400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4?

I will get a birdwatching lens for this season. I am willing to spend the money for either a used 600mm f/4 or a used 400 f/2.8 that I would then use, often, with the 1.4x Mk III extender.

So far the 1.4x extender has been reasonable in its slowdown to AF speed, and in picture quality, but I would really like to hear from you if you think that is a stupid plan. The 2.x extender is out. Obviously I never used the 1.4 on the 400mm.

While both lenses would cost the same, I have a certain attraction to the 400mm since I sometimes stay into low light and e.g. want to photograph a beaver and other critters making their appearance later. The 600mm would probably be useless for airshows, too, although it is unclear whether I would bother dragging either of them to the show. Undecided and also looking for opinions. I imagine pointing the 400mm on a monopod makes many airshow shots better but what do I do when the planes are too close? The second body usually carries a standard zoom for surroundings, settings, crowds and the like.

Alternatively I could go with a 400mm f/4 for now and pocket the money. Snow owls often sit around doing nothing so tripod would work, even with the bloody 2.x extender and manual focus.

Camera is 7d or 5d2. Might get a 1d4 but that is less certain than a long prime.

Looking for random opinions from using either of these, with or without extender.

It really comes down to what you are shooting. I used to have a Canon 400 F2.8 (original EF version) and loved it but I was relying on extenders virtually all the time. Later I traded it to get a Canon 600 F4 L IS that I found much better for my needs, birds and shy (smaller) mammals. The 600 was sold off to get my current 800mm so I think you can guess my advice!
I do not go to airshows often but at the last one I went to I used my 300 F2.8 for flying shots of larger aircraft and the 300 F2.8 + a 2 x extender for smaller aircraft - this combination worked well for me. My friend, who went with me, used his 600 F4 almost exclusively. Note these were for in flight shots only.

For birds, I would use the 7D as the 5D2 AF sucks.
With the 7D crop sensor, you should be ok with 400mm.
But then again, it really depends on the place and environment.
Be sure to bring a 1.4x, and possibly a 2x (the 400/2.8 II works fine with the 2x).

Allright so both of you can confirm that the AF speed doesn't turn to goo with the 1.4 extender on the 400 f/2.8? And even the 2x might work OK?

The full-frame thing comes in, of course. Right now I don't have a fast burst full-frame camera. I would prefer to put all the money into the lens for now and not get a lame lens in favor of updating the body. The only possibility is dumping the 7d and getting a 1d4 but I don't see the urgent need.

The 600mm on airshows is on FF, right? Sounds very long.

Can't speak for the 400 but I just love my 600 f4..

uOpt wrote in post #17385619
Allright so both of you can confirm that the AF speed doesn't turn to goo with the 1.4 extender on the 400 f/2.8? And even the 2x might work OK?

I can confirm the 400/2.8 II with both 1.4x and 2x extenders III has very good AF performance (speed and precision) on the 1Dx.
I do not have a 7D, but I can tell you the 5D2 is my MF glass camera... and that's for a reason !

uOpt wrote in post #17385619
Allright so both of you can confirm that the AF speed doesn't turn to goo with the 1.4 extender on the 400 f/2.8? And even the 2x might work OK?

The full-frame thing comes in, of course. Right now I don't have a fast burst full-frame camera. I would prefer to put all the money into the lens for now and not get a lame lens in favor of updating the body. The only possibility is dumping the 7d and getting a 1d4 but I don't see the urgent need.

The 600mm on airshows is on FF, right? Sounds very long.

A Pitts Special is very small! Note my friend was using his 600 F4 L IS on a 1D4 = 1.3 crop.
When the B17 and Lancaster were flying by the 300mm (on FF) was about right for me but for single engine aircraft then I added the 2 x extender. If Air Shows were my thing then I would look long and hard at a 200-400 or, possibly, a 100-400 Mk2.

With the 300 F2.8 L is and 400 F2.8 L is using extenders neither blows the IQ or wrecks the AF, though the Mk2 lenses and Mk3 extenders work a bit better. Af will go from very fast (bare lens) to quick (1.4 extender) to reasonable (2 x extender). IQ will take a hit with the 2 x but in good light the 2 x (Canon Mk3) can produce very good images with these lenses.
As I posted before it really comes down to your personal needs. Both are excellent lenses - just designed for different uses/subjects. If you think the 400 will have you relying on extenders then get the 600 - it will be better. On the other hand if you will only use extenders occasionally then the 400 may be the better option. Whist extenders can work well they are always less than ideal.
As to your thoughts on the 1D4 - don't try one! You will dump your 7D in a heartbeat! In theory, with the 1D4, you loose reach and resolution - in practice you don't. You also gain AF speed/tracking, ISO, speed (responsiveness), frame rate, ability to customize, less shutter lag, battery life etc...etc... Just don't go there or you will regret it!

If 400mm is good enough for birding, then there are a host of choices that are easier to field.
IMHO for birding longer is always better, so I'd put my vote solidly in the 600mm camp.

I find my "old" 500mm f/4L IS version 1 to perform near flawlessly with the 1.4x.
The newer lenses are even better.

The 500 is quite a bit more portable too! The Mk2 even more so.

Heya,

Totally depends on range and bird size, light, and need for mobility.

I shoot 600mm all day. I prefer a lot of reach. But I'm often able to get close enough on large water birds where 600mm is too long and I have to actually zoom back towards 300~400mm. This is on APS-C often. But I also have full frame and 1D series with APS-H. So I often dream about having a faster, 400mm lens. Like a 400 F4 or F400 F2.8. I would adore a 400 F2.8 because that's an 800 F5.6 for serious reach and still high quality with a TC, or, a very fast 400 F2.8 without a TC, for extreme isolation on large birds at closer range, and for better odds in lower light in canopies and not out in the open.

For small birds, for me, there's no substitute for maximum reach. I'd go 600mm to start, and add a TC for even more reach, if I were shooting smaller birds. Aperture is just for light gobbling here, because if you're filling the frame with a song bird, even if you were at F16, it would have a blurred background from depth of field smashing at distance to target, as the long lens serves as a means to magnify the tiny birds. It also is nice for huge birds that are very far away, but you'll find out real fast that sometimes shooting from extreme distance results in weird environmental stuff, like shooting over water in the heat, resulting in terrible images no matter the lens quality (haze and what not). I run into this problem in Florida often, I can't shoot long distance in serious summer heat near water sometimes.

For large birds, you can get away with 400mm. And you can add TC's for the distance if you need it. 800mm is still a lot of reach, a ton really. But you retain that F2.8 option which is really fantastic and makes a big difference depending on the camera in low light.

I would not even consider a 5D2 for this. The AF is nothing to really write home about. I'd get a 7D over the 5D2 for this kind of photography in every situation. I would actually consider: 7D, 7D2, 70D, 1D2, 1D2N, 1D3 in those price ranges, all used if possible.

600/f4 is a huge, huge lens. Consider the weight.
400/f2.8 is also huge and heavy. But again, compare the size and weight.
It may matter if you're trekking with a tripod/gimbal off into the woods.

Very best,

I vote for the 600mm. I had a 400 2.8 IS and loved that lens but for birding IMO it was too short. I just about always had an extender.
I was not greatly impressed with my 7d 400 2.8 and 2xIII in lower light either. Good light IQ was fine but bumping the ISO a bit with the 7D and the 2x on....

Hi there

I own a Canon EF 400mm F2.8L IS. I purchased it in December 1999. At the same time I also bought the Canon EF 1.4x and 2x converters. I have owned these items for 15 years and no one else uses them. In 2010 I purchased a Canon 1dmark4. The 1dmk4 attached to the 400/2.8 is an amazing combo. I use it for sport. I have used it on wildlife from a vehicle and a hide. The quality and focus is spot-on even with the converters attached. Focus tracking in AI Servo is a little faster without the converters, but not by much. With the converters attached it is harder to find something in the viewfinder and harder to track it if it is moving, the reason being, it moves out of your finder so quickly, because your finder only covers a very small area.

My friend has a 600/F4 that he uses for surfing, and wildlife. He loves that lens and chose that over a 400mm/2.8L. I prefer the 2.8 aperture for sport, esp. when the light gets low or when shooting indoors. If I was doing wildlife only I would probably have gone for the 600/F4 because of its reach. The 400mm with a 1.4x is not that far off (560mm) even if mounted on a full frame sensor camera like the 5dmk2 (see figures below).

The lens is heavy. And, you can't carry only the lens, you need a body with it as well, so that is added weight, then comes your monopod, or tripod. Apart from the lens being heavy and bulky, it is heavy to operate with all the added gear to make it work.

I hate setting up my gear at an event. I want to open my bag and pull out the 400mm already attached to a body, and all I do is attach the monopod. Most small lenses (70-200 and 300/2.8) you can pull the lens and body attached out of your bag. With the 400/2.8 and 600/F4 that is not so easy. So consider that you may have to setup your gear on location. If it is surfing with a windy day at the beach you are going to get dust and sand in.

The images are amazing and RAZOR sharp with my combo of 400/2.8 with the 1dmk4, but for that you need to carry some heavy gear around. I don't use an assistant, so I carry my own gear.

If you want to be more mobile, I believe the new 100-400 F4 IS is very good, esp. on something like the new sensor in the 5dmk3. This lens also takes the 1.4x and 2x.

When mounting a full frame camera like the 5dmark2:
400mm.....crop factor 1.0x .........400mm @ F 2.8
400mm.....with 1.4x conv = 560mm @ F4.0
400mm.....with 2x conv = 800mm @ F5.6

When mounting a camera with a cropped sensor (not full frame) like a 1dmark4:
400mm with ...............crop factor 1.3x = 520mm @ F2.8
400mm with 1.4x conv = 560mm x 1.3x crop factor = 728mm @ F4.0
400mm with 2x conv = 800mm x 1.3x crop factor = 1040mm @ F5.6

I am very happy with my 400/2.8, if I would purchase another lens it would be the 300/2.8, the fixed focal length L lenses just have something about them.

Hope this helps you in-time for your lens decision.

uOpt wrote in post #17385619
The 600mm on airshows is on FF, right? Sounds very long.

I would be using 600mm on crop for airshows. As someone else said a Pitts special is tiny. At most of the big shows the crowd line/flight line gap is often between 600 and 800 yards. even when its not it you can often get better looking results by being further back. It can make the difference between photographing the bottom of the aircraft or the sides. If you get a good pilot they will put a bit of bank on to show the aircraft off. Get a bit further back and you can get what will look like air to air shots from the same level. All this needs reach. In a perfect world I would go with a 600mm f/4 prime on one body and a 100-400 II on another. Preferably 7DII's. Actually the 600mm on the new 5Ds could be an interesting proposition. The focus should be up to it, and given good timing 5 fps/14 shot buffer should not be much of an issue. I used a 300D for five years after all. The new camera has the resolution and the field of view advantage, would almost be like having a 400-600mm zoom option with the potential cropablity.

Alan

I notice the OP is in US and most of those who've said use a 600 for airshows are in the UK. My impression is that at American airshows the planes are closer to the audience than in UK. My standard airshow lens (and I'm in the UK too) is the 100-400L, but I have a 600/4L and towards the end of last season I thought I'd give it a go at an airshow. I used it on a heavy tripod with a video head, so I could pan smoothly. I guess a gymbal head would be good too, but I don't have one because I normally use it on a monopod for birds. Although the optical qaulity is superb (of course), shooting distant planes can vary according to the air conditions. Some come out sharp and others less so, just because of how much atmosphere you're looking through. It's great for tight framing though, especially as the plane approaches, which as someone else said can make it look like an air-to-air shot. The weight of gear I took to that show compared with the image-quality difference from my 100-400 led me to conclude that it wasn't really worth it. The zoom is so much lighter I can handhold throughout the show and being a zoom it's versatile enough to do both single planes and formations.

Both lenses (600/4 and 400/2.8) are equally heavy. and you have to think about that. I agree with everyone who's said "it depends". Normal advice says 400 for sports and 600 for wildlife, and I'd agree with that. Obviously you can use any lens for anything, but I'd say think about what you'd do MOST with it, and go with that.

One more point regarding maximum reach - now the 7D2 can AF at f/8, the 600/4 with 2x extender gives AF at 1200mm; an FF equivalent of very nearly 2000mm!

Well I have the 600mm f/4 IS ii and absolutley love it bare, with the 1.4 and the 2x. For birding it is just awesome. I am currently using a 1D4 which I love and have owned that body 3 and 1/2 years now and I love it. I am waiting to see what Canon has planned for the rest of this year before adding another body. So my vote would be the 600 for its perfect fit for birds and wildlife. Reach with IQ is really the way to go. IMHO