Canon v Nikon - a choice - Is the Canon 600mm f/4 L IS II the best birding lens around?

BillN_33

BillN_33

Messages
13,395
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
No
I have a D7100 and D300 with the Nikon 300mm f4, (carry around), and 300mm f2.8 , (tripod), with the TC20 lll and TC14 and the 70 200mm f2.8VR etc.
Before investing any more money in (birding) kit I need to establish what is the best and most practical birding lens and if it is a Canon I'll move to Canon

Is the Canon 600mm f/4 L IS II the best birding lens around? adding a Canon TC x 2 if needed

It seems to be lighter and get better reviews than the Nikon

Of course I will use it 100% on a tripod and would get a Canon 300mm f4 IS as well and go for the 5D Mklll

Nikon do not do a 300mm f4VR and the 300mm f2.8VR is a pain to carry for more than an hour ....... apart from it being awkward to shoot with handheld - I like the Nikon 300mm f4 hand hand but VR would make a lot of difference ....... don't get me wrong I think that the 300mm f2.8VR with or without the 20TC lll is a great lens ........ but I need more reach

Before it's suggested I'm too old to creep around in the undergrowth to "get nearer"

I know that it seems a Canon v Nikon debate - well not really as my question is what is the best and most practical kit for birding being a step up from what I have ...... my next lot of expenditure gets me into serious money and I do not want to regret it

Mods - please leave this in the Birds section as it is only a question for guys who take images of birds.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
Are you sure you'd be happy with a lens that can only be used on a tripod?

You might find you miss quite a few photo-ops if so.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jerry

If you read my post you will see that I indicated that I would get the Canon 300mm f4 VR to replace the Nikon 300mm f4 NON VR that I have now - to use for hand held shots
and that this and a new 600mm (?) would be what I would use …… versus what I use now 300mm f2.8VR + TC20lll on a tripod and 300mm f4 hand held

I am looking to upgrade my 300mm f2.8VR and am asking if the Canon 600mm is better than the Nikon 600mm not only for performance but also practicality as the Canon weights less
This would be a big jump in expenditure and probably as far as I would go ………
 
I would say so ... It is the lens i intend to end up with eventually, going to wait until i go to canada, as they sell for £6k GBP over there, imported with tax paid puts that around 7, which is a massive saving over the rip off prices here in the UK. I hear it copes well with the 2x TC too!
I currently own a 500mm coupled with my 1d mark iv which i find a great combo, but there are times i still wish i were closer!
 
I'd say so, I have the mk I version and it's great I love it, but it's heavy.. The mk II is vastly lighter, easy hand holdable, and yes I would upgrade for sure :)

I had a mk II 2x and didn't like the results at all, the mk III is very good even with a Mk I lens

I hope this helps
 
I've spoken to plenty of people who own the 600mm f4 II. The IQ it produces is exceptional - but then again so is the Nikon version. Everybody raves about the Canon version for being hand holdable for short bursts for flight shots. If there is no way you can use one without a tripod then it loses a lot of the weight advantage.

I don't think you're going to notice much IQ difference either way with Canon or Nikon, so the only real world issues are weight and the IS on the 300mm
 
If the earth came to an end, I suspect that the last thing to be seen would be an assortment of isolated male arms holding certain lenses aloft from the fuming tumult ...
 
I've had a direct comparison between the 600mm and the 500mm. There are reasons why the 500mm is more popular with birders and this is why I have the 500F4ISII instead of the 600...... It's nothing to do with the money as the £ difference isn't that great.

Stick a 2x on the 600 and it won't produce as sharp an image as the 500 does. It's that simple. Even more convincing was the fact that the 600+2x was attached to a 1Dx compared to my 500+2x on a 5Diii.

Having recently purchased the 400F2.8ISII, I expected it to be vastly superior to the 500. It isn't. I walk about with the 400+1.4x on one shoulder and the 500+2x on the other. I'm finding it hard to justify reaching for the 400 first.
 
FourRingCircus said:
I've had a direct comparison between the 600mm and the 500mm. There are reasons why the 500mm is more popular with birders and this is why I have the 500F4ISII instead of the 600...... It's nothing to do with the money as the £ difference isn't that great.

Stick a 2x on the 600 and it won't produce as sharp an image as the 500 does. It's that simple. Even more convincing was the fact that the 600+2x was attached to a 1Dx compared to my 500+2x on a 5Diii.

Having recently purchased the 400F2.8ISII, I expected it to be vastly superior to the 500. It isn't. I walk about with the 400+1.4x on one shoulder and the 500+2x on the other. I'm finding it hard to justify reaching for the 400 first.
Click to expand...
Honestly? I just had thought since the weight was vastly improved that the 600 would be the choice for many birders given the extra 100mm over the 500 as well. It's really that much sharper? I have the original 500mm, debating whether it's worth the upgrade, it's crazy how extortionate the pricing is for the IS II lenses, though i do think your gear list is the most awesome thing :p
 
FourRingCircus said:
I've had a direct comparison between the 600mm and the 500mm. There are reasons why the 500mm is more popular with birders and this is why I have the 500F4ISII instead of the 600...... It's nothing to do with the money as the £ difference isn't that great.

Stick a 2x on the 600 and it won't produce as sharp an image as the 500 does. It's that simple. Even more convincing was the fact that the 600+2x was attached to a 1Dx compared to my 500+2x on a 5Diii.

Having recently purchased the 400F2.8ISII, I expected it to be vastly superior to the 500. It isn't. I walk about with the 400+1.4x on one shoulder and the 500+2x on the other. I'm finding it hard to justify reaching for the 400 first.
Click to expand...

Although I haven't done a direct comparison myself, on another forum I go on there are a lot of the worlds top bird photographers, and they virtually all use the canon 600mm f4 II, usually with the 1.4x attached,but sometimes the 2x. They all manage to get absolutely stunning shots with that lens. While the likes of Artie Morris are sponsored by Canon and therefore you need to add a little salt to sponsored photographers reviews, others like Arash Hazeghi and Jim Neiger would probably disagree with your assessment.

Bill - at the end of the day, all the super tele's from both manufacturers offer a ridiculous level of IQ. Look at the specs, think which camera you want to use and take it from there. The potential of any of the full frame cameras from the last generation or 2 combined with any of the big lenses is just fantastic
 
Zephyr said:
It's really that much sharper? I have the original 500mm, debating whether it's worth the upgrade, it's crazy how extortionate the pricing is for the IS II lenses, though i do think your gear list is the most awesome thing :p
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was that much sharper. Only that it was sharper...... At 10x zoom on the rear screen, I was looking at a pin sharp Ospreys eye at 1000mm. It must have been reasonable, as the image was used on the Wildlife Trusts web-site. The chap next to me with the 1Dx and 1200mm couldn't get the same result. Furthermore, he was on a huge tripod and I was hand-held. Now to be fair, it wasn't me using the bigger lens, but it was enough to warrant my suggestion above. The other thing I'd say is that I've only ever seen one (Canon) 600mm in the field. By contrast, I've met many people with the 500. Graeme - if you're ever up this way, you'll be welcome to have a decent play with the ISII to decide if it's worth the upgrade. I never owned the previous version and I've only held the old 500 to weigh it as a comparison. That would be enough to convince me of the change!;)
 
Joeturner11 said:
Seems pretty pointless changing to Canon when you have so much nikon gear already tbh, Canon or Nikon 600mm f/4 whichever one you buy you will be happy with.
Click to expand...

I could sell my present Nikon gear at a small loss - as I pointed out the next step up is where the big money is - FX body and a 600mm lens plus a TC
600mm Nikon is heavy, 300mm f4 (hand held) Nikon has no IS or VR
Canon sell a 600mm that is lighter and a 300mm f4 that has IS, (VR)

I would get back what I paid for the Nikon 300mm f4 and 300mm f2.8
I would still keep the Nikon for non bird shots
 
Romany said:
Stick with what you have Bill and learn to get the best from it, or you will be chasing gear for the rest of your life..
Want some more reach, get a V1 or V2 and stick your 300mm on it
Click to expand...

don't go there

I have a V1 and FT-1 - IMHO it's crap

It blows the whites and shags the OOF areas.
 
Last edited:
I shoot Nikon, here's my kit.
D4/D800.
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 +TC's seldom used for birds...
Nikon 80-400mm VR, nice and light but a bit slow on the aperture... This is my "casual hand hold" lens... doesn't get a lot of use.
Nikon 400mm f/2.8 VRII +TC's... this is my primary lens of choice. With TC's I have anything from a 400mm f/2.8 to an 800mm f/5.6 and the IQ is very good. I handhold this using the SharpShooter Camera Mount (my company) or use it with a monopod.
Sigma 300-800mm, don't use...

But here's the catch... when you go over ~400-500mm getting BIF w/in the FOV becomes much more difficult, and you NEED higher SS's... I would not want to be stuck with a longer/slower lens as my only real option. And having a prime/fixed FL can be problematic as well...

400mm +2x @ f/5.6 *handheld*
Red Necked Grebe by skersting66, on Flickr

The Nikon1 does suck, but it doesn't suck that bad... I've done comparisons in the field between the V2, D800 DX/crop, D4 crop/TC's... The images don't hold up at 100%, but when used at similar size as a hard crop from the others there's not a lot of difference.

V2+FT1+28-300mm @300mm f/5.6 (wide open & 810mm effective)... a pretty crappy setup really... (I've ordered the 70-300mm to get away from the FT1 and center point only issue).
Chipping Sparrow by skersting66, on Flickr

Unfortunately, there's no "one perfect answer," not even the 600mm f/4...
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steven
V1 + FT-1
I find that I do not get many keepers with the V1, plus the single point focus is slow and I miss a lot of shots.
The best results that I have had are with the Nikon 70mm 200mm f2.8 VR and sometimes with the Nikon 300mm f4, (with and without the TC14Ell). A few of the results are below. With very small birds, the Swee Waxbill, for example, most of the shots turn out “soft’ and I have found in the end I may as well just use my DSLR with the lens and crop.

Also I did point out that in addition to the Canon 600mm I would get the 300mm f4 IS and TC's - (the Canon beats the Nikon on weight as in the 600mm and IS as in the 300mm f4)

V1 + FT-1 + Nikon 70 200mm f2.8
V1_1.jpg


V1 + FT-1 + Nikon 300mm f4 + TC14Ell
V1_2.jpg


V1 + FT-1 + Nikon 300mm f4
V1_3.jpg


V1 + FT-1 + Nikon 300mm f4
V1_4.jpg


and here's one I have just taken this evening in quite "nice" light, which is not bad for the distance - but it is slow to focus and fortunately the bird "hung" around for a few minutes

V1 + FT-1 + Nikon 300mm f2.8 +TC20Elll
(so is that 35mm equ. of 1620mm [ x 300mm x 2 x 2.7 = 1620mm])

V1_5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mods - please leave this in the Birds section as it is only a question for guys who take images of birds.
 
Also I did point out that in addition to the Canon 600mm I would get the 300mm f4 IS and TC's - (the Canon beats the Nikon on weight as in the 600mm and IS as in the 300mm f4)
Click to expand...

Yes, but then you are at f/4 max and f/8 w/ 2x on both lenses... Even the D4 looses some AF points when at f/8. In the Canon line only the 1Dx has any f/8 AF capability and it's quite limited (center point).
The only advantage I see of the 600mm f/4 is possibly a very slight IQ increase for any FL achieved w/ TCs, and the ability to go to 1200mm. But trying to hold 1200mm stationary enough is a PITA; it means you need an even higher SS and you're starting at f/8 already without stopping down further to compensate for the TC...

Also, keep in mind you are talking about going to FF at the same time. So currently you have 300mm f/2.8 +2x TC +1.5xCF = 900mm f/5.6. Put the 600mm on FF w/ 1.4x TC and you have 840mm f/5.6.... The only real gain is in FF sensor/ISO performance (maybe AF).

When it comes to choosing between MP's/Crop factor, TC's, FL, etc there is never a easy/clear answer... in a lot of ways the results are interchangeable. I prefer to use the D4 and TC's... My D800 requires a pretty large AFMA and it focuses slower/less accurately (spec wise there's no reason for it though).

Honestly, I wouldn't go changing systems over a lens today... Who has the best lens/body/whatever tends to change every few years. I personally don't like Canon's controls/menus, but I've been w/ Nikon forever... I'm sure if I were to make the change I'd get along fine.

There are some reasons I might consider switching if I had a particular need... the WA TS-E lenses, the super macro, etc... but for a super telephoto? Nah...

IMHO, your best move is probably the 500mm f/4; same weight as the Canon 600mm, the difference in FL is negligible, and the cost is almost $5k less. Buy the 80-400 with some of that spare change... or a D800... or a used D4... or....
 
Last edited:
I use the 500 f/4 IS USM II with my 1Dx together with a 1.4x III or 2x III as necessary. Find the IQ outstanding. I tried the 600 which is a lovely lens but with the TC's on I've personally found the 500 better for my bird/wildlife shots. The IS on it is excellent with up to a 4 stop capability which, on the rare occasions I use it without my gimbal, has proved highly beneficial. As I say, it suits me to a tee. It might not suit you or someone else. At the end of the day it's all subjective. Trying and comparing them is the only way to find your preference.

I also use the 300 f/4 IS with my 6D when birding.It's another great lens although not fast so I don't tend to use the TC's on it. Lugging these camera/lenses about develops broad shoulders but as they say no pain no gain.
 
90% Of people I know who buy the 500mm always have the 1.4 on it to get the extra reach so you end up with a 5.6 lens and the auto focus speed is halved
That's why I opted for the 600 mm f4 I.s
 
Last edited:
lost said:
90% Of people I know who buy the 500mm always have the 1.4 on it to get the extra reach so you end up with a 5.6 lens and the auto focus speed is halved
That's why I opted for the 600 mm f4 I.s
Click to expand...
How is AF speed halved? Yes, it is 1 stop less light but that doesn't reduce AF speed by 1/2... at least not IME. It is quite possible to reduce the light levels to where the AF system struggles (or quit functioning @> f/8).

I actually went the other way. Went from 500 f/4 to 400 f/2.8 (+ TC's). The difference between 500mm and 600mm is actually pretty small on the captured image. But with little birds you can never have too much reach. The guys I know using the 600 also use TC's...
 
sk66 said:
How is AF speed halved? Yes, it is 1 stop less light but that doesn't reduce AF speed by 1/2... at least not IME. It is quite possible to reduce the light levels to where the AF system struggles (or quit functioning @> f/8).

I actually went the other way. Went from 500 f/4 to 400 f/2.8 (+ TC's). The difference between 500mm and 600mm is actually pretty small on the captured image. But with little birds you can never have too much reach. The guys I know using the 600 also use TC's...
Click to expand...

Hi Steven
Have a look Canon USA .
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2014/ef_extenders_pt2.htmlp
I should have really said
That as you already know the less light entering the lens affects the ability for the camera to lock on to a subject ie a bird in flight most camera systems can only autofocus down to F5.6 and the ones that can autofocus down to F8 can only use centre point AF i have used a 2X extender on both the 500mm f4 and 600mm F4 with the 1Dmk4 and it is so much slower than using my 600mm without and at times it can not achieve focus on a moving object this is more obivous if like me you are shooting early morning and at early evening
Regards
Richard
 
Last edited:
Yes, I mentioned that earlier... but it's really a matter of a camera limitation and being at f/8 max and not really "how" you got there. Adding a 1.4 to the 500mm shouldn't result in as bad of degradation. But the actual performance can be camera/lens dependent as much/more than being just aperture dependent. With the Nikon 500 f/4 (older model on D3/D300) I didn't typically see a big hit when using a 1.4 unless light levels were lower.

I guess this is an advantage for Nikon at the moment. When I use a 2x w/ the 400mm f/2.8 I still have full AF capability.
These are the AF points available with the D800/D4 (and probably the newer high end Nikon bodies).

Available-AF-points-of-Niko.gif
 
Last edited:
Hi Stevan and Bill
Another thing to consider is with no extenders fitted the lens is working at it's full potential that's why I prefer the 600mm






One other thing if you have a look at my short eared owl thread a lot of the guys using a 500mm and 1.4 were having issues locking on which may have been down to the tones in the bird and background and having a minimum of the 5.6 aperture that was on offer. With the extenders off when the tones were the same everyone agreed that the auto focus was quicker this was with both Nikon and Canon users remember this was with the birds in flight so it is something else to consider it may be my technique was better but I doubt it as my bet would be with the technology but I would be happy to be proved wrong.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/a-short-eared-owl-a-day.536659/
Regards
Richard
 
sk66 said:
I guess this is an advantage for Nikon at the moment. When I use a 2x w/ the 400mm f/2.8 I still have full AF capability.
Click to expand...

Checking my 5D mk3 manual it mentions the Canon 500mm and 600mm lenses (all flavours) as group C - so generally good across all 61 points. The 500 and 600mm lenses with 1.4Tc falls into group E - so the middle 21 points are best, but all 61 points are usable, the outside ones may be sensitive to horizontal lines. With the 2x tc is suggests only the 5 centre points are useable.

400mm with 2x is group e also
 
Another thing to consider is with no extenders fitted the lens is working at it's full potential
Click to expand...

Of course... The questions come as what is the IQ w/o TC, and where is it with TC's? And what is the max aperture in those configurations (AF speed/accuracy/compatibility).
When light get's low, I can keep shooting when others can't by dropping the TC's and being at 400mm f/2.8. When light is good I can add TC's. Nikon has done a great job with their current mk III TC's. This was taken w/ a 2x wide open (800mm f/5.6).

_SGK5089-Edit.jpg by skersting66, on Flickr

I won't argue that using TC's degrades the IQ some, it does... I just prefer the flexibility of variable max apertures and FL's. In my comparisons, the IQ difference between the 400mm w/ a 1.4x (560mm f/4) and a 600mm f/4 is negligible. Same is true at 800mm...

But none of this directly addresses the OP's question other than to say/show that there is no "one best" choice.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Of course... The questions come as what is the IQ w/o TC, and where is it with TC's? And what is the max aperture in those configurations (AF speed/accuracy/compatibility).
When light get's low, I can keep shooting when others can't by dropping the TC's and being at 400mm f/2.8. When light is good I can add TC's. Nikon has done a great job with their current mk III TC's. This was taken w/ a 2x wide open (800mm f/5.6).

_SGK5089-Edit.jpg by skersting66, on Flickr

I won't argue that using TC's degrades the IQ some, it does... I just prefer the flexibility of variable max apertures and FL's. In my comparisons, the IQ difference between the 400mm w/ a 1.4x (560mm f/4) and a 600mm f/4 is negligible. Same is true at 800mm...

But none of this directly addresses the OP's question other than to say/show that there is no "one best" choice.
Click to expand...

Hi Steven I totally agree with you on that one and over what you are saying about the 400 + 1.4 and 600 it's the compromise with the 500mm and adding the tele convertor as the other 2 have that bit more reach and the F4 aperture. I use the 300mm f2.8 i.s + 1.4 extender with another body when I'm in the field that said when it comes to traveling the 500mm is easier to take than the 600 and 400mm. To me there isn't a perfect answer Canon and Nikon are always going to be best for a long time yet. The only real advantage of swapping systems there is more Canon stuff on the Second-hand market. About the only bonus I could really see.
Regards
Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top