe can be used on all modes (s / a / p / m) on your EOS model. The extender pushes your zoom to f/8 and you need to slow the speed or up the ISO, depending on composition. I think the combo is sharper from f/10 thru f/13 that requires still more light or amplification of the signal.

You might find too renting a lens for a specific need is more practical than owning one that sits in the closet waiting for the occasional need. If I was retired, living on a beach, maybe my preferred 500 length could get daily / weekly / regular use. But, I've found an annual rental for our Chicago air show is a better option along with investing in ownership of other lenses (and the two extenders and gimbal head) that are used / needed more frequently.

ChristianHJensen

Dont know how well a 1.4 teleconverter works on the 400 prime - but if it does work well you could have both a 400/2.8 and a 600/4 by getting the 400/2.8 and a teleconverter

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The consensus is 'perfect', although the math is actually 1.4 x 400 = 560 mm at f/4

ChristianHJensen

- sure - but - the difference between 560 and 600mm is pretty damn close to zilch in any kind of practical sense

ELNikkor

the Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L will probably be the best all around lens for your needs. The 400 2.8 is very heavy, as is the 600 f4, and you will seldom need those extra mm/fstops. Traveling and photographing should be an enjoyable enterprise, not burdensome because of unnecessarily exotic equipment.

Photocraig

And, providing a very expensive "Steal Me" target for the unscrupulous elements. BTW: the 2nd to last sentence of your post clarified your wife's magnificence! Just as a personal observation, as GAS prone as anybody else, I can't practically justify a 5 figures dollar investment in the Big Whites without a steady source of income from the photographs they yield. Renting, as the ever wise practical members advise seems to be the way to go. Next, I've seen the sports guys wrestling the big glass up close and personal. Aside from running and gunning as they do, they are EXHAUSTED after a few hours. And they're pretty young. That's another reason to spend a few hundred renting to see if that's your cup of tea, and if a bowl of Wheaties will get you up to the task.

From all I've read about the 100-400 II, even with a 1.4 adapter should get everything you can expect to get, generally speaking. Those big teles are really specialty items. They DON'T travel well and since during a shooting day as a tourist or even a Travel Photographer/Writer (pro or hobbyist), how many times will you use one of these 6+ pound monsters. Talk about CONSPICUOUS! Trade that off against the carry weight, lens changing, support mounting etc. AND the expense and hassle of transporting it to and from home.

Plan a short airline trip, rent the candidate lens and then objectively decide if this is the best way to invest that amount of money in your photography. ESPECIALLY without the monetary return. These are independent issues: Weight and transportability/support AND economics/images yielded.

You did a great job picking a great wife, use those skills on the lens.
C

jstampa

HAHA, I do have a pretty awesome wife. She shocked me one day when she picked up my camera and started shooting better pictures then me. Never in our almost 10 years together did she mention she can take nice pictures. She is totally cool with everything and almost never complains. For that reason alone i am truly lucky, but also many more. She's from China and she's got a good college education, I just never gave any though about her taking pictures before. She has never shown any interest. Her major has nothing to do with cameras.
As for the rental ideas. I have decided that is the way to go. I would use something but probably not enough. I guess I didn't give enough though to the difficulty of carrying the big lens. I'll probable get the 2x III as well. I was fortunate to get the 1.4 III for about $100 so I picked it up. I am a little funny in I prefer not to use extenders but would rather get a longer lens. This one I may need to rethink. I don't often have any rhyme or reason to how I do things.
I did just get the EOS R today. I haven't even had a minute to use it yet and she snatched it out of my hands when I walked in the door. I guess I know who's using that one.

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

The 100-400 L ii is a fantastic lens and much improved optics over the series i. The 70-200 does not have enough reach for most wildlife. If you want maximum reach with the 100-400 you can use the 1.4x tele iii and/or get a 7D2 as a backup body. I have. 500 F4 ii but don't take it on long plane trips because if the size and weight.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I fully agree regarding the 100-400. Far more versatile for what you are doing than the 70-200.

GED Loc: North central Pa

I have used both 400mm/2.8 and 600mm/4 lenses for wildlife work. I no longer own a 500mm or 600mm lens, the 400mm/2.8 has provided the highest quality images with more versatility than the longer lenses. I shoot Nikon equipment, however it makes no difference we are talking focal length here. My 400mm/2.8 with a 1.4 TC was as sharp as a 600mm prime by itself giving me 560mm/f4. Personally I view the 400mm/2.8 as a much more versatile lens. I would strongly agree with others to rent each lens and see for yourself which you prefer, everyone I know that did that ended up with the 400mm. Best of luck to you

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I have one suggestion and one suggestion only. TRAVEL RIGHT, TRAVEL LITE. If your thinking of traveling with the 400 2.8 and/or the 600 4 your in for a unpleasant surprise, especially if your traveling in a group tour. My advice, go with ONLY the 5D mark 4 and the Canon 100-400 II lens with the 1.4 teleconverter.