Yes, they're not the most discreet things even with lens coats. I like using tubes with superteles for bugs too, a good number of my bug shots are at 500/600 off the tripod. Pre-focusing is key for flying ones I find, along with back button focus.
The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread
- Thread starter Fusion
- Start date
apart from ebay and other auction sites whats the best place to buy a film camera more specifically a Canon AE-1 Program, got a birthday project going on for my Dad and the Canon is part of it. Any good reliable online retailers that still sell secondhand film cameras
not really the thread for this kind of thing i know
not really the thread for this kind of thing i know
Cameraworld have got one.
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/used-equipment/film-cameras/35mm-slr/used-canon-ae-1-body.html
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/used-equipment/film-cameras/35mm-slr/used-canon-ae-1-body.html
thanks for the link, good to no that there are still decent sites that sell secondhand film cameras
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 8,605
Phal, I'm in Uckfield, so would you mind sharing your exact address and i'll send a mate over to have a look... 
Phal, I'm in Uckfield, so would you mind sharing your exact address and i'll send a mate over to have a look...
He can look from there
Anyway, it's camouflaged now since there were no black lenscoats left! Camouflaged = you can't see the lens.I often trip over it
The200-400 is not even a birding lens, that is what the 600mm and 800mm lenses are for. The 200-400 is a great large wildlife lens for when you never know what you will get or how close you might eb. As such it is the ultimate safari lens but is very popular for large game animals in places like Yellowstone when sometimes you do get close to bears etc.
I am actually not a big fan of the 200-400mm lens. 200mm f/4.0 is very slow and disappointing if you have a 70-200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4.0 is also nothing special and quite affordable (you can buy older models for a 300-500 quid). So you are really paying the money to have 400mm @ f/4.0 and the ability to pull back. 400mm f/4.0 is a nice step up form the affordable 300mm f/4.0 but you don't get enough increase in length to justify the cost IMO.
Either never felt the need to pull back really but I know at time it can certainly be very helpful, e.g. on Safari and stuck inside the landrover.
shooting a 300m f/4.0 with 1.4xTC on a 1.5x DX crop (630mm equivalent) I rarely felt I had too much reach but almost always wished for more. Taking a few steps back from the large friendlier birds is sufficient, but I rarely had to do that.
I can really see why people pay for the 800mm lenses if they are really into birds. 630mm equivalent was mostly good enough but required heavy crops if you weren't very lucky. Now I have moved to FF the lack of reach is really apparent. Luckily the pixel density of the D800 is sufficiently high such that a heavy crop still yields plenty of detail.
Yeah I also wouldn't say no to more range but that being said, I do allsorts of stuff other than birds so a more practical lens was still better for me.
You're right in saying that a 200mm F4 or 300mm F4 lens is nothing special but then again you're not taking the quality into consideration. My old 70-200mm F4L was sharp but so is this
Good 300mm lenses start to get expensive.That being said, having tried the lens with another 1.4x extender in there (784mm or 1254 with 1.6 crop factor) I can't say the difference in reach is night and day. It's obviously closer but it's not exactly mindblowing!
It's a bit of a faff currently since I have to manually focus too but maybe one day I'll get a camera with F8 AF too
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
The Nikon 800mm will set you back £13,500 but 800 is a focal length where it is only really useful for birds. The Canon 600 MK II with a TC is better than the Canon 800 and more versatile which is what I'd use if I was a Canon birder. The Canon 200-400 looks nice with the built in TC for general wildlife but the price has more to drop I reckon.
yeah, a 600mm with TC is definitely more versatile, 800mm is really for birds.
And the 500mm f/4.0 is just more practical in terms of size, weight and cost.
If I get an bonus this year a 500mm f/4.0 will be my xmas present.
The canon 200-400 is pretty expensive for what it is IMO.
I never use it, though I do have the buttons near the hood set for Spot AF and the (larger) DoF button on the 1DX set for one-shot (or servo, depends which mode you're in to start with) if you keep it pressed.
Yup I would go for the 600mm F4, for a couple hundred more.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
The 200-400 can almost do what a 600 can but the 600 can't become a 200-400. I think the Canon 200-400 with the TC is about the ultimate wildlife lens. Just get saving for that 7D MK II or 1DX.
Yeah for me it ticks more boxes than anything else which is why I bought it despite the price. Its come down over the last year but no doubt it'll drop a little more but I don't see it dropping much more.
From what I've read the 600 blows the 200-400 into the weeds, with quicker focus and sharper images.
With the 1.4x enabled on the zoom it can't even reach the focal length of the 600 and it's a stop slower. Put a 1.4x on the 600 and it's nearly 200mmm longer.
200mm F2.8 primes are cheap enough to pickup.
Last edited:
Hardly new kit (bought a couple of months ago) but I have replaced my MkIIn with a MkIII.
Considered a newer/lower range model like a 70D or similar but just couldn't leave the battleship build of the 1 series plus the focus performance and f8 autofocus. Better ISO performance, nice large screen and arguably simpler controls.
Really very happy with it!
Really very happy with it!
Blown into the weeds?
Unless they do something wrong with a prime lens, I would always expect it to be faster at focusing than a zoom lens but that's just physics.
Sharper images? Well again yes, It's sharper but by how much? The shots coming out of this lens are definitely sharp
As mentioned, a 600mm can't be a 400mm or a 200mm and a cheap 200mm F2.8 certainly won't be able to compare in quality if you start adding TCs on there.
The benefit of having 200-560mm on tap without having to add/remove lenses or TCs is pretty huge for me but it does all come down to the individual user and what they want out of a lens. If I just sat in hides all day to shoot birds then a 600 or 800mm would be my choice but I don't so meh
yeah, you are really paying for that flexibility without having to swap lenses. But the Nikon one is still too steep for me and that is half the price of the Canon.
I would much rather have a 500/600mm and a 70-700mm on a separate camera.
But I have just never been in a situation where I missed a shot because I had too much reach, yet pretty much every time I go out I wish i had a 600mm lens!
However I know some people find the flexibility invaluable, to the extent that I've head that some canon shooters would rent the Nikon 200-400 and a body for safari work before Canon released theirs. I've also considered the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 in order to get the reach and maintain more modest focal lengths.
The thing that I don't like about high end zooms is the fixed aperture.A 200-400mm f/2.0-f/4.0 (or even just f/2.8-f/4.0) would be much more interesting, as would a a Sigma 300-800mm f/2.8 -f/5.6). Really no reason why a lens like a 70-200mm f/2.8 can't open up to f/1.8 at the wide end.
I would much rather have a 500/600mm and a 70-700mm on a separate camera.
But I have just never been in a situation where I missed a shot because I had too much reach, yet pretty much every time I go out I wish i had a 600mm lens!
However I know some people find the flexibility invaluable, to the extent that I've head that some canon shooters would rent the Nikon 200-400 and a body for safari work before Canon released theirs. I've also considered the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 in order to get the reach and maintain more modest focal lengths.
The thing that I don't like about high end zooms is the fixed aperture.A 200-400mm f/2.0-f/4.0 (or even just f/2.8-f/4.0) would be much more interesting, as would a a Sigma 300-800mm f/2.8 -f/5.6). Really no reason why a lens like a 70-200mm f/2.8 can't open up to f/1.8 at the wide end.
Last edited: