BAA Bulletin #451
BAA Bulletin #451 is online and can be accessed by clicking here.
- Chilean Patagonia Trip Report
- 300 II or 200-400 with Internal Extender?
- Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens
- BIRDS AS ART 2nd International Bird Photography Competition
- BAA Site Guide Kudos
- 2014 Tanzania Summer Safari
- Flight Plan
- Alan Murphy Guides
- Affiliate Links
- IPT INFO
Relevant to today’s blog post that begins immediately below is item 2 above (in red) “300 II or 200-400 with Internal Extender?” Best advice: give it a read after perusing today’s post.
Canon/Nikon Rejoinder
Before the Nikon folks go off on a big rant I need them to understand that both systems are superb, that good photographers make good images with whatever gear they have in their hands, that great photographers make great images with whatever gear they have in their hands, and that two of my best friends and two of the most talented photographers that I know use Nikon gear. Below I attempt to be as honest and as objective as possible. I am fine if you wish to disagree with me by leaving a civil comment. 🙂
|
|
This image shows my gear in the back of my Toyota Sequoia in 2008. When I am photographing from the car it looks much the same today but for a different set of lenses and bodies. Do understand that making good photographs has much more to do with what is in your head, your heart, your soul, and your gut–can you say “determination”? than it has to do with what’s in your gear bag…. |
Big Lens Choices for Canon and Nikon–As I See Them….
The 600 & 800mm Lenses
If you love to do birds, especially small wild birds, and especially birds that are ridiculously tame, and you are capable of carrying a heavy lens and are willing to work on a sturdy tripod nearly all of the time, your choices are fairly obvious. You will want either a 600mm f/4L IS or VR lens or the 800mm f/5.6L IS or VR lens.
Here are the basics for these great lenses:
Analysis: aside from price, the advantage goes to Canon. Most folks will overlook the following: many Canon users (including and especially me) successfully use the Canon 2x EF Extender III (teleconverter) with their f/4 super-telephoto lenses. Very few Nikon folks have had success using the Nikon TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter for AF-S & AF-I lenses with their big lenses. Nearly all report sharpness issues. Most but not all Nikon folks who use the Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x Teleconverter for AF-S & AF-I lenses have no trouble creating sharp images with the 1.7 TCE. For folks with excellent sharpness techniques the huge advantage here goes to Canon as 1,200mm is a far cry from either 840mm or 1020mm….
Analysis: I loved my Canon 800 for its incredible sharpness, fast focusing, and the great 4-stop IS system. I have never seen a Nikon 800mm or spoken to anyone who owns a copy; though the prices seems prohibitive I am sure that it is a killer lens. I eventually sold my 800 as the 600 II used with either TC gave me much more versatility. For more on the topic of 600 vs. 800 click here or here.
The 500mm f/4 Lenses
Those who want a long super-telephoto lens, would like to hand hold all or some of the time, and know that a 600mm is not right for them, need to consider one of the great 500mm f/4 lenses.
Analysis: again the price advantage goes to Nikon but it is all downhill from there. With Canon’s 1 1/2 pound weight advantage comes easier hand hold-ability. And again the Canon’s 2X TC sharpness superiority comes into play. Remember that the size of the subject in the frame is a function of the square of the focal length….
The 500mm f/4 super-telephotos have long been extremely popular choices.
The 400mm f/2.8 Lenses
Though the current Canon and Nikon versions are super sharp I have long dismissed the 400 f/2.8 lenses as being a great choice as a prime lens for bird photography. They are great lenses for folks who do large mammals (think out west or Africa for starters) or for folks who do lots of close range work at bird feeders but for most bird photographers choosing a 400 f/2.8 as their workhorse super-telephoto lens simply does not make sense to me.
Just for the record books:
Analysis: again the price advantage goes to Nikon but again it is all downhill from there. With Canon’s more than 1 1/2 pound weight advantage comes easier hand hold-ability. And again the Canon’s 2X TC sharpness superiority comes into play.
The 200-400 f/4 and the 300mm f/2.8 Lenses
If you like to do birds and if you like to hand hold and/or if you travel to places with lots of tame birds and large and small wildlife, then one of the two lenses in this group might be perfect for you. Let’s take a look.
Analysis: In spite of the small weight advantage and huge price advantage for Nikon, I still have to give the nod to the Canon 200-400 solely because of the revolutionary (at least for a dSLR lens) Built-in 1.4X Extender technology. From my Canon Digital Learning Center Focus On feature here:
There are many advantages to the internal TC. At about one second, set up is nearly instantaneous. For really skilled folks who store their TCs in a pocket without the front and rear caps, adding or removing an external TC might take as little as 10 seconds. Otherwise, 30 to 60 seconds or more would be the norm for most. You can add another 10 seconds or so for those who, as they should, turn the camera off and on to prevent dust from entering the system. With the internal TC, dust is of no concern at all. After working with the lens for an hour or two, sliding the lever down to engage the internal TC became second nature; the lever mechanism is smooth and painless. There is also a locking mechanism that some might find useful. I never use it and when I hit it accidentally and do not realize it, I find myself wishing that it was not there. Additionally, there is no need to rebalance the lens in the clamp as you should do when adding or removing an external TC; that saves another 10-15 seconds.
In the wildlife photography sense of time, even fractions of a second can be of huge importance. When a safari vehicle comes to a quick stop, you need to be ready to shoot now. Anticipating the framing is done as you are approaching the animal; the time saved by being able to simply flick the lever, as compared to adding or removing an external TC, is often the difference between making a great image and walking away empty handed. Being able to go wide in an instant allows you to create small in the frame/environmental type images without having to bother to change lenses.
In short, the EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x’s internal TC is a huge advantage.
Analysis: With the two Canon lenses here the 200-400 had the edge over the 300 in terms of versatility and maximum reach (784mm with both the internal and an external 1.4X TC > 600mm) but the 300 has a substantial weight advantage and is much more easily hand held than the 2-4. That said, despite the fact that the 200-400 weighs nearly a pound more than the 500 II and only 2/3 of a pound less than the 600 II, I find that the 2-4 is much easier to hand hold than the 500 II because of its smaller overall size and its more compact design. But the lighter weight and ease of hand holding may be the deciding factor for those who for a variety of reasons choose not to go the 500/600 f/4 route. Do understand that as much as I love the 200-400 that I do not bring it with me on all trips. On most trips where I need the reach of the 600II/2X III TC the 2-4 stays in the air conditioned garage….
With Nikon the analysis is similar and the lack of an internal TC does not make much of a difference for folks who are committed to the black side. The 1.2 pound weight advantage for the 300 makes it the clear choice for those who do lots of hand held flight photography. The Nikon 200-400 is a great lens for Africa whether or not you travel with a super-telephoto lens. And, just as the Canon 200-400, it would serve folks well on Galapagos or Southern Oceans trips.
Questions?
As always, folks with specific gear questions are invited to shoot me an e-mail.
Canon/Nikon Rejoinder II
As above, before the Nikon folks go off on a big rant I need them to understand that both systems are superb, that good photographers make good images with whatever gear they have in their hands, that great photographers make great images with whatever gear they have in their hands, and that two of my best friends and two of the most talented photographers that I know use Nikon gear. Below I attempt to be as honest and as objective as possible. I am fine if you wish to disagree with me by leaving a civil comment. 🙂
Canon Lens Specifications
Canon folks are invited to click here for a chart that contains most of the relevant specifications for big lenses including all of the original (i.e., older) super-telephotos.
Bosque IPTs/Late Registration Discounts Increased
It’s Getting Late!
For information on both the 7-Day and the recently announced short version of the 2013 Bosque IPTs please scroll down here. If you would like to join us for the first 3 or 4 days of this IPT please shoot me an e-mail. Please call Jim at 863-692-0906 or e-mail for late registration discount info.
|
BIRDS AS ART 2nd International Bird Photography Competition
Learn more and enter the BIRDS AS ART 2nd International Bird Photography Competition here. Twenty-five great prizes including the $1000 Grand Prize and intense competition. Bring your best.
2014 Tanzania Summer Safari
If you are interested in joining us in Tanzania next summer please shoot me an e-mail and I will be glad to forward you the PDF with dates, itinerary, and price.
Support the BAA Blog. Support the BAA Bulletins: Shop B&H here!
We want and need to keep providing you with the latest free information, photography and Photoshop lessons, and all manner of related information. Show your appreciation by making your purchases immediately after clicking on any of our B&H or Amazon Affiliate links in this blog post. Remember, B&H ain’t just photography!
Amazon
Everyone buys something from Amazon, be it a big lens or deodorant. Support the blog by starting your search by starting your search by clicking on the logo-link below. No purchase is too small to be appreciated; they all add up. Why make it a habit? Because I make it a habit of bringing you new images and information on an almost daily basis.
Typos
In all blog posts and Bulletins feel free to e-mail or leave a comment regarding any typos, wrong words, misspellings, omissions, or grammatical errors. Just be right. 🙂
IPT Info
Many of our great trips are filling up. You will learn more about how to make great images on a BAA IPT than anywhere else on the planet. Click here for the schedule and additional info.
Hi, Artie. I was lucky enough to photograph a snowy owl yesterday with a Canon 600 f/4L IS II and a Canon 2X TC III, and it worked beautifully. I used live view for the AF. But when I tried a Canon 1.4X TC with my 400 f/5.6L the results were poor, worse than with the bare lens. Did you ever try a TC with your 400 f/5.6L, and if so, did you get good results?
With what camera?
Canon 7D in both cases.
Less than ideal in both cases… When you focused with Live View did you focus manually. As for the 7D 400 f/5.6 if you pre-focus manually you should get sharp images but it would be less than ideal for flight of course.
I occasionally used my 400 f/5.6 with a 1.4 and made some good images. But that was on film 🙂
Thanks, Artie. No chance for flying birds! But using live view the camera autofocused well with the 600/2X TC combo (the snowy owl), not with the 400 f/5.6L. I haven’t mastered the art of manual focusing with live view, it’s never sharp enough.
Art, when you had the Canon 800mm, did you use the 1.4x teleconverter? If so, how well did this combo work for you?
More than half the time. Results were great. Type “800mm” in the little white search box top right and see for yourself 🙂
ps: see here for a recent example. artie
This is a great post, but I disagree with your discounting the 400 f2.8 II as a bird lens. I’m sort of stuck with it because I do sports photography, and it’s excellent for that, but when I go to Costa Rica and Belize I have good luck using it for birds, either with the 1.4 or the 2.0 TC. I am looking forward to reading your TC sharpness advice though because I’ve had less luck with the 2.0 than I’d like.
The 400 II can be great for birds in situations where you can get close…. If you are not making super-sharp images with the 400/f.28L IS II and the 2X III TC you are doing something wrong…. Do see the next Bulletin coming soon. artie
ps: r u on BPN?
I must be doing something wrong, but I just ordered ABP II where you promise to teach me how not to 🙂
I don’t know BPN, so I guess not. Bird photography is still a budding hobby for me, but I really do love it. Little buggers can be challenging (big ones too for that matter).
I went out yesterday and tried the 400/f.28L IS II and the 2X III TC on some birds in the snow up here in New England. Unfortunately I made the mistake of trying it with my 7D body (to get the extra reach) and learned that the 7D cannot autofocus that combination to save its life. It may have been due to the cold (it was 9 degrees F out). The 1DX doesn’t seem to have any trouble driving the autofocus in the cold, although I haven’t tried it that cold yet. I wasn’t able to get anything decent using manual focus, but I probably gave up too quickly because the snowy owl I wanted failed to materialize…
The reason that initial focusing acquisition is so much faster with the 1D X than with the 7D is because the 1D X has a much more powerful battery. But if you had had an owl and had manually pre-focused that the 7D AF should have performed admirably….
Oh and believe me, if I’d had an owl the gloves would have come off and I’d have done just what you suggest 🙂
Odd that with the problems with Nikon super telephoto lenses and teleconverters that so many pro wildlife photographers continue to buy them along with the Nikon cameras and flash. Minor photographers like Franz Lanting and Thom Hogan and Moose Peterson have somehow overlooked the “obvious” advantages of spending the extra money to have Canon lenses. But then Nikon does not provide free lenses to pro photographers nor does it pay for people to use them, lacking the budget of Canon.
I have used both Canon and Nikon pro cameras and lenses and when the D3 was released I switched 100% to Nikon to get the increased reliability of its cameras and the autofocus reliability of its lenses and it 100% accuracy with use of flash for fill and its much better and more consistent white balance metering.
Canon has nothing that truly compares to the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 lens in terms of image quality and nothing that compares to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens in terms of reliable autofocus accuracy. The new 70-200mm f2.8 IS may be better than the ones I was using in 2008 but the copies I had needed annual recalibration by Canon to keep them dialed in. No such problems with my Nikon glass.
Some of your comments reminds me of the Fox News technique of having its commentators say “some people might say” and then put out their own opinion with nothing to support it factually. I like to see sample images taken of the same subject taken and the same time and then compare them for quality. Anything else is so subjective as to be worthless.
Hey Bruce,
Thanks for taking time out of your busy day to leave a snide comment while stating that my comments are worthless. I do not use Nikon gear so I rely on information passed along by competent friends who do. Folks who visit regularly know that I have no problem either with Nikon cameras or lenses Two of my very best friends, both superb photographers, use Nikon gear. I know of only one competent photographer who uses the Nikon 2X TCE and likes the results. And in recent weeks I have learned of several folks who will not use the 1.7 TCE because of sharpness issues.
Please have Mr. Peterson, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Lanting send you a few images that they have created using the 2X TCE with big glass. Along with their comments on image sharpness. Then you can pass them along to me and I will be glad to publish them here. Please try to be a bit more respectful should you choose to reply or you will no longer have a voice here. later and love, artie
As always Art, your comments and opinions are informed and well founded by experience.
Would you comment on the fact that the lenses you compared are being used on totally different cameras. The Nikon lenses will be probably be used on a D7100 which is a DX format 24mp CMOS sensor with a 1.5x crop factor and 6fps and costs $1950.00 with a weight of 1.49lbs.
The Canon camera will probably be a 1DX with a 18.1mp full frame CMOS sensor and 10fps costing $6799.00 and weighing 3.4lbs.
Love you Artie
Malcolm Be-dalcom, The cameras certainly need to be taken into consideration. From what you write above it would seem that many excellent Nikon bodies cost less than many Canon bodies and that they produce larger files. Many Nikon folks on recent IPTs however have been using full frame Nikon bodies. Folks considering switching systems should of course learn as much as possible about the various bodies. While I am always asking folks about their Nikon lenses my questions with regards to their cameras are usually limited to crop or full frame? and to file size. As I never ask about price I am not at all in a position to comment on the value of Nikon bodies as compared to Canon bodies :).
See you in Japan in winter! later and love, artie
ps: Malcolm, an always happy camper, is a multiple IPT veteran who has been around the world with me.
pps: do you still own your Canon 400 f/2.8L IS II?
I read the title: “Big Lens Choices for Canon and Nikon–As I See Them….” its very clear, not need further explanation…
And thank you for sharing your opinion about big lenses, this post is very informative for a novice like me.
Welcome here, and thanks for your kind words.
artie
I would like order there ..but it is expensive for Italian people because I must pay custom fee.
Do you know if they have a different way to avoid them (for example if they have any offici in Eu country) ?
Ciao
Gio
I will send you the B&H LAnded Cost Calculator by e-mail; you should be able to figure out the exact cost to your doorstep. If that works out for you, be sure to e-mail for our affiliate link. artie
Thanks Arthur
I live in Italy..Your idea could be good.
I found a 1Dx used but for about 500 Euros less and so I tbìhink could better new .
I am afraid to sell 1D Mark IV because it works very well (using your setting from your guide) and it have 1,3 crop factor and it is useful many times.
Some people said me that if I have 5D Mark III it is similar with 1Dx and is no interesting pay so much for that new camera.
About the long lens :
I have canon 500 old model (is model) but the new is very very expensive and alsoi in this case the difference of theprice between the two model could be right ? (could be fine wait and then sell my 500 and buy an used 500 isII)
So, at the moment I will remain with a 1Dx, 5d Mark III, 500 f.4 (old) 70/200 f.2,8
Could be fine ?
Could be fine. The huge advantages of the 1D X over the 5D III are the faster frame rate that allows you to capture poses that you never even see and its ability acquire focus and to drive AF with both TCs (especially with the 2X III) faster.
Your call :).
Do you order from B&H? artie
Hi Artie,
A great summarised comparison between the systems and lenses. I bought an EF200-400mm recently and have shot loads of pictures in MotoGP and also in deep jungle under full canopy cover. Loving the lens so much so I am going to let one of the two 800mm go and maybe get a second 2-4 for the missus when we travel. The 784mm reach with an external extender used with the internal produced results that were more than acceptable and the versatility of being able to compose and frame shots in a quick snap made it worth the extra dollars. I can foresee manufacturers starting to build internal extenders in due course.
Hi Phil, What is Moto GP? Versatility is a wonderful thing if you can afford to give up the reach. Thanks for your kind words. Please remember to use our B&H Affiliate links for your gear purchases. My dream is for a 600 f/4 with 2 built in 1.4X TCs….
MotoGP is the World Championship for Motorcycle racing.
Thanks. I can see how the 2-4 would be ideal there.
Hi Artie,
Greetings from the dark side.
This is a very interesting article, especially as I am considering in investing in the Nikon 600 f4. Do you have any idea why most folk struggle to make sharp images with the Nikon 600 + 2xTC ??
Is it poor technique or equipment ?
I see Alan Murphy uses this combination to great effect.
Any advice appreciated.
Keep up the great work.
Cheers.
Hi Ron, Here is right back at you from the White Side :). Most folks have felt that the Nikon 2X TCEs have been the problem. I am quite familiar with Alan’s work from his guides (see the two links on the right side of the blog) and from BPN and cannot recall seeing any of his images made with the 2X…
Thanks for your kind words. later and love, artie
I had an email exchange with Alan Murphy yesterday about flash batteries and asked him about TCs. He confirmed that he does not use the 2X.
Thanks Alan, I also contacted him yesterday, as I was sure he used the 2xTC. He confirmed he owns one but said it was a pile of junk. He agreed that the Nikon TC’s do not compare to the Cannon ones. Very disappointed as I love the idea of having 1200mm reach. I guess if I take the plunge and buy a Nikon 600mm lens I can still use the 1.4 TC and will have to pray that someday Nikon might catch up.
Cheers.
Thanks Alan. You know how I feel about being right :). later and love, artie
Taken the plunge and bought the the Nikon 600 f4, and the 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s. Will let you know if I manage to make any sharp images with the 2xTC. Cheers.
Great. Good lick with the new gear. Did you use one of our affiliate links?
No Sorry, got a good deal from grays of westminster with 5 years warrenty. No one else could match the offer.
No sweat. You are in the UK so you are off the hook. We are here if you need a LensCoat, a Mongoose M3.6, of a CR-X 5 Low Foot. We send stuff to England most every week.
Hello Artie, your post is very useful for me. I am not sure if I should buy a 1Dx and sell my 1D Mark Iv or my 5d Mark III but reading your article I had the idea to buy instead a new lens.
At the moment I use a Canon 300 f.2,8 is and a Canon 500 f.4 IS.; on my second camera I normally use 70/200 f.2,8 II with extender 1,4 III or 2x III.
The zoom works very well with 5D Mark III and extender and so sometimes I prefer it instead 300 f.2,8; for this reason I could sell both my lens (300 and 500) and buy a new and it could be 400 f.2,8.II
But it is heavy (also if new is better) and I will loose 100 mm. What you think? Thanks. Gio
Gio. Glad to help. Here’s what I would do if I were you: sell the 1D IV and the 300 f/2.8 (and the 500 f/4 if it is the older model). Then I would buy a 1D X and the 500 II (unless you already own the 500 II) 0rthe 600 II. In the future I would look to add the 300 f/2.8L IS II.
Where do you live? Keep us in the loop as to what you decide.
Hi, Artie. For a while you referred to the 1D Mark IV as “the unfortunately discontinued 1D Mark IV.” I’d be interested to know why you think the 1DX is so superior, especially for bird photography, where you’re giving up some reach into the bargain. I can imagine springing for a used 1D4 some day, but not a 1DX, at least not for a long time. Thanks, and for this really informative pair of posts (on the superteles and the intermediate teles).
I’d forgotten that I had used and love my full frame 1Ds Mark II for several years. Getting used to full frame has actually been easy. YAW. artie
I am a long time Nikon user but briefly switched to Canon and then back to Nikon. As you say both systems are superb and tend to leap frog each other with innovations. You are correct to say the Nikon 2.0 lose sharpness. My advice to folks is find a system you are comfortable with and stay with it but learn to use the “tools” of the system to your advantage. My only concern is the picture of your car and the water bottle. I know it must be empty because water and modern camera equipment don’t mix well. (HA HA) FYI. Thanks for spending so much time with the blog and your newsletters. The content covered is very informative and educational.
Hey James, Thanks and agree. Hey, the spring water bottle had the cap on1 Best, artie
ps: you are most welcome: please remember to use our B&H and Amazon links 🙂
Great post. I totally agree with your assessment of the two systems. When Nikon introduced the D800, I was seriously considering switching camps but after researching the long lenses, I decided that for wildlife and birds (my primary interest), Canon was still the way to go by a long ways. For landscapes, Nikon dominates with its higher DR (at low ISO) sensor and the 14-24 f/2.8 lens. But for wildlife and sports, Canon is still way ahead because of its lens lineup and because of the 1DX. That said, once you are invested into the big glass in any system it makes much more sense to just stay with your system and make great photos because we all know both systems can let a good photographer produce amazing work.
Thanks Geoff. What is DR??? artie
Dynamic Range. Nikon is well ahead in that camp but it only is beneficial below ISO 800 (really only at ISO 100-200) and therefore is only beneficial for landscape work anyways. I can’t remember the last time I shot wildlife below ISO 400.
Thanks. Both companies make some great cameras. I am not much of a landscape photographer. 🙂
Overall, thoughtful and honest. You, Artie are one of my favorite photographers, PERIOD..HANDS DOWN. I also love the work of Moose, who shoots Nikon and he is another absolute favorite..same for a number of other folks.
As some people already have substantial invested in one system or another, and considering the astronomical prices of both company’s big lenses, unless one is a VERY well paid photographer, I cannot imagine someone who has already invested thousands in big glass switching systems…
I think Moose has one of the Nikon 800 big boys so it will be interesting to see how it stacks up in sharpness since it already comes with a built in t/c (some alien number, btw)….
Finally, you hit the most salient point with aplomb….even the best gear (either Canon or Nikon) will produce garbage in the hands of the clueless….
Cheers,
Mark W. Thanks for your kind words; they are greatly appreciated. artie ps: While switching systems either way seems to be a huge problem the high resale value of especially the lenses makes it easier than folks would think. I have no horses in the race either way. All that I care about are good photographs and helping folks learn to create better images…artie
I would like to see some of your thoughts on the next tier down in price. I have been retired since 1998 and my funds are limited. I have been using the 300 f4 with 1.4 and 2.0 extenders and the 100-400 with 1.4 (now that the MK5III does focus with it). I have tried the Sigma 50-500, but it was just not sharp enough I know you have used the 400 5.6 for years. I have read you lessons on long focus technique with profit.
Hi Marvin,
For starters, click here to read “Which is the Best Under-$1500 Canon Intermediate Telephoto Lens for Me?” here.
If you use the 2X on the 300 f/4 you must be on a tripod and employ exemplary sharpness techniques. The trick with the Sigma lens is to always use it at apertures of f/8 or smaller; it is not sharp wide open.
thanks for dropping by, artie
I have been a Nikon fan and user since the 60’s, (yes I am 81 years old) and I have been a fan of yours since first reading you. Still remember the painful days of your wife passing and admire your recovery. Our pre-photography days were similar in that I was a high school English teacher.
All this to say I just finished reading your post comparing NIKON and CANON and have no problem with what you say or how you say it. I learned from it too. But, I will defend to the death the right to those who will chastise and vilify you.
Hang in there…you are a positive model and guide.
Thanks Raleigh for your kind words. Folks are free to vilify and chastise me, and not to worry, plenty do. As I said, disagreeing with me politely here is fine. The chastising and vilifying will need to take place elsewhere :). There is no freedom of speech on my blog. In the past I have been much more forgiving than most would be but those days are over. Say it nicely or be gone.
Hi, Artie, and thanks so much for this. I notice you didn’t mention your former and my current favorite toy, the Canon 400 f/5.6L. Am I right that it doesn’t apprach the sharpness of the lenses you do discuss? Also, I want to make sure I understand this: “the 300 has a substantial weight advantage and is much more easily hand held than the 2-4. That said, despite the fact that the 200-400 weighs nearly a pound more than the 500 II and only 2/3 of a pound less than the 600 II, I find that the 2-4 is much easier to hand hold than the 500 II because of its smaller overall size and its more compact design.” Are you saying that the 300 [even with a 1.4X or 2X TC] is easier to handhold than the 200-400, and that the 200-400 is easier to handhold than the 500?
Thanks again.
I limited my comments to to the fast super-telephotos. I have commented often on my old toy lens. It is a remarkably sharp lens. If I used a microscope I am sure that all things being equal that the Series II super-teles would be noticeably sharper. But not with the human eye, at least my eyes :).
Yes to your understanding of what I wrote. YAW. am
I have a few friends who have switched from Nikon to Canon and they all say the same thing, the Canon super teles are sharper than their Nikon counterparts.
Thanks Mike but please note that I did not say a word about comparative sharpness of the two systems other than to note that nearly all Nikon folks have had trouble over the years with the sharpness of various generations of their 2X TCEs. That said, the most recent version is supposed to be the best–according to some…..
“Using a 2X for flight or action is always problematic as AF is slowed with the loss of light. In addition, it is more difficult for the lens to drive the AF system.”
I totally agree with your statement above. When using the 2X III, the focusing system hunts more than with 1.4X and frame-per-second seems a bit slower as well.
Yes, I do see some of your great flight and portrait images taken with 2X III and the 600 IS II. Thanks for your quick reply. I have a copy of your Digital Basics II. I learned a lot about your sharpness technique. Very helpful.
I’ve done better with flight with the 2X employing the principles that I learned from Jim Neiger’s Flight Plan….
I have a Canon 500 IS II and been using it with the 1.4 TC II to produce sharp flight and portrait images of birds.
I also tried the 2X III with the 500 IS II for flight images and it has been very very difficult. Success rate of sharp flight images for me is very low with the 2X TC. For slow moving ducks and portrait, my success rate of sharp images is about 30 to 40%. I need to practice more and more. Regardless of your skill level for sharpness, I do think that images taken with the 1.4TC is always sharper than with 2X TC, correct?
Do you often use your 600 mm with 2X III for flight? Are you happy with the results? Your bird images are always great.
Thank you very much for sharing your insight and opinion about the big lenses for Canon and Nikon. Your blog is very informative.
Using a 2X for flight or action is always problematic as AF is slowed with the loss of light. In addition, it is more difficult for the lens to drive the AF system. While I have a sneaking suspicion that the above might be technically incorrect but I have no doubt that the info is practically correct.
All things being equal images made with the prime lens alone will always be sharper than images made with the 1.4X in place and images made with the 1.4X in place will will always be sharper than images made with the 2X in place.
George Lepp used to quote and approximate loss of sharpness of 14% with a 1.4X, 28% with the 2X. Note, however, that with the incredible sharpness of today’s prime lenses that with the gear in the right hands images made with the 2X can be professionally sharp.
I rarely use the 600/2X TC combo for flight photography but I have had some success and have posted a few images over time.
You are welcome and thanks for your kind words. artie
The question concerning Nikon vs Canon lens choices should be answered by someone with no conflict of interest. To quote “In April 1995, Mr. Morris became a Canon contract photographer, part of their “Explorers of Light” program; after 18 years of stalwart service, he now enjoys the title Explorer of Light Emeritus. Four of his images are featured in the Canon “EF Lens Work II” book. He appeared in a Canon EOS 1N television commercial that aired worldwide, and was featured in six episodes of the “Canon Photo Safari” television program.”
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Hard to do unless you find someone who owns and uses all the big lenses from both systems. Most of the stuff I read on gear that is written by experts who have never used the stuff are both a waste of time and garbage. As always, I have done my best to be fair, honest, and objective: pounds are pounds and dollars are dollars. artie