Super Telephoto for wildlife and sports?

I've been shooting lacrosse, birds, whales, Blue Angels, etc. with my 7d MKII but have had AF issues on a lot of my pics with my Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 and my Canon 70-200 2.8 II is just a little short - even with a teleconverter. I'm trying to decide between a new (can't find used yet) 400mm DO IS II USM ($7k), a used version I 400mm DO IS USM ($3k) but don't really know if the difference in features is worth it? I'm mostly considering this lens because of size/portability and don't think I can justify a fast zoom. Anyone have any guidance??

clarkmti wrote in post #17703361
I've been shooting lacrosse, birds, whales, Blue Angels, etc. with my 7d MKII but have had AF issues on a lot of my pics with my Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 and my Canon 70-200 2.8 II is just a little short - even with a teleconverter. I'm trying to decide between a new (can't find used yet) 400mm DO IS II USM ($7k), a used version I 400mm DO IS USM ($3k) but don't really know if the difference in features is worth it? I'm mostly considering this lens because of size/portability and don't think I can justify a fast zoom. Anyone have any guidance??

Heya,

Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS (the latest version), around $3k. Takes TC's very nicely. Best of both worlds and budget friendly for what it is.

Otherwise, I'd hunt a 300 F2.8L non-IS.

If you're a pure hand-holder, the 400 DO is a good choice. The features are size, weight, and the modern IS. But ultimately I wouldn't worry about it and just get the older one that is still quite fast and good if this is your priority.

Very best,

clarkmti wrote in post #17703361
I've been shooting lacrosse, birds, whales, Blue Angels, etc. with my 7d MKII but have had AF issues on a lot of my pics with my Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 and my Canon 70-200 2.8 II is just a little short - even with a teleconverter. I'm trying to decide between a new (can't find used yet) 400mm DO IS II USM ($7k), a used version I 400mm DO IS USM ($3k) but don't really know if the difference in features is worth it? I'm mostly considering this lens because of size/portability and don't think I can justify a fast zoom. Anyone have any guidance??

2+ years ago, I was shooting a 70D and bought the 300 2.8 II along with the 1.4x III and 2x III teleconverters. That gives me 420mm @ f/4 and 600mm @f/5.6. I was really happy shooting that until I got the 7D2 and the 100-400 II. Now most of my shooting is the 7D2 + 1.4x III + 100-400 II. I only bring out the 300 if I need f/2.8 (which isn't very often). You might consider the 100-400 II. Its focusing (even with the 1.4x on the 7D2) is fast and accurate, and the image stabilization is excellent. Every bit as good as my 300 II. That said, for photos where I can use the 300 at 2.8, its sharpness and bokeh are awesome. I suspect the 400 DO (I or II) would give you that as well.

I personally like the flexibility of a zoom. The IQ of the original 100-400 just wasn't quite there for me, so I got the 300. That solved the IQ issue, but I lost the zooming. For me, the IQ of the 100-400 II is close enough to the 300 such that I use the 100-400 II almost all the time.

Regards, Jim

The 100-400 II is getting rave reviews and good pricing. Pretty decent coupled with the 1.4 III but when you use it you lose all the AF options the 7D2 has to offer. Centre point with expansion only but is still very good IQ. Canon aced that lens.

The 400 5.6 is the best for the price but no IS.

Another vote for the 100-400 Mk2.
I have the 300 f2.8 L IS wonderful IQ but it can get a bit heavy after a while if you are not using a tripod. Though it is reasonably flexible if you use the extenders. Both of the above offer excellent AF.
Another lens to have a look at is the Sigma 150-600 Sports. It is a bit of a lump but offers great flexibility. I had a quick play with one recently and the af was accurate (I only shot stationery subjects) and reasonably quick. I found that it balanced nicely for hand holding - but it is quite heavy. I have attached a couple of images taken with the Sigma, hand held at 600mm.

It seems like you have a very good budget. For 400mm range, I would recommend 300mm F2.8L II + 1.4X III. It will destroy both 400mm DO IMHO. You can get the used 300 and TC for around USD 5.5K. Also, you can add another 2X TC III, so it will give you 300mm, 420mm and 600mm and you still be able to use all the focus point on 7D

They are super light combo, I always handhold them all the time. Another option, like everyone said, just get 100-400mm II + 1.4 TC

Man, great information from everybody. Thanks. I looked into the weight of the Sigma 120-300 but looks pretty prohibitive at 119oz. I'm concerned about the speed of the 100-400mm II, especially with a TC - as I've had issues filming a couple of road races and aircraft with my Tamron 150-600 at f/5-6.3. I'm also interested to hear the 300mm f/2.8 has better image quality than the 400mm DO f/4 II. Sounds like the 300mm f/2.8 II is the way to go. I already have a Tamron 1.4TC and Kenko 2x TC. Anyone know if those will work with the 300mm f/2.8 II?

clarkmti wrote in post #17704458
Man, great information from everybody. Thanks. I looked into the weight of the Sigma 120-300 but looks pretty prohibitive at 119oz. I'm concerned about the speed of the 100-400mm II, especially with a TC - as I've had issues filming a couple of road races and aircraft with my Tamron 150-600 at f/5-6.3. I'm also interested to hear the 300mm f/2.8 has better image quality than the 400mm DO f/4 II. Sounds like the 300mm f/2.8 II is the way to go. I already have a Tamron 1.4TC and Kenko 2x TC. Anyone know if those will work with the 300mm f/2.8 II?

The bare 300 II is better than the bare 400 DO II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

I don't have the 400 DO II, but I can show a real world comparison between the 100-400 II and the 300 2.8 II. Focusing is fast and accurate with both of these lenses (with or without TCs). The 100-400 II is limited to the middle 5 focusing points on the 7D2 when shooting with the Canon's 1.4 III TC. I don't know about the Tamron or Kenko TCs. For both of the photos below, be sure to click on the eyeglasses to the right of the photo to see them in full size.

Using a 7D2 + 100-400 II @ 248mm (taken Feb 17, 2015):

excellent pics - thanks for sharing. I've never used a prime lens and am a little worried about loosing adjustable reach. Have you found the speed of the 100-400 II to be an issue?

clarkmti wrote in post #17704554
excellent pics - thanks for sharing. I've never used a prime lens and am a little worried about loosing adjustable reach. Have you found the speed of the 100-400 II to be an issue?

I got back into photography in 2011. I started with a 60D and the original 100-400. About a year later, I upgraded the 60D to a 70D. With both the 60D and 70D, the original 100-400 produced some excellent pictures! However, the lens was somewhat slow to autofocus. In some cases, it missed entirely. And the image stabilization was just 1 - 2 stops.

In 2013, I was able to purchase the 300 f/2.8 IS II lens. It is a fabulous lens, and still the best lens that I own. I am amazed by its autofocus speed and accuracy, and the image stabilization really is 4 stops. From 2013 to late 2014, I rarely used my original 100-400. I did miss the flexibility of the zoom, but the IQ of the 300 was worth it.

In December of 2014, I got a 7D2 and the new 100-400 II. That combination has been outstanding. Only the 7D2, 5D3, and 1DX will autofocus the 100-400 II when the lens has the 1.4 TC on it because that turns the 100-400 into an f/8 lens.

My personal opinion is that the 7D2 + 1.4x III + 100-400 II is just as fast and accurate as my 300 II. And the IQ is very close! As I mentioned earlier in this thread, since I bought the 7D2 and 100-400 II, I have rarely used my 300 even though it was the lens I used all the time prior to getting the 7D2 and 100-400 II. And I got back the flexibility of the zoom.

However, I know there are photographers who disagree with me and prefer using the 300 rather than the 100-400 II. It's nice that Canon gives us choices!! I think you'll be happy with either lens.

That's quite an endorsement for the 100-400mm II. I do like the difference in price too vs. the 300 2.8

I don't think you need a supertelephoto. For what you are shooting, I think the new 100-400mm would be the best bet, as others have been suggesting.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17703378
Heya,

Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS (the latest version), around $3k. Takes TC's very nicely. Best of both worlds and budget friendly for what it is.

Otherwise, I'd hunt a 300 F2.8L non-IS.

If you're a pure hand-holder, the 400 DO is a good choice. The features are size, weight, and the modern IS. But ultimately I wouldn't worry about it and just get the older one that is still quite fast and good if this is your priority.

Very best,

Ditto the above. I'd consider either of the 300mm f/2.8 options to be more flexible than the 400mm f/4.

And of course, as mentioned, the new MkII 100-400mm closes the AF speed gap vs. primes, and really goes a long way to close the image quality gap. All you really sacrifice to get that zoom is the aperture. On the plus side is lower weight, lower cost, and lots of easy zooming.

Just following along but why has no one mentioned the fact that the 400/4 II can be used with a 2x for a 800/8 when used with the f8 focusing bodies? There is a lot of talk about using the 100-400 II with a TC so I would be interested in a comparison there.

Good question!
I have tried 2 samples of the 400 F4 Mk1 with my 2 x Mk3 and was not impressed. I have never even seen the Mk2 so I too would be interested to know how it performs.
From my experiences with 2 x extenders they are best on F2.8 lenses, but I have seen (and taken a couple) good images achieved with F4 SuperTeles when the light is right.