Canon or Nikon super-telephoto

timg

timg

Messages
69
Edit My Images
No
Hi!

Ok, so a few years ago (2009) I had a Canon 600mm F4 and a 300mm F2.8, however for career reasons I sold them and moved to London (long story)

I'm now at the stage where I'm looking to re-buy something along the lines of what I've had before in the next few months, bearing in mind I'm no novice when it comes to using these things - but there seems to be a lot more choice available now, but I do want to buy new (warranty/piece of mind/etc)

The new Canon super-telephoto lenses with the fluorite elements are much lighter than the older version, but also cost twice as much - how do these compare to the current generation Nikon super-telephotos? I imagine the difference is almost undetectable outside of a lens chart, but just wondering if people have any real experiences with the newer ones..

500mm should suffice, currently looking at the Nikon, but might stretch to the Canon.. 600 was just too heavy for long hikes, and will be a pain getting onto many flights as carry-on...

any thoughts?
 
I've owned Canon superteles and Nikon and if I was shooting superteles I'd go Canon. The MKII will be better optically in probably some almost meaningless way to the Nikon but the weight saved is such a boon I couldn't look past it. Canon Bob and micloi would be good to ask as they must have owned or shot every Canon supertele there is.
 
Yeah, the weight thing really is quite a big difference, the new 500mm is the best part of 1Kg lighter than the Mk1 version, the 600 I had was over 5KG lol, whilst I loved it - it was an utter nightmare carting up/down and around hermaness cliffs,

I could probably stretch to the 500 MkII, but the 600 is way out,

I looked at the comparison between the Nikon and the Canon MkII on the digital-picture's comparison site, and whilst on a lens chart you can see a small difference, I doubt it translates into any meaningful difference in the field, I imagine the choice of body plays more of a factor..
 
I use the Canon 500 MKII & when necessary either a 1,4x III or 2x III TC. tried the 600 and personally much preferred the 500 especially using either TC but not solely.

IQ I've found outstanding. Usually use it on a Gitzo/Wimberley Gimbal combo but have found the 4 stop IS a godsend when handheld which is possible but not recommended. I love it.
 
All these lenses are outstanding optically. There may technically be differences but you'd struggle to see them.

But the new Mk II Canons are definitely lighter than the Nikons. For the 300/2.8 it's noticeable but not a game breaker. However, for the 400/2.8, 500 and 600 the weight difference is massive. If you expect to be lugging one of these around a bit, that could be an important factor.
 
Hi,

Thanks for the replies, I think i'll go with the Canon 500mm MkII in the next few months - whatever I get it's going to have to last a long time, so taking the weight and what I want to do with it (overseas/long treks etc) it seems to make sense to pay extra for the lighter version,

Cheers!

T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top