100-400, 300f4 & 1.4, or 400 5.6?

[Yakim Peled]

>> Now if Canon would just make an affordable 600mm lens I would be a Happy guy.


If Canon would make an affordable 600mm lens they would make a lot of people happy..... :-)

[BJL]

Maybe too late, but if two options for getting to 400mm, f/5.6 are the 100-400 zoom and 300mm f/4 with 1.4x TC, what about another option: adding a 2x TC to that 70-200/2.8? How does that combination compare to the others for image quality, focus speed etc.?

I do not know if the original poster wjy has the IS version of that lens though, which could make a big difference in the usability of 400/5.6.

[BJL]

Now if Canon would just make an affordable 600mm lens I would be a Happy guy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Affordable for most would limit it to front elements and maximum aperture diameter no bigger than an affordable 200mm, 300mm or 400mm lens, meaning about 70mm aperture. So 200/2.8, 300/4, 400/5.6, 600/8, as opposed to the "unaffordable" 100mm aperture options 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/4, 600/5.6.

So affordable 600mm will probably always be f/8 or slower, and since f/8 gags most auto-focus systems, probably only ever in forms like 300/4+2xTC or 400/5.6+1.4xTC, and requiring manual focus. The latter at least you now have within reach with the new 100-400!

[John Camp]

This is certainly not meant to start a flame war (please, please do not flame me) but your situation seems ideal for the Nikon, either the D2x or the upcoming D200. The equivalent VR (same as IS) lens in the Nikon system would be the 80-400, but because it uses a non-legacy chip, that's an effective range of 120-600 at F4-F5.6. A D200 with this lens would cost under $3000 total.      

But then, it's not in your preferred system, and I'm a great believer in preferred systems.

JC

[BJL]

This is certainly not meant to start a flame war (please, please do not flame me) but your situation seems ideal for the Nikon, either the D2x or the upcoming D200.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I abstained from similar thoughts, and will attempt an ecumenical response. I agree that for those of us whose resources limit our maximum focal length to, for example, 400mm, the greatest telephoto reach is achieved by having the highest sensor resolution in lines per mm, which roughly means closest pixel spacing. Because when your subject is so small or far away that you have to crop, smaller photo-sites give you the more pixels on the subject.

Currently, the D2x is the DSLR leader with 5.5 microns (ignoring the E-300/E-500, for which no 400mm lens is available) with the D200 about to be a close second at 6 microns. However the 20D and 350D not far behind at 6.4 microns, and it seems quite likely that Canon's successor to the 20D will close the sensor resolution gap on the D200, or possibly surpass it. Any of these Canon or Nikon models is a better choice for this particular situation than the Pentax and Konica-Minolta models or the 5D and 1DMkII, whose 8 micron or larger photo-sites are a potential advantage for dynamic range and low noise at high ISO, but a disadvantage for telephoto/cropping reach.

[wjy]

probably only ever in forms like 300/4+2xTC or 400/5.6+1.4xTC, and requiring manual focus. The latter at least you now have within reach with the new 100-400!

BJL,
I had a 300 2.8 and 2x teleconverter,  I didn't ever get what I feel was a very usable image quality from this combo.  Thus a prime 600 that was sharp and affordable would be great, although for the reasons you stated I don't see it happening.  I mostly wanted a 100-400 or 400 5.6 for a lighter carry into the backcountry setup as the 300 2.8 is not that light or small especially with the hood attached.  I think the 100-400 is going to do the job well as it weighs in at about half as much as the 2.8 with 1.4 TC.  It is a nicer size also.  It isn't as sharp or as fast obviously, but it is better than not bringing that focal length with you at all because of space restrictions.
Thanks to all who have posted,
Billy Y.