SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Robert, if your talking to me, I certainly don't keep up with patents!
But for those that do, I'm sure they spell out the glass involved, or it could be deduced by those in the know. We certainly know that aspherical and fancy cemented and gobs of element groups and rear focus designs are not cheap. I was just saying that Canon already has a few of these in the existing lineup.
The white paper readers should be able to give us an idea of cost by design and where the holes in the lineup are. I don't worry about stuff till it's announced and even that can be dubious!! ;-)
SS

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

as witnessed by the d500 and d5

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

Many of my birding friends have the New Canon 100-400 and swear by it. I have seen many of their photo's and they are very good. But I will not give up my Nikon 200-500 which I feel, equals or betters theirs. This said the idea of a Canon 200-600 I find intriguing. Canon makes some good stuff.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

[quote=FSATIN]I would like opinions from other members on which lense makes the most sense. I have a Canon 70d with a 300mm f4 is and 1.4 converter. I also have a Oly em-1. I have been researching a long zoom lens for birding and wildlife shots. I have looked at the Sigma 150-600C and the Panasonic 100-400 for the mirrorless camera. My Canon with the 300 and 1.4 gets my reach to 672mm, the Sigma gets me 600 and the Panasonic on the Oly gets me 800. Do you feel that I should stay with my 300mm prime or go to the other two lens for more reach without using a converter and also for getting a more flexible zoom. The other question is whether the mirrorless at 800 is better or equal to the Sigma?
Any thoughts would be appreciated[/quote

Funnily enough I had a Canon 70D and Canon 7D mark11 with a Canon 300mm f2.8L IS, which I also used with the Canon 2xTC mark 111 and Canon 100 - 400 f4/5.6L mark 11. I sold all my Canon stuff and bought into Olympus. I now have 2 x EM1 bodies and just recieved my Panasonic 100 - 400mm. So, here are my thoughts: If weight is not an issue consider trading in your 300mm f4 and buy a good, used 300mm f2.8L IS. Mine was second hand, cost under £2000 and was, quite simply, utterly brilliant. Even with the 2xTC it was brilliant. It is, however, rather heavy but may still be used hand held. The Canon 100 - 400mm mark 11 is an excellent lens, much lighter, may be hand held for considerable longer and focuses down to less than 1 metre. I bought it in preference to the Sigma/Tamron 150 - 600mm lenses as I do think it has the edge on performance and close focus. I have had the Panasonic 100 - 400mm for about a week and used it in bright sunshine and poor light. In poor light at 400mm the slow f6.3 does push up the ISO. The advantage is the low weight, which means that I can hand hold it all day long. Should you wish to compare the results view my portfolio on ePHOTOzine under my user name Jerrin. I do not miss my APS-C system but if I had to choose I would go for: 1) 70D + Canon 300mm f2.8L IS + 2 x TC mark 111. 2) Canon 70D + Canon 100 - 400mm f4/5.6L IS mark 11 + 1.4 TC.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

What a great link- thanks.

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

You are asking perhaps the wrong question; but the answer is related to your goals and your budget.

I have been in the field with several very successful professional wildlife and/or bird photographers. None use any zoom, only prime lenses. An exception to that for me is the Canon 200-400 with built in 1.4, but that is a $12K lens. For the best photos, stick with prime lenses, add 1.4 or 2X teleconverters as needed. With the latest version of Canon's 300 and 600mm primes with 1.4 or 2X give excellent results. If your budget can not include primes, then rent a prime 600 for a special trip. Otherwise, join the zoom group and enjoy.
Bill

agillot

nothing wrong with the tamron 150 / 600 .

Michael652 Loc: Santa Cruz, CA

I looked at the Tamron 150 - 600 and was impressed but because I do a lot of hiking decided it was way too large for my needs. As opposed to a new lens I opted for a Nikon P900 for my mega zoom needs. I have been very happy. The attached pic is at 2000 mm without a tripod (which should be used). I use a Black Rapid double strap for hiking.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Well, first of all.... IMO anything over 400mm-ish on an APS-C camera is an "insanely long" telephoto. Might be better working on stalking techniques, using blinds and attractants to get your subjects closer to shoot them with what you already have. The 300/4 is pretty darned good... relatively light and compact, IF with built in lens hood, better built and better sealed against dust and moisture than the "budget" super telezooms being offered around $1000. The 300/4 suffers a little loss of IQ with a 1.4X... but not a lot. 420mm is a "whole lotta lens" on an APS-C 70D!

That said, there is some nice flexibility with a zoom... ability to quickly recompose and change the framing with "flighty" subjects where you need to shoot fast. I'm considering getting the Canon 100-400mm Mark II myself, although it's about 1 lb. heavier than the 300/4 or 70-200/2.8 I use now. It's also not an IF lens, so won't maintain balance as well on a gimbal mount.

I wouldn't hold my breath over a Canon 200-600mm. I think that's just wishful thinking. They aren't likely to want to gut the sales of other lenses they already offer, such as the EF 200-400/4 IS USM with built-in, matched 1.4X that allows it to act as a 280-560/5.6 with the flip of a lever. Of course, that lens is about 8 lbs and $11,000! They've also recently introduce the 400/4 DO IS Mark II, which I believe works better with a 1.4X than the original. But, again, it ain't cheap at $6900 and although DO helps quite a bit, it's still not small and weighs a little over 4.5 lbs. An "affordable" 200-600mm would compete heavily with both of these and with the $2000 100-400mm II.

So, I kinda think it's unlikely that Canon is going to offer a 200-600.

Actually, I've been surprised Canon hasn't yet upgraded the EF 400/5.6 with Image Stabilization. That would make an already superb lens even better. Make little sense to me that they are putting IS on 10-18mm ultrawides and 24mm, 35mm primes... but not on this long telephoto that would see so much more benefit from IS! But, again, maybe it's too close and Canon feels it would compete too directly with their 400/4 DO IS.

For that matter, the EF 300/4 IS is long overdue for an update, too. It was one of their very first IS lenses and has been unchanged for close to 20 years now. This lens would also benefit from having a fluorite element added (the way Canon has added them to 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II). If it also got an increase in the number of aperture blades, as well as curved blades, that might improve it's background blurs nicely, too. Not to say that the current 300/4 is bad... it's actually very good. But Canon has proven with some other lenses that they've got some neat tricks up their sleeves. So, c'mon Canon, get to work!

70D is "f5.6 limited", so unable to use teleconverters on some lenses. 7DII, 5DIII and 1D series cameras all are "f8 capable", allowing a 1.4X to be used on 400/5.6 or 100-400mm, or a 2X on 300/4 (which probably would have too much loss of image quality).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You should put that Panny-Leica 100-400 on a LUMIX GX8! It gives you DUAL IS --- in-body plus in-lens.

Then go here: http://naturalexposures.com/birds-in-flight-settings-for-panasonic-lumix-cameras/

...and here: http://naturalexposures.com/excellent-reviews-of-leica-100-400mm/#mobile-menu

agillot

just a opinion , looking at that picture , if you had to have a light weight lens , i have been using a vivitar 600 / 1000 zoom [ around $ 250 new] or in my case $ 70.00 used , i use it on a nik D300 , so , with the cropped sensor , at 1000 , this would be around 1500mm , add a light study tripod , and you would end up with a decently sharp picture .at 1000 mm , it is a f16 , in bright sun light , this is not a issue to manual focus .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I just wish we would all just talk about REAL mm focal lengths !

So, you have 420 REAL mm on a 1.6 crop frame body. That is not a lot - but useable - IF - you can become adept at cropping with pixel enlargement.

It really depends on how fussy you are about image quality and print sizes. For me, f6.3 is just too slow of an f-stop to be used seriously with a crop frame camera - 5.6 being the upper limit for me.

I have used the Sigma 100-300 f4 W/1.4X for a long time now and it is generally OK for larger birds and/or you are sneaky and/or the wildlife is accustomed to humans. 600mm will do just about everything you want - again if you are a little sneaky. There are a lot more lens management issues and possibilities for motion blur @600 than there are at 400 or 420 ! I have also used a 300 2.8 W/2X for 600 5.6.

agillot

dont you run out of depth of field at 5.6 , my cheap lens is at F 11 at 600 and F16 at 1000mm , this give me a adequate depth of field .the lens weight about 2 pounds .so , in the bush it is a friendly tool .

agillot

dont you run out of depth of field at 5.6 , my cheap lens is at F 11 at 600 and F16 at 1000mm , this give me a adequate depth of field .the lens weight about 2 pounds .so , in the bush it is a friendly tool .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you are properly focused, the short answer is no.