Ultimate Critter Lens?

[DiploStrat]

Nice new toy from Canon. http://www.adorama.com/CA2004004.ht...l&utm_campaign=Email051413New&utm_source=RSYS :drool:

Pricey! Even the case is $700. :Wow1:

 

[shadow images]

Another reason I shoot Nikon. Definitely not worth twice the price of the same Nikon lens.

 

[DiploStrat]

I, too, am a Nikon shooter and the Nikon version, while lacking the cool, integrated extender, is under $7k. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-200-400mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003JBHSHK

Real people, like me, shoot the 80-400mm or the Sigma "BIGMA."

 

[4xdog]

But with this $11,800 lens at least the shipping is free.

 

[john101477]

wow...
You know Nikon has done some um, interesting things but practically doubling the cost of the same lens from a competitor as way beyond me. As for the 200-400 being the ultimate wildlife lens... IDK if I could go that far, dont get me wrong 400mm is nice for certain animals if they are close enough but many truly wild critters are way to far away for that to be perfect... of course a lens like the 800mm from Nikon is sweet to but it is to long for animals that are closer in. IDK if there is a one size fits all.

 

[DiploStrat]

wow...
... IDK if there is a one size fits all.

You are right, of course. Leaving aside the primes that most of us can't afford, the 200 - 500mm range is the range most of us have to use when we can't use a tripod, can't get out of the vehicle, etc. Got bearers, etc., and the longer lengths become more practical. Want to shoot birds and nothing is long enough.

 

[Mo Betta]

Ill be zooming with my feet for awhile at that price LOL

 

[Haakon]

I would rather have the 500mm F/4 for $1,000 less. More reach and better IQ, not that the 200-400 is poor, but it's not a prime. If I'm spending more than I spent on my last truck I'm going for the best image quality I can get. But since I don't have that to spend, I'll keep shooting my Sigma 50-500mm OS.

 

[john101477]

You are right, of course. Leaving aside the primes that most of us can't afford, the 200 - 500mm range is the range most of us have to use when we can't use a tripod, can't get out of the vehicle, etc. Got bearers, etc., and the longer lengths become more practical. Want to shoot birds and nothing is long enough.

Of course, primes are great,although I could never see buying a 200 prime when the 70-200 is so versatile. I know I know, the prime is supposed to be sharper but I have never had an issue and the price is a bit intimidating. Barriers suck of course lol. In no way did I want to sound like I was bashing primes in the 300-600 range. I have enjoyed Nikon's 500mm and love that I can hand hold that length for bird shots but for this particular lens it just seems way overboard on price to me

 

[mervifwdc]

I have to say I love my 600F4. Bit of a beast to lug about, but gets the job done!

 

[john101477]

:drool:
Seriously? I so need one lol. I keep saying if I had one I would not need to get so close to the wildlife. Those that know me say I am full of it cause I would still get that close just to see if I could. Go figure right?

 

[matt s]

500 f4 is pretty hard to beat. Unless it's a 600!

 

[Haakon]

Or an 800mm...if you have $18,000 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+800mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Just the hood is a crazy $1000.

 

[Joe917]

I shoot Canon . The 70-200 2.8 is hard to beat. My favorite long lens though is still my Tamron 300 2.8. Over 20 years old, fully manual, perfect glass. Nikon used to use it as a comparison lens( they hoped to be as good!) You can still find good ones on ebay etc. for $600 or so, they were an Adaptall 2 lens so you can find adapters for any body. For the money completely untouchable.Tamron also made a 2X flat-field converter giving a 600 5.6.