New telephotos: 600 f4 III and 400f2.8 III

John_TX wrote in post #18768975
I’ve seen the 400 f2.8 III listed as In-Stock at B&H, Adorama, and Amazon.

Have any lens reviews surfaced yet for either the 400 f2.8 III or 600 f4 III?

I’ve searched, but have yet to run across one!

A member over on FM received his 400 III back on like the 4th, posted some side-by-side comparison shots against the vII. Pretty much sticks to what we've seen with the MTF's, that the II and III are pretty much identical IQ-wise. The member says that the big story is still the weight reduction and balance point change, making the III much more manageable for hand holding.

The 600 III was supposed to also ship on the 6th, but that hasn't happened and now there's no word of when it will arrive.

I would expect nothing less from Canon re: IQ. The weight savings is huge!

I was on an eagle trip yesterday on the Skagit river.

The guy next to me had a 600F/4 and a 300 F/2.8. I also have the 300 F/3.8

The 600 and the guys with the 500F/4's sat with the big lens BT their legs all morning long. It was extremely dark and at F/4 with a shutter at 1/500 the auto ISO's were running into 6400-12800 territories with a -2/3 for exposure comp.....So a really dark day....Anyone that had f/2.8 glass was getting the shots for anything that moved. Stationary is one thing, but for stuff that moves......F/2.8 is probably the better choice

Plenty of light F/4 is great. Difficult choices for sure. Im still intrigued by the 400 DO but if I cold find a killer deal on a 500F/4 I would probably get one this year. Keeping my eyes open because one of you guys with a lot more $$$ than I have is going to jump on ones of these new lens

umphotography wrote in post #18769359
I was on an eagle trip yesterday on the Skagit river.

The guy next to me had a 600F/4 and a 300 F/2.8. I also have the 300 F/3.8

The 600 and the guys with the 500F/4's sat with the big lens BT their legs all morning long. It was extremely dark and at F/4 with a shutter at 1/500 the auto ISO's were running into 6400-12800 territories with a -2/3 for exposure comp.....So a really dark day....Anyone that had f/2.8 glass was getting the shots for anything that moved. Stationary is one thing, but for stuff that moves......F/2.8 is probably the better choice

Plenty of light F/4 is great. Difficult choices for sure. Im still intrigued by the 400 DO but if I cold find a killer deal on a 500F/4 I would probably get one this year. Keeping my eyes open because one of you guys with a lot more $$$ than I have is going to jump on ones of these new lens

300mm was enough reach for eagles that day? Must have been super close up; the few times I've shot eagles out at Conowingo w/ my 400 DO and 500 II, I was using the 2X TC to get anywhere close enough.

EDIT: looks like you did ok with 300mm. Some shots at f/3.2 in there. a 400/500/600 f/4 would have done ok, I would think, wonder why those other guys weren't trying to shoot.

Should have reached out to me, I sold both my 500 II and 600 II, would have been a good deal for you

MatthewK wrote in post #18769396
300mm was enough reach for eagles that day? Must have been super close up; the few times I've shot eagles out at Conowingo w/ my 400 DO and 500 II, I was using the 2X TC to get anywhere close enough.

EDIT: looks like you did ok with 300mm. Some shots at f/3.2 in there. a 400/500/600 f/4 would have done ok, I would think, wonder why those other guys weren't trying to shoot.

Should have reached out to me, I sold both my 500 II and 600 II, would have been a good deal for you

I was on a river boat so yeah we were right on top of them. Some spots less than 20 yards with 4 people in the boat. It was like a rooster in a hens house monday.

MatthewK wrote in post #18769396
300mm was enough reach for eagles that day? Must have been super close up; the few times I've shot eagles out at Conowingo w/ my 400 DO and 500 II, I was using the 2X TC to get anywhere close enough.

EDIT: looks like you did ok with 300mm. Some shots at f/3.2 in there. a 400/500/600 f/4 would have done ok, I would think, wonder why those other guys weren't trying to shoot.

Should have reached out to me, I sold both my 500 II and 600 II, would have been a good deal for you

If you live in Pacific Northwest area, you can easily take pics of bald eagle using short lens. I used to live in Vancouver, BC, I could even snap a photo of bald eagle using my phone because it was so close.

There is a place called Delta near Vancouver, and there are tons of eagles over there and they also can be very close to people. 95% of my pics of eagles were shot using 300mm or with TC.

MatthewK wrote in post #18769396
300mm was enough reach for eagles that day? Must have been super close up; the few times I've shot eagles out at Conowingo w/ my 400 DO and 500 II, I was using the 2X TC to get anywhere close enough.

EDIT: looks like you did ok with 300mm. Some shots at f/3.2 in there. a 400/500/600 f/4 would have done ok, I would think, wonder why those other guys weren't trying to shoot.

Should have reached out to me, I sold both my 500 II and 600 II, would have been a good deal for you

Jeez I would have beeen shooting handheld with my 400mm f2.8 MkII and I think thats heavier than a 500mm so not sure also why they didnt want to shoot.

Anyway the big thing for me these days is increasing conventional lens reach via the sensor and not having to worry about needing a longer piece of glass instead like a 500 or 600mm.

I get way better reach than some of my mates do even though they have cameras like 1dxII 5dMk4/mk3 and mostly 500mm and 600mm lens attached. And thats because I have the 5dsr that has the 50Mp sensor. This allows me to crop more heavily than 1 dxii or a 5dMk4 etc and get just as good image which appears to be closer by doing a heavier crop in Lightroom. Infact I can crop well past where they would have no image left and I still have a good useable image . That equates to getting maybe another 50-60% more reach than them without any F stop hit like an extender would do.

So to me its not all about lens Reach these days because as the sensors get better you have more of an image caught that can be cropped in etc than what people had in the past. And this will only get better and better . So really why people need to go to a 500mm or 600mm in the lens in the future when it can be done with a high pixel sensor and say a 400mm lens instead . And then add a 1.4 and by using a high density sensor like 5ds/r etc you can get approx 840mm with a working aperture of f4. Far better than a 600mm f4 will get. And then go to an 800mm and your down to F5.6 wheras if one uses a high pixel sensor full frame they can get 850mm plus @f4 using a 1.4 tc. And the matching of the newer TC with all these newer primes means very little hit to IQ.

So really as I see it the new 400mm F2.8 will be a sitter for wildlife especially being so much lighter and I would choose one over a 500mm 600mm or 800mm especially as the max apertures of those lens stay the same as MK2 lens..... that is f4 and f5.6 respectively.

Cheers

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #18769909
Jeez I would have beeen shooting handheld with my 400mm f2.8 MkII and I think thats heavier than a 500mm so not sure also why they didnt want to shoot.

Anyway the big thing for me these days is increasing conventional lens reach via the sensor and not having to worry about needing a longer piece of glass instead like a 500 or 600mm.

I get way better reach than some of my mates do even though they have cameras like 1dxII 5dMk4/mk3 and mostly 500mm and 600mm lens attached. And thats because I have the 5dsr that has the 50Mp sensor. This allows me to crop more heavily than 1 dxii or a 5dMk4 etc and get just as good image which appears to be closer by doing a heavier crop in Lightroom. Infact I can crop well past where they would have no image left and I still have a good useable image . That equates to getting maybe another 50-60% more reach than them without any F stop hit like an extender would do.

So to me its not all about lens Reach these days because as the sensors get better you have more of an image caught that can be cropped in etc than what people had in the past. And this will only get better and better . So really why people need to go to a 500mm or 600mm in the lens in the future when it can be done with a high pixel sensor and say a 400mm lens instead . And then add a 1.4 and by using a high density sensor like 5ds/r etc you can get approx 840mm with a working aperture of f4. Far better than a 600mm f4 will get. And then go to an 800mm and your down to F5.6 wheras if one uses a high pixel sensor full frame they can get 850mm plus @f4 using a 1.4 tc. And the matching of the newer TC with all these newer primes means very little hit to IQ.

So really as I see it the new 400mm F2.8 will be a sitter for wildlife especially being so much lighter and I would choose one over a 500mm 600mm or 800mm especially as the max apertures of those lens stay the same as MK2 lens..... that is f4 and f5.6 respectively.

Cheers

Well the only problem with your logic here is that while you have some cropability advantages with the larger sensor you give up significant advantages that the vastly superior AF systems on the 1Dx2 bodies provide....It Does no good to have crapability factors if you cant get the shots in the first place..... In situations where people are going to invest and use 500 and 600MM focal lengths to get shots.....the body on the end of that lens is of utmost importance.....speakin​g from personal experience from a guy that uses a 5D3, 5D4 and a 1Dx2....the AF on the 1Dx2 is vastly superior to anything a 5D4 will do for wildlife and sports photography......If I have a big white attached.....it typically has a 1Dx2 and the end of the lens.....the 5D4 does not come close and I own both. So cropability is nice. you need the AF to get the shots

umphotography wrote in post #18770047
Well the only problem with your logic here is that while you have some cropability advantages with the larger sensor you give up significant advantages that the vastly superior AF systems on the 1Dx2 bodies provide....It Does no good to have crapability factors if you cant get the shots in the first place..... In situations where people are going to invest and use 500 and 600MM focal lengths to get shots.....the body on the end of that lens is of utmost importance.....speakin​g from personal experience from a guy that uses a 5D3, 5D4 and a 1Dx2....the AF on the 1Dx2 is vastly superior to anything a 5D4 will do for wildlife and sports photography......If I have a big white attached.....it typically has a 1Dx2 and the end of the lens.....the 5D4 does not come close and I own both. So cropability is nice. you need the AF to get the shots

I used the 5dMk4 along with 5d3 1dx 1dx2 etc only as as a comparison of cropping ability compared to a 50 mp sensor like a 5dsr . I wasnt comparing AF at all. But if you want to compare AF and your assertion anything less than a 1dx2 is crap to use a so called "Big White" for wildlife etc shows you dont do much wildlife. You only have to take look in some of the wildlife posts in something like the bird threads and you will see lots of fantastic images taken with non 1dx2 cameras and with big primes attached. And thats because they are trying to get more reach via a cropped sensor and not because they are all out of money to pay for an upgrade. And the shots with non 1dx2 with the big primes some of them have like myself are damn good and dont have a "crapability factor" as you state. And I can to vouch for the suitability of cameras with non 1dx2 AF being absolutely fine for wildlife. My 5dsr which only has older AF and only 5fps has nailed many good wildlife images for me and I have absolutely no problem nailing them with a big prime attached.

Bottom line is the Newer AF on newer models like the 1dx2 may help things along but older and lower model cameras with less superior AF are still being used with long primes and which are producing stunning results for their owners .....and have been doing so for years well before the 1dx2 came along. I would like to see what these same ownets have to say when they find out their cameras AF has a crapability factor for use with a big prime

Cheers

I think 'crapability' was a typo. Although crap ability would explain not being able to get wildlife and sports shots with a lesser than 1DX2 body

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #18771349
I used the 5dMk4 along with 5d3 1dx 1dx2 etc only as as a comparison of cropping ability compared to a 50 mp sensor like a 5dsr . I wasnt comparing AF at all. But if you want to compare AF and your assertion anything less than a 1dx2 is crap to use a so called "Big White" for wildlife etc shows you dont do much wildlife. You only have to take look in some of the wildlife posts in something like the bird threads and you will see lots of fantastic images taken with non 1dx2 cameras and with big primes attached. And thats because they are trying to get more reach via a cropped sensor and not because they are all out of money to pay for an upgrade. And the shots with non 1dx2 with the big primes some of them have like myself are damn good and dont have a "crapability factor" as you state. And I can to vouch for the suitability of cameras with non 1dx2 AF being absolutely fine for wildlife. My 5dsr which only has older AF and only 5fps has nailed many good wildlife images for me and I have absolutely no problem nailing them with a big prime attached.

Bottom line is the Newer AF on newer models like the 1dx2 may help things along but older and lower model cameras with less superior AF are still being used with long primes and which are producing stunning results for their owners .....and have been doing so for years well before the 1dx2 came along. I would like to see what these same ownets have to say when they find out their cameras AF has a crapability factor for use with a big prime

Cheers

I still love the keepers from every Canon body I’ve owned: 60D, 70D, 7D2, 1DIV and now my 1DX2.

I don’t even own a big white but I can usually get close enough with my 100-400 I, with or without the 1.4X TC. I will say, the TC works much better with the 1DX2.

Seems that people in Canada are receiving their 600IIIs. My money (literally) is on them arriving for most people on the original date of Dec 20. Even though I haven’t been able to do much birding since my daughter was born, I’m still anxious to receive this lens! The 100-400II has been serving in its place with distinction though, and my fondness for that lens has been rekindled.

The last camera I owned with what I consider ‘sub-par’ AF was the 5D2. Since then, every Canon body I’ve shot with has been fantastic. On certain forums, people poo-poo the 80D’s AF for birding, but that camera has turned in tremendous bird photos for me over the past two years, no problems with the AF on any of the big whites I’ve operated.

All that to say: yes, some AF is better than others, but most modern systems are more than capable of fantastic results.

Choderboy wrote in post #18771362
I think 'crapability' was a typo. Although crap ability would explain not being able to get wildlife and sports shots with a lesser than 1DX2 body

Ahahahahhahahaha