I'm conflicted please help

[Chisox2335]

Looking at the 500 mkii with the 1.4x or the 300 mkii with both mkiii converters.

I like the versatility of the 300 as a 300, 420, or 600 but prefer the reach of the 500 (or paired 700).

I shot an mki 500 in Africa for 4 days and loved it. I can't imagine I would dislike the 500 mkii but I'm concerned the 300 f2.8 would be a nice option.

I have a 70d, 6d and 100-400 mki and tamron 70-200 f2.8 already. I primarily shoot wildlife. The 100-400 never is enough for birds which is why I was looking at the 500

 

[LovePhotography]

Personally, I'd start over with the 16-35 f4, a nifty fifty, the 100-400 ii, and a 600 ii.
If you're gonna keep what you've got, get the 500.
Just my $0.02

 

[AlanF]

It depends on how you operate. If you like sitting in a hide (blind) and use a tripod or sitting in a car with a beanbag, then the 500 + 1.4xTC would be suitable or the 300 II + 2xTC would give you nearly as much reach and quality. If you don't use a tripod and you like walking/hiking, then the much lighter 300 is the clear winner, as it is also for sports etc. The new 400 DO II also adds to the dilemma, as does the 100-400 II.

 

[tomscott]

The thing is the difference between 400 and 500 is 2-3 steps. So what I would do is spend some money on camo, learn some hunting skills and improve technique and save a lot of money.

The 400mm F5.6 is one stop slower but 1/7th the price and very lightweight, missing IS but with the speed needed for birds IS isn't that usable although still animals in low light it can be very helpful. The 100-400mm MKII is pretty much equal on quality to the 400 F5.6 and has IS and the ease of a zoom but heavier.

The new 7D is a great cam good high ISO so for me I would have the 400mm 5.6 or 100-400 buy the 7D and some camo gear and maybe a hide.

In an ideal world the 500 would be awesome but for an extra stop and 100mm with the added weight it just doesn't equal the price difference imo.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

It depends on how you operate. If you like sitting in a hide (blind) and use a tripod or sitting in a car with a beanbag, then the 500 + 1.4xTC would be suitable or the 300 II + 2xTC would give you nearly as much reach and quality. If you don't use a tripod and you like walking/hiking, then the much lighter 300 is the clear winner, as it is also for sports etc. The new 400 DO II also adds to the dilemma, as does the 100-400 II.

+1, and if you add the cheap and light 400mm f5.6, then the dilema is even bigger. Anyway, for BIF you will need fast AF anf the teleconverters reduce AF speed drastically.

 

[steepjay]

I just had a lengthy conversation with a buddy of mine who was agonizing over 400/2.8 + TC vs 800/5.6, similar decision. The decision of reach without TC vs. the versatility of the faster, shorter, lighter lens plus TCs can be a challenge and is very personal. I used to have a 300/2.8, it's great for some things but I don't think it fits the bill for what you've described. 300 is too short for birding and safaris so you'd be living with a TC full time. I did a week in Tanzania with 300/4 a few years ago and had the 1.4 on a lot.

If you've already used the 500/4v1 you know the handling challenges associated with a lens this size so no point getting into that.

My vote, sell your 100-400 and get the 400/2.8. It's $1000 and a pound more than the 500/4 but you'll get 560/4 with a 1.4 and 800/5.6 if you get the 2x at some point.

 

[Loswr]

The thing is the difference between 400 and 500 is 2-3 steps.

Yes, if your subject is 8-12 steps away. Whatever the distance, you need to get 25% closer to your subject with the 400mm lens to match framing. That can often be quite a challenge with wildlife.

 

[AlanF]

The thing is the difference between 400 and 500 is 2-3 steps.

Yes, if your subject is 8-12 steps away. Whatever the distance, you need to get 25% closer to your subject with the 400mm lens to match framing. That can often be quite a challenge with wildlife.

You need to get 20% closer, not 25.

 

[candc]

If you are saying that you want More fl for birds then get the 600. You will not regret it.

 

[Loswr]

The thing is the difference between 400 and 500 is 2-3 steps.

Yes, if your subject is 8-12 steps away. Whatever the distance, you need to get 25% closer to your subject with the 400mm lens to match framing. That can often be quite a challenge with wildlife.

You need to get 20% closer, not 25.

Fair enough. In that case, you can be 25% further away with the 500mm lens. Potayto, potahhhto.

 

[AlanF]

The thing is the difference between 400 and 500 is 2-3 steps.

Yes, if your subject is 8-12 steps away. Whatever the distance, you need to get 25% closer to your subject with the 400mm lens to match framing. That can often be quite a challenge with wildlife.

You need to get 20% closer, not 25.

Fair enough. In that case, you can be 25% further away with the 500mm lens. Potayto, potahhhto.

Reminds me of Robert Maxwell's suggestion that they should increase the list price by 25% and then offer a 29% discount to get the same selling price. It took a while to convince him that he would lose 6.25% that way.

 

[Don Haines]

If you are saying that you want More fl for birds then get the 600. You will not regret it.

I have never heard of someone with the 600F4 that didn't love it....

 

[Don Haines]

Looking at the 500 mkii with the 1.4x or the 300 mkii with both mkiii converters.

I like the versatility of the 300 as a 300, 420, or 600 but prefer the reach of the 500 (or paired 700).

I shot an mki 500 in Africa for 4 days and loved it. I can't imagine I would dislike the 500 mkii but I'm concerned the 300 f2.8 would be a nice option.

I have a 70d, 6d and 100-400 mki and tamron 70-200 f2.8 already. I primarily shoot wildlife. The 100-400 never is enough for birds which is why I was looking at the 500

If you already know that 400mm isn't enough, going to 500 is not a very big change. I'd look at the 600.... which plays very well with teleconverters and can give you 840 at F5.6 or 1200 at F8....

 

[tomscott]

My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.

Most of the time to get enough DOF With birds you shoot higher than F5.6.

I would probably look at bigger, but the weight puts me off especially for a full days shooting.

 

[Eldar]

If you are saying that you want More fl for birds then get the 600. You will not regret it.

I have never heard of someone with the 600F4 that didn't love it....

I had the 500 MkI, which I was happy with, but it prematurely had to retire, due to an abusive hike. I then bought the 400 f2.8L IS II, which is a fantastic lens, which also works well with both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. But when we got f8 autofocus on the 1DX, I could not resist the 600 f4L IS II, to be able to go to 1200mm. I had the 2xIII extender mounted on the 400 most of the time and always wanted a little bit more. I occasionally miss the f2.8, but overall I am very happy with my choice.

 

[Sporgon]

My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.

Most of the time to get enough DOF With birds you shoot higher than F5.6.

I would probably look at bigger, but the weight puts me off especially for a full days shooting.

Never mind that. Where are the pictures from your Amazonian expedition ?

 

[tomscott]

My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.

Most of the time to get enough DOF With birds you shoot higher than F5.6.

I would probably look at bigger, but the weight puts me off especially for a full days shooting.

Never mind that. Where are the pictures from your Amazonian expedition ?

The expedition was incredible got some amazing pictures! One of the best experiences of my life. But I currently just have my iPad mini and was shooting small jpegs to my sd on the 5D so they look ok but haven't got round to editing them and still got another 2 months on the road! Would rather have a go with the full red RAWs before I post. But will post then when I get home. Taken nearly 13,000 images so far in the first 3 months so a lot to get through!

I will make a thread when I can

To add to the thread I took the 70-300mm L with me on the trip and 400mm would have been perfect. Or maybe taking a crop camera, wish I'd had that extra bit of reach. But because it was down season for 2 days it was just me and the ranger traveling through the tambopota forrest so we got very close and saw a lot of wildlife we probably wouldn't have seen with a large group. The 5D has been flawless and the lenses I've had it in -20C in the states and +50C in the Atacama desert then the moisture and rain in the rainforest not got one spec of dust in any of the lenses just a little bit of dust on the sensor. What a system, a lot of people really spend a lot of time worrying about the technical features but when you get out into these harsh environments it really proves how incredible they are, the 5D hasn't missed a beat and I haven't wanted more from it apart from maybe a couple of extra FPS. The 5DMKIII 24-105, 16-35, 70-300mm and 50mm has been such a great choice can basically do anything in any situation.

The canon system is amazing.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.

Most of the time to get enough DOF With birds you shoot higher than F5.6.

I would probably look at bigger, but the weight puts me off especially for a full days shooting.

Never mind that. Where are the pictures from your Amazonian expedition ?

The expedition was incredible got some amazing pictures! One of the best experiences of my life. But I currently just have my iPad mini and was shooting small jpegs to my sd on the 5D so they look ok but haven't got round to editing them and still got another 2 months on the road! Would rather have a go with the full red RAWs before I post. But will post then when I get home. Taken nearly 13,000 images so far in the first 3 months so a lot to get through!

I will make a thread when I can

To add to the thread I took the 70-300mm L with me on the trip and 400mm would have been perfect. Or maybe taking a crop camera, wish I'd had that extra bit of reach. But because it was down season for 2 days it was just me and the ranger traveling through the tambopota forrest so we got very close and saw a lot of wildlife we probably wouldn't have seen with a large group. The 5D has been flawless and the lenses I've had it in -20C in the states and +50C in the Atacama desert then the moisture and rain in the rainforest not got one spec of dust in any of the lenses just a little bit of dust on the sensor. What a system, a lot of people really spend a lot of time worrying about the technical features but when you get out into these harsh environments it really proves how incredible they are, the 5D hasn't missed a beat and I haven't wanted more from it apart from maybe a couple of extra FPS. The 5DMKIII 24-105, 16-35, 70-300mm and 50mm has been such a great choice can basically do anything in any situation.

The canon system is amazing.

Sounds like a job for Photo Mechanic!

 

[takesome1]

Looking at the 500 mkii with the 1.4x or the 300 mkii with both mkiii converters.

I shot an mki 500 in Africa for 4 days and loved it. I can't imagine I would dislike the 500 mkii but I'm concerned the 300 f2.8 would be a nice option.

You used the 500mm version I, the largest improvement from I to version II is the weight and improved IS.
It is much easier to hand hold than the old version, with the 1.4x it is great at 700mm. Put the 70d on it and you would get a small resolution advantage for small birds.

A bit more resolution with the new II, but the old version was great also.

I have had both the 300 and 500 for years. If I had to pick just one to own I would take the 500mm every time.

 

[Chisox2335]

Personally, I'd start over with the 16-35 f4, a nifty fifty, the 100-400 ii, and a 600 ii.
If you're gonna keep what you've got, get the 500.
Just my $0.02

Already have the 24-70 f4 and a nifty fifty (which I hate, the AF sucks). 600ii is just too much lens.