Using super telephotos - what are your lighter support lenses?

[Derrel]

From left: The slender-barreled 400mm f/3.5 ED~IF in AiS mount with CPU added; the second lens from left is the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S Mark II;the third lens from the left is the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S;fourth lens from left is the 70-200 2.8 VR-G;fifth lens from left is the 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM Sigma; far right is 80-400VR. 
400/3.5 and 300/4 are shown with their built-in lens hoods in collapsed or storage orientation. All other lenses have their lens shades removed. The 400mm f/3.5 is internal focusing and very slender and light-feeling when ion a moniopod, and it is actually the BEST-handling big lens I have ever owned, due to its skinny barrel, and the big front element, it balances very well on a monopod with a camera+grip behind it. It is actually reasonably hand-holdable for short periods, and balances and swings better than the 300 2.8 or the 200 f/2. It also adapts well to a Canon body, and it has a pre-set focusing stop, and an adjustable tension mechanism between one-finger light and rapid focusing, down to stiff,slow focusing for when its match TC-300 2x converter is added to make it an 800mm f/7. The 300 f/4 AF-S is a great lens: VERY close-focusing, almost macro-like right out of the package, and good with the 1.4x converter, and also quite good with extension tubes, this lens also works very well on a Canon body with an adapter, since it has an f/stop ring on it, and pretty good manual focusing. It makes a 420 f/5.6 with the 1.4 added, and it's good for field work.

A size comparison of the 400mm f/3.5 ED~IF, the 300mm f/2.8 AFS-II,and the 300mm f/4 AFS. As you can see, the 400 is more slender than the 300 2.8 or the 300/4 throughout most of the barrel. The 400 actually handles better on a monopod than the 300/2.8 does. Size-wise, it's easy to see why the 300mm f/4 AF-S is such a popular lens--it's relatively "small". What I like about the 400mm f/3.5 is that it weighs about 7 pounds, just like my 300/2.8 AFS-II, which is a magnesium-barreled,close-focusing 300/2.8...it is the "lightest" 300/2.8 one can buy for Nikon, at around 7 pounds in weight.

I also have the Nikon 200mm f/2 AF-S VR-G, which is not shown. It's also around 7 pounds in weight, and has the advantage of working very well with the 1.4x TC14e-II converter to make a 280mm f/2.8 equivalent. And it works pretty well with the 1.7x and new 2x TC20e-III Aspherical converters, or so I am told. I have used it with the older TC 20e-II 2x, and it was "okay" as a
a 400mm f/4 equivalent--not great, but okay. Passable, and with VR.

 

[Hardrock]

300F4

300F2.8

I assume those are pictures but Im at work and they will not display. I will check when I get home. I realize its a huge advantage to have the 300mm at f2.8 but if the quality is close at f4 I will have to make due.

 

[gsgary]

300F4

300F2.8

I assume those are pictures but Im at work and they will not display. I will check when I get home. I realize its a huge advantage to have the 300mm at f2.8 but if the quality is close at f4 I will have to make due.

Both are at F4.5

 

[Hardrock]

300F4

300F2.8

I assume those are pictures but Im at work and they will not display. I will check when I get home. I realize its a huge advantage to have the 300mm at f2.8 but if the quality is close at f4 I will have to make due.

Both are at F4.5

Thanks I will check it out when I get home.

 

[icassell]

Does anyone have personal experience with image quality between the 300 f2.8 and 300 f4 of pictures taken at f4? I do think the the super tele zooms just arent on par with the primes and would personally rather have a prime and deal with the inconviences then have to sacrafice image quality. But that stinking 300 f2.8 is outragous for most hobbiest! So that is why I only even considered the 300 f4. And as far as the 400 goes I figured the 300 with a 1.4tc and IS would be better than just the 400 with only f5.6 and no IS. IDK just my thoughts.

You might be interested in this:

Canon EF 400mm F/5.6L or the 300mm F/4.0L IS?

Canon EF 300mm F/4L IS, what do you think?

 

[Hardrock]

Does anyone have personal experience with image quality between the 300 f2.8 and 300 f4 of pictures taken at f4? I do think the the super tele zooms just arent on par with the primes and would personally rather have a prime and deal with the inconviences then have to sacrafice image quality. But that stinking 300 f2.8 is outragous for most hobbiest! So that is why I only even considered the 300 f4. And as far as the 400 goes I figured the 300 with a 1.4tc and IS would be better than just the 400 with only f5.6 and no IS. IDK just my thoughts.

You might be interested in this:

Canon EF 400mm F/5.6L or the 300mm F/4.0L IS?

Canon EF 300mm F/4L IS, what do you think?

Great stuff Thanks!

 

[Derrel]

Hardrock,
Those two short articles icasell referred to seem spot-on to me. For things like birds/wildlife, longer lenses are really useful when the subjects are small things, like birds. You are right about the image quality sacrifices made with the tele-zooms like the Sigma 100-300 or the various 80-400 lenses or the Sigma 50-500; those lenses, ALL of them, are simply NOT as cuttingly sharp as the 300mm f/4 primes, and the Canon 400/5.6-L has been documented (multiple sites,over years) to be a sharper 400mm lens than the 100-400-L zoom lens, or the Sigma 50-500,and so on. The problem is that for some users and for some situations, what is most essential is the ability to zoom to get the right picture angle, while in other situations the priority is creating the absolute highest-quality image with the absolute best optics, while in a third situation, the need is for the absolute longest focal length to make a small subject look biggest in the final image.

What really makes this painful is....the size and weight, and the cost. A 300/2.8 is a major PITA to carry; it's big and heavy and people stare,and it's a space-eater. The optical quality of 300/2.8's is almost unmatched, and 300mm really is not all "that" long for birds or nature work where you need focal length so desperately so often. THe 300/4 lenses are quite good optically, and cost a lot less, and are actually pretty easy to cary and hand-hold and work good as sort of like "macro lenses", but you have no framing flexibility, so when things get too close to you, you can only shoot very tight,tight compositions--so, hard to use for some sports/action/social stuff, sooooo you start thinking about the Sigma 100-300 f/4, for its focal length flexibility and reasonable price and weight. But honestly, at the 250-300mm lengths,its noticeably below a 300/4 prime in image quality and its focusing speed is not quite as good either.

ACK!!!!!!!!!!!! The people at Lensrentals.com have an article that touches on this whole problem, which is that there is no such thing as a top-quality long telephoto lens that costs less than $1,000, and the real image quality lenses are 1)big 2)heavy 3)very costly. It's a very,very tricky area, this 300-400-500mm area, and the choices are very few in number when you really get down to it. Sigma's 500mm f/4.5 is one option not often discussed. The other alternative is looking for older, ED-glass internal focusing Nikon lenses and using those with an adapter on a Canon body; the prices are right for that, but you will not have autofocus, but instead feather-touch Internal Focus and ED glass. Autofocus is not always needed, so, some of the older options like Sigma's 500mm f/7.7 in Canon EF mount or Nikon mount with adapter, are possibilities. Or, going with older Canon stuff, like the older Canon EF 500mm/4.5-L non-IS instead of the new 500/4-IS.
Canon's 400mm f/5.6-L seems to be popular with people who want long, light, and HQ optics, and can live without the zoom. I bought a used Sigma 80-400 OS for Canon for summertime minor league baseball,where the zoom is absolutely critical (from my POV) and that shoots pretty good images, with OS, but still only f/5.6 at 300 to 400mm,so once the light starts to fade in the evening...that lens becomes less-useful than a 300/4. This whole thread that Overread started really hits upon an area where the camera maker and the 3rd party makers (Tamron-Sigma-Tokina) have not yet quite gotten it all figured out, I think. MInolta made a 400mm f/4.5 lens that sold for $2,000 not too long ago, and had really reasonable weight,and a decent f/stop of 4.5; that would be a nearly IDEAL lens for Canon or Nikon to make, but they don't, and neither do Tamron-Sigma-Tokina. f/5.6 frankly does not cut the mustard for action or low-light work, so...you have to pick a poison and lug a 7 pound lens around and shell out $3,000-$7995 to get a 300/2.8 or start scrounging around for older,used big glass.

 

[icassell]

Well put, Derrel. One other variable that isn't mentioned as much is the fact that the newer cameras do far better at high ISO than the older ones. I'm not as concerned about the low-light ability of the 400mm/5.6 on my 7D as I would be on my 30D. A "small" additional investment in camera body might just save you big $$ in glass in this regard as the difference in cost between bodies is far less than the difference in cost of the f/2.8 and the f/5.6

 

[Overread]

I think part of the problem is just that there is no clear middle range market leading lens to go for - its a mess of the 300mm f4 IS, 400mm f5.6 and the 100-400mm/50-500mm zooms - each one offering slightly different advantages and disadvantages which makes it a nightmare to choose just one for the overall best performance.
Plus I think a lot of the slightly higher range priced options start to get too close to options like the 300mm f2.8 in price and then most are going to save for a little longer for that god lens - being able to use a 2*Tc on it for a 600mm f5.6 IS L that delivers good quality images and is lighter and cheaper than the offical 600mm lens is not something to turn ones nose up - esp when one is on a buget.

 

[Hardrock]

Thanks Derrel! You made some great points. Its definitely a tough decision, I guess for me where Im at in photography and have been using a couple primes I really want the sharpest image. But then again as a hobbiest when I tell my wife Im going to spend 5 grand on a lens she starts to look for a bat to clobber me with! Even on a crop body the 300 seems short but I really like the IS feature over the none IS. So something has to be sacraficed either IS or the extra 100mm and 1 stop. So to Overreads point I guess its a give and take situation until your able to purchase the best of the best glass.

 

[Overread]

And that adds in another problem too - do you go for a 300 or 400 prime and expect to sell it on later - or one of the zooms - a lesser quality that gives you the same reach, but which might linger on after you get the super glass as a versatil alternative.

So far the 100-400mm appears to be popular as a lighter "support" lens - whilst most are also using a 70-200mm + 1.4TC for lower range support in the field.

 

[icassell]

I think part of the problem is just that there is no clear middle range market leading lens to go for - its a mess of the 300mm f4 IS, 400mm f5.6 and the 100-400mm/50-500mm zooms - each one offering slightly different advantages and disadvantages which makes it a nightmare to choose just one for the overall best performance.
Plus I think a lot of the slightly higher range priced options start to get too close to options like the 300mm f2.8 in price and then most are going to save for a little longer for that god lens - being able to use a 2*Tc on it for a 600mm f5.6 IS L that delivers good quality images and is lighter and cheaper than the offical 600mm lens is not something to turn ones nose up - esp when one is on a buget.

Yeah. The problem is that most of the birders who own the 500/4 or 600/4 put a 1.4X or 2X TC on it! Can't get 700 or 1000mm with that 300mm (That's not exactly true as I have stacked my 1.4 and 2X TC's on my 100-300. I got 840mm, but the images were dreadful.)

 

[Overread]

True - but the 500mm and 600 f4s are a lot lot heavier than the 300mm f2.8. The 2.8 people say they can handhold for a good while - the others most say its tripod/monopod time

 

[Derrel]

Icassel,Overread,Hardrock--EACH of you guys make very,very valid points that I agree with totally. ISO is our salvation and savior, or will be,some day. I suffer through/work around the Nikon D2x and its ISO limitations, and when I was shooting weekly sports assignments in 2005 and 2006, the switch from the Nikon D1h with "decent" ISO 1600 to the D2x with high resolution and better AF meant horrible hits on ISO--that camera only went to 800 ISO natively, so I bought a 200mm f/2. Canon at that time had better High ISO, so I bought a Canon 5D in 2007 and was amazed at the ISO advantages. As cameras get better and better High ISO performance with each generation or every 2nd generation, ISO will soon float these slower boats upward. The High ISO capabilities of the Nikon D700 or the Canon 7D are really big advances in their respective brands. Like icassell wrote, "A "small" additional investment in camera body might just save you big $$ in glass in this regard as the difference in cost between bodies is far less than the difference in cost of the f/2.8 and the f/5.6"--I agree with that TOTALLY.

And as Overread states, there is no clear middle range market-leading lens to go for,and the situation is a mess. A total,muddled mess. I have bought almost all my lenses USED, and all from a large walk-in retail store that caters to advanced amateurs and pros, with huge discounts over the Big Three used sellers in the USA; I payed $2750 for the 300/2.8 AFS-II, which was about $1,000 less than the B&H or KEH used price because I bought it locally. I payed $1,000 for the immaculate 1982-made 400mm f/3.5 from an internet acquaintence who thought the lens was sub-par. Turned out it had not been cleaned in a decade or more, and the front element had a thick layer of haze over it and it was low-contrast and crappy-shooting and he was a birder who wanted a 500 f/4.5 Sigma, so he sold me the lens at a very low price. After I cleaned its filthy front element, it went from low-contrast to crisp and sharp. I think this guy thought he was unloading a crappy lens on me, but the joke turned out to be on him...

Hardrock...well....wives and bats...yeah...but these lenses are going to last 20 years +. My 400 was made in 1982,so approaching 30 years. My 300 was made in 2000. My buddy Mike is still shooting the Canon 500/4.5-L he bought in 1990,and has made a career off of it as a bird and wildlife shooter. I suggest buying used but not necessarily from the Big 3 web retailers, but from private party sellers. The Big 3 put a price tag on big glass and let buyers come to them to pay full, top-top prices; in the real world in Seattle or Portland or Minneapolis or Houston or Dallas or Phoenix (these are all hints BTW) pros sell off these lenses whenever new stuff hits, and they want to sell FAST,and so the prices are much,much lower off of the world wide web. A 300/2.8 in a case in a store is worth LESS than whatever they have it priced at,guaranteed. Make offers. Lowball offers. You'd be surprised I think at how eager real-world dealers are to sell big glass--actual buyers are few, and with this sucky economy, cash is king. Alot of stores are selling this stuff on *consignment*, so they do not care what the sale price actually ends up being, and the buyer is at home,sweating bullets,and praying somebody will walk in and buy his big telephoto he never uses anyway (hint,hint) so ask the salesman to call the owner and make him an offer. The store will skim 16-20% off the sale price on consignment lens sales, so they don't have much incentive to see full price realized, and the seller is almost always selling to finance NEW stuff, like a Nikon D3s or Canon 1Ds,etc,etc, so he wants CASH for an item that's seldom used. So, as for placating a wife--you're making a 20-year investment,and getting a great deal. Sooooo, when the Canon 1Ds Mark IV hits, or the Nikon D4 series hits, or the next killer-killer mid-level cameras hit the street, start calling and web-shopping the smaller dealers and eBay and such,looking for private party lenses being sold off to finance the "next big thing."

 

[gsgary]

And that adds in another problem too - do you go for a 300 or 400 prime and expect to sell it on later - or one of the zooms - a lesser quality that gives you the same reach, but which might linger on after you get the super glass as a versatil alternative.

So far the 100-400mm appears to be popular as a lighter "support" lens - whilst most are also using a 70-200mm + 1.4TC for lower range support in the field.

The 100-400 is a lens i would not buy, i swopped my 300F2.8 for my friends 100-400 at a motorcycle meet once for about 30 minutes when i got home i deleted all of them they were not good enough, it would be no good at an event where i am printing on site if i had to do that