I'm conflicted please help

[Chisox2335]

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.

Ends up being 1.5 pounds pre converter so almost 3 pounds total. It's also about $1400 more plus I'd need a 2x converter so it's almosy $1800 more. Interesting thought though thanks for the idea. Hadn't put a lot of investigation into the 400 previously I had ruled out strictly based on size.

 

[NWPhil]

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

+1 on a UWA/WA lens - there is a lot of floor space out there

A zoom would be a great choice, and often you will get pretty close to some animals, but if birds are your main goal, then go indeed go with a 500mm at least.
Mind also, that if you will be taking local flights, there are quite a lot of weight restrictions/caps.
Hopefully, you are in with a private guide/tour, as I strongly advise to carry two bodies, and avoid changing lenses while out and about riding - you will be repositioning yourself quite often.
I would slap the bigger telephoto on the 7D and keep the WA on the full frame - better yet, if you have a good quality P&S with WA, carry bit too. That way you can then have the keep two long focals all the time, snap a couple shots at stops with the P&S, and change to the UWA zoom, when shooting the birds is done for the day or area. Often you will have a chance to stop in some viewpoints, where the WA can be usefull, and then there are some amazing bugs crawling around. Minimize lens changing, but be over zealous doing it; plan to carry a cleaning kits for lens and sensor(if you are confortable doing it),to use it back at your hotel/lodge


edit:
nightscapes: by all means, bring a rokinon 14mm if you can. The night skies are just amazing

 

[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

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....

500 with the 1.4 gives me 300mm more than I have now at f5.6. The 600 is also $3000 more than the 500

 

[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

+1 on a UWA/WA lens - there is a lot of floor space out there

A zoom would be a great choice, and often you will get pretty close to some animals, but if birds are your main goal, then go indeed go with a 500mm at least.
Mind also, that if you will be taking local flights, there are quite a lot of weight restrictions/caps.
Hopefully, you are in with a private guide/tour, as I strongly advise to carry two bodies, and avoid changing lenses while out and about riding - you will be repositioning yourself quite often.
I would slap the bigger telephoto on the 7D and keep the WA on the full frame - better yet, if you have a good quality P&S with WA, carry bit too. That way you can then have the keep two long focals all the time, snap a couple shots at stops with the P&S, and change to the UWA zoom, when shooting the birds is done for the day or area. Often you will have a chance to stop in some viewpoints, where the WA can be usefull, and then there are some amazing bugs crawling around. Minimize lens changing, but be over zealous doing it; plan to carry a cleaning kits for lens and sensor(if you are confortable doing it),to use it back at your hotel/lodge

I went on my safari already in October.

I had a 60d for landscapes or my rx100 when I couldn't carry 3 dslrs.

I already have a 24-70 and a 14mm if I want to get really wide.

I used my 70d most of the time with the 500 mki I rented

 

[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....

500 with the 1.4 gives me 300mm more than I have now at f5.6. The 600 is also $3000 more than the 500

Yeah, that is a problem.... I'd like to get one too, but the $'s are not there for me either

 

[Chisox2335]

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.

I prefer the weight and is on the mkii but I'm also a bit concerned about how long canon will service the mki. I would expect to have the lens for a while so that is a concern.

 

[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

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....

500 with the 1.4 gives me 300mm more than I have now at f5.6. The 600 is also $3000 more than the 500

Yeah, that is a problem.... I'd like to get one too, but the $'s are not there for me either

Where do you live? We can share

 

[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

+1 on a UWA/WA lens - there is a lot of floor space out there

A zoom would be a great choice, and often you will get pretty close to some animals, but if birds are your main goal, then go indeed go with a 500mm at least.
Mind also, that if you will be taking local flights, there are quite a lot of weight restrictions/caps.
Hopefully, you are in with a private guide/tour, as I strongly advise to carry two bodies, and avoid changing lenses while out and about riding - you will be repositioning yourself quite often.
I would slap the bigger telephoto on the 7D and keep the WA on the full frame - better yet, if you have a good quality P&S with WA, carry bit too. That way you can then have the keep two long focals all the time, snap a couple shots at stops with the P&S, and change to the UWA zoom, when shooting the birds is done for the day or area. Often you will have a chance to stop in some viewpoints, where the WA can be usefull, and then there are some amazing bugs crawling around. Minimize lens changing, but be over zealous doing it; plan to carry a cleaning kits for lens and sensor(if you are confortable doing it),to use it back at your hotel/lodge


edit:
nightscapes: by all means, bring a rokinon 14mm if you can. The night skies are just amazing

Had a 14 f2.8 and 24 f1.4 rokinon. Biggest issue was being able to take shots at night. Couldn't roam around the camps weren't fenced.

 

[LovePhotography]

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.

I kind of have a similar question. Rather then start another very similar thread, while not trying to hijack this thread, I thought I would pose my question here, since interested parties are already engaged. If money is an object, but not a prohibitive issue, I wonder about the following lens choices...

Okay, so I have the 300 mm 2.8 II. I work about 1 million hours a week, so I rarely get to go anywhere. But, I have a nice lens collection because, well, I like photography and it's something I can do in brief moments between work. So, I see that like new 800 mm I asked lenses can be purchased used for about $10,000. There aren't that many reviews of the 800, but the couple that I read said the lens is "very sharp, but not tack-sharp". And, when you look at the digital picture website lens comparison, it appears to be a little bit better than the 300 mm plus 2X Tele converter, but not strikingly better. So, the question is, when shooting long shots, is the 800 mm that much better than the 300 mm 2.8+ 2X Tele converter? Whether it's pictures of the moon, or pictures of the refrigerator magnets taken from the other end of the house, will I see that much difference? Another words, if you have the 800 mm I asked lens, or even better, have the 300 mm 2.8 with Tele converter and the 800 mm, would you get the 800 mm again? I heard from a very knowledgeable source (the Canon price watch guy) that in the last few months, the big camera stores were liquidating their 800 mm, because with all the new big white lenses, they were afraid of getting stuck with them. What is the cheapest anybody has seen them go for in the last year? Is a used one that's like new for $10,000 a great price? Or, were the big camera shops selling them new for not much more than that? Thanks.

 

[tomscott]

You also have to bear in mind that teleconverters can reduce AF speed by up to 75% so native is always better if the subject is erratic.

 

[Chisox2335]

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.

I kind of have a similar question. Rather then start another very similar thread, while not trying to hijack this thread, I thought I would pose my question here, since interested parties are already engaged. If money is an object, but not a prohibitive issue, I wonder about the following lens choices...

Okay, so I have the 300 mm 2.8 II. I work about 1 million hours a week, so I rarely get to go anywhere. But, I have a nice lens collection because, well, I like photography and it's something I can do in brief moments between work. So, I see that like new 800 mm I asked lenses can be purchased used for about $10,000. There aren't that many reviews of the 800, but the couple that I read said the lens is "very sharp, but not tack-sharp". And, when you look at the digital picture website lens comparison, it appears to be a little bit better than the 300 mm plus 2X Tele converter, but not strikingly better. So, the question is, when shooting long shots, is the 800 mm that much better than the 300 mm 2.8+ 2X Tele converter? Whether it's pictures of the moon, or pictures of the refrigerator magnets taken from the other end of the house, will I see that much difference? Another words, if you have the 800 mm I asked lens, or even better, have the 300 mm 2.8 with Tele converter and the 800 mm, would you get the 800 mm again? I heard from a very knowledgeable source (the Canon price watch guy) that in the last few months, the big camera stores were liquidating their 800 mm, because with all the new big white lenses, they were afraid of getting stuck with them. What is the cheapest anybody has seen them go for in the last year? Is a used one that's like new for $10,000 a great price? Or, were the big camera shops selling them new for not much more than that? Thanks.

600 with the 1.4x?

 

[Loswr]

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.

I kind of have a similar question. Rather then start another very similar thread, while not trying to hijack this thread, I thought I would pose my question here, since interested parties are already engaged. If money is an object, but not a prohibitive issue, I wonder about the following lens choices...

Okay, so I have the 300 mm 2.8 II. I work about 1 million hours a week, so I rarely get to go anywhere. But, I have a nice lens collection because, well, I like photography and it's something I can do in brief moments between work. So, I see that like new 800 mm I asked lenses can be purchased used for about $10,000. There aren't that many reviews of the 800, but the couple that I read said the lens is "very sharp, but not tack-sharp". And, when you look at the digital picture website lens comparison, it appears to be a little bit better than the 300 mm plus 2X Tele converter, but not strikingly better. So, the question is, when shooting long shots, is the 800 mm that much better than the 300 mm 2.8+ 2X Tele converter? Whether it's pictures of the moon, or pictures of the refrigerator magnets taken from the other end of the house, will I see that much difference? Another words, if you have the 800 mm I asked lens, or even better, have the 300 mm 2.8 with Tele converter and the 800 mm, would you get the 800 mm again? I heard from a very knowledgeable source (the Canon price watch guy) that in the last few months, the big camera stores were liquidating their 800 mm, because with all the new big white lenses, they were afraid of getting stuck with them. What is the cheapest anybody has seen them go for in the last year? Is a used one that's like new for $10,000 a great price? Or, were the big camera shops selling them new for not much more than that? Thanks.

Skip the 800/5.6, it's basically superfluous. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is optically better and lighter, the 600 II + 2xIII similarly beats the 800 + 1.4x.

 

[adhocphotographer]

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

I was in the exact position about 9 months ago.... long story short, i went for 500L, and I DO NOT REGRET IT! If you want length, get that... Sure, i wish i had the 300 as well, but I would not exchange!

If you're unsure... rent both and see.

Either way, enjoy!

 

[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

I was in the exact position about 9 months ago.... long story short, i went for 500L, and I DO NOT REGRET IT! If you want length, get that... Sure, i wish i had the 300 as well, but I would not exchange!

If you're unsure... rent both and see.

Either way, enjoy!

Thanks!

I have permission from the wife for the 500. I think the smart thing to do is get that now and the less expensive 300mm later

 

[LovePhotography]

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.

I kind of have a similar question. Rather then start another very similar thread, while not trying to hijack this thread, I thought I would pose my question here, since interested parties are already engaged. If money is an object, but not a prohibitive issue, I wonder about the following lens choices...

Okay, so I have the 300 mm 2.8 II. I work about 1 million hours a week, so I rarely get to go anywhere. But, I have a nice lens collection because, well, I like photography and it's something I can do in brief moments between work. So, I see that like new 800 mm I asked lenses can be purchased used for about $10,000. There aren't that many reviews of the 800, but the couple that I read said the lens is "very sharp, but not tack-sharp". And, when you look at the digital picture website lens comparison, it appears to be a little bit better than the 300 mm plus 2X Tele converter, but not strikingly better. So, the question is, when shooting long shots, is the 800 mm that much better than the 300 mm 2.8+ 2X Tele converter? Whether it's pictures of the moon, or pictures of the refrigerator magnets taken from the other end of the house, will I see that much difference? Another words, if you have the 800 mm I asked lens, or even better, have the 300 mm 2.8 with Tele converter and the 800 mm, would you get the 800 mm again? I heard from a very knowledgeable source (the Canon price watch guy) that in the last few months, the big camera stores were liquidating their 800 mm, because with all the new big white lenses, they were afraid of getting stuck with them. What is the cheapest anybody has seen them go for in the last year? Is a used one that's like new for $10,000 a great price? Or, were the big camera shops selling them new for not much more than that? Thanks.

Skip the 800/5.6, it's basically superfluous. The 600 II + 1.4xIII is optically better and lighter, the 600 II + 2xIII similarly beats the 800 + 1.4x.

Thank you. Appreciate the help. Don't want to spend $10k on pictures of the craters on the moon that aren't any better than what I've already got!