70-200mm or 100-400mm on a 6D

bobbyz wrote in post #16385668
6d, ISO3200 shouldn't be problem at f5.6. Wildlife reach over aperture, simple. Not sure anyone using f2.8 for deer, birds. I take it back I just saw some shoot a egret with 200mm f2 IS.

I often use my 300 at F2.8 and my 800 at F5.6 - just not at short ranges, relative to the lens, as there is no depth of field!

from the first day in this forum
I hear that
FF bodies are for portraits and landscape photos
Crop bodies are for wildlife and sports
so
keep your 600D
and get the 6D
you need a 600mm lens for the FF body
I feel that I want to downgrade to the crop for the reach

my target is the 70D
or
the new 7D II

michgirl wrote in post #16385637
Maybe I should have said that differently, I prefer a faster lens than 5.6 for shooting at dusk. Personal preference.

better break out the wallet then .

ed rader wrote in post #16385821
better break out the wallet then .

I did but am glad that I did - both lens have a place in my bag and in my shooting habits/preferences.

^ If your signature is accurate, you don't have what Ed is likely referring to - something like a 200-400/4, a 400/2.8, a 300/2.8 with a 1.4X, a 500/4, etc., all of which are at least 3-4X the price of a 100-400. We are really talking about an entirely different orbit - there are those people who inhabit the $1K-2K orbit, and there are those who have the inclination or the wherewithal to occupy the $5K to $7K orbit. I am afraid the activation energy to excite me from the lower orbit to the upper one does not exist at this time.

Oh, I thought he meant to have both lens that I referenced earlier... Sorry!

I'll just add that it depends on the size of the wildlife, and how close you can get. But I find 400 is often too short on FF for smaller critters. Ultimately, you'll want both lenses.

sawsedge wrote in post #16386030
I'll just add that it depends on the size of the wildlife, and how close you can get. But I find 400 is often too short on FF for smaller critters. Ultimately, you'll want both lenses.

I can actually get pretty close to the Birds and iguana's over here. Close enough to where the 55-250mm won't focus anymore.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/oreokitty/87442​16731/

I would go for the 70-200 and a 2x. You'll get 400mm and still have the flexibility of the 2.8 for closer subjects. I loved my 70-200 with tcon. And it was the non is!

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16385892
^ If your signature is accurate, you don't have what Ed is likely referring to - something like a 200-400/4, a 400/2.8, a 300/2.8 with a 1.4X, a 500/4, etc., all of which are at least 3-4X the price of a 100-400. We are really talking about an entirely different orbit - there are those people who inhabit the $1K-2K orbit, and there are those who have the inclination or the wherewithal to occupy the $5K to $7K orbit. I am afraid the activation energy to excite me from the lower orbit to the upper one does not exist at this time.

that's what I meant.

dscri001 wrote in post #16386554
I would go for the 70-200 and a 2x. You'll get 400mm and still have the flexibility of the 2.8 for closer subjects. I loved my 70-200 with tcon. And it was the non is!

how is that an improvement over the 100-400L? it won't focus as well an IQ will be worse.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16386482
I can actually get pretty close to the Birds and iguana's over here. Close enough to where the 55-250mm won't focus anymore.

250mm on crop actually behaves like a 400mm on FF, field-of-view-wise. Anyway, wildlife usually isn't that cooperative.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16385233
Getting a 6D next week and cannot decide which lens is best for my needs. I do a lot of Wildlife and i really like the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II but wondering if 200mm on a FF will be enough. The 100-400mm is nice but i hate the variable f stop and the push zoom. Now i do Wildlife but it's not like "Middle of nowhere" Type Wildlife. Its more like Wild things around my area.

Any suggestions?

I was on the same dilemma and was looking at the 70-200 II, 70-300 4-5.6L and 100-400.
The camera shop was kind enough and allowed me to try each. All lenses were very too heavy for me which gave me second thoughts because I will be doing a lot of walking with the lens.
I ended up with a 70-200 F4 L IS and a kenko 1.4 Prod DGX extender. I think the IQ didn't degrade that much using the kenko unless you start pixel peeping. Though I'm still planning to get the 100-400 in the future and I hope canon would have a newer version by then.

On a full frame body, 200mm for wildlife is not much reach. I own both a 70-200 f/4 IS and 100-400L, and only use the 70-200 as a general purpose telephoto when wildlife will not be a primary focus.

While the 100-400L is an older design, it is still a fine wildlife lens for the price. It is the longest lens I own, and will pair it with either my 5D3 or 7D (when I need even more reach). It is probably the best option for reach, versatility and quality in the under $1,500 range. The 70-300L is a newer design and better than the 100-400L in every way except for one critical item -- focal length.