100-400 or 200-500

Get the 100-400, claim cashback, don't sell it, instead get a refund on your dodgy 80-400.

Then, in a fit of kindness, give me your 5D, 17-40 and 100-400 and I'll buy you a pint.

the 80-400 was SH so once it is fixed it is getting sold. No PM from Kerso last night, bugger.

Thanks guys, you have cemented my thoughts on the 100-400....

Neilyb wrote in post #2209669
the 80-400 was SH so once it is fixed it is getting sold. No PM from Kerso last night, bugger.

Thanks guys, you have cemented my thoughts on the 100-400....

It's a shame, I was really interested in The Tokina 80-400 too due to it's lightweight and size. Now I think the 300mm F/4L could be the only lens left suited to me (I want to travel as light as possible and without gear that's too long, and I don't really care for the idea of getting a 100-400mm zoom lens when the 300F/4 is around the same price and probably sharper.)

What do you mean by SH? I haven't seen much on the Tokina, perhaps when you get it back and it's fixed you can post some sample shots and compare it to the 100-400?

Second Hand.

Just one question though, how do the 200-500 and 50-500 handle on a monopod?

Neilyb wrote in post #2209769
Just one question though, how do the 200-500 and 50-500 handle on a monopod?

50-500 - very awkward. Even with a 20-pound rated ballhead I have to watch it, and not move it around too much. Weight ratings are mostly static, not dynamic loads! Some exceptions apply, the Acratech UBH is far more capable than its specs make it out to be.

I would attach this one straight to the pod and make sure it doesn't unscrew itself (which it is QUITE capable of doing).

Lightstream wrote in post #2209839
I would attach this one straight to the pod and make sure it doesn't unscrew itself (which it is QUITE capable of doing).

God that would freak me out. I'd be so paranoid.

Well, the 200-500 then? I am thinking this may be my option as I am running out of time to get a 100-400 at the rigth price for reselling. The 200-500 has good reviews apart from the focus and build.

The problem is if the big lens turns on its vertical axis, unscrewing itself from the thread. You probably won't lose the lens, since it will turn once VERY rapidly, attracting your attention, in time to screw it back on. You can combat this if your monopod has a VERY grippy surface so as to prevent the lens from rotating.

200-500 is lighter... might be less of a problem. I guess if you're setting yourself up to resell it, you're already prepared to take a hit on it if necessary.

http://www.photozone.d​e …mron_200500_563​/index.htm

Read the review, might be going this way out of convienience. I have a Manfrotto quick release tilt head on the pod so it is pretty grippy.

I hate to tell ya, I just bought a 100-400 ten minutes ago...............

Well, I may get mine from 123fstop on Ebay, Monday. the 200-500 seems to be experiencing supply problems

Post some sample images NOW!

Ruffio wrote in post #2209062
Serious question, because I hope to do a photo safari some day--isn't the extra length a big advantage on a FF camera when shooting wildlife there? Or is 400mm enough?

It depends on your interests. If you just want to shoot elephant, giraffes and cape buffalo you may seldom need a 400 mm lens. If you want to shoot full frame pictures of a tiny klipspringer antelope on a distant rock bluff or a colourful bee eater in a not so distant bush, you will find that even a 500 mm lens on a 1.6x crop camera can be short.

Remember that in many African game parks you are not allowed to get out of you vehicle (tourists getting eaten by lions is bad for business) and vehicles are not allowed to drive off-road. You may be able to move your vehicle to get a clear shot around vegetation, but you cannot get any closer it the game is too far away for your longest lens. In Kruger in South Africa we got the evil eye from the rangers when we pulled off-road a short distance on a well worn bank to get photos of klipspringers on a cliff. If we had actually driven up the trail that went closer to the cliffs we would probably have received a sterner reprimand.

AdamJL wrote in post #2209845
God that would freak me out. I'd be so paranoid.

Me too, hehe.

I have a Kenko TC, granted I lose quality but if I need it its there. I am not a pro and I already feel I have overspent on lenses.