-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
Canon Rumors - Your best source for Canon news, rumors and creators
Current gear is 7D2 with 100-400 MkII.
After deliberating whether to go upgrade the body (to 5D4) to give me better low light performance, or to upgrade the lens to a wider aperture, I have decided to go the lens route (I will keep the 100-400 for the flexibility of the zoom). Being very close to getting a 300mm f2.8LIS II to compliment my 100-400 MkII I have just found a good condition second hand 500mm f4L (MkI) advertised and the MkII is way out of my price bracket.
The 300mm is my default position and I have listed below the advantages of each as I see them. But what is harder to define (and where comments based on experience would be fantastic) is whether there a significant difference in image quality between the 300+1.4 and the 500mm?
300mm f2.8 advantages:
lighter, more compact, more handholdable
best part of a kilo lighter than the 500mm so more likely to take it out
with 1.4 TC still excellent image quality and losing 'only' 10% image size to the 500mm
Offers f2.8 if light is really challenging.
500mm f4 advantage:
500mm is 500mm...
with extenders takes me even further
£1,000 cheaper than the 300mm f2.8
500mm disadvantage: bulk and lower spec IS means I will probably end up using a tripod more often.
Any suggestions?
After deliberating whether to go upgrade the body (to 5D4) to give me better low light performance, or to upgrade the lens to a wider aperture, I have decided to go the lens route (I will keep the 100-400 for the flexibility of the zoom). Being very close to getting a 300mm f2.8LIS II to compliment my 100-400 MkII I have just found a good condition second hand 500mm f4L (MkI) advertised and the MkII is way out of my price bracket.
The 300mm is my default position and I have listed below the advantages of each as I see them. But what is harder to define (and where comments based on experience would be fantastic) is whether there a significant difference in image quality between the 300+1.4 and the 500mm?
300mm f2.8 advantages:
lighter, more compact, more handholdable
best part of a kilo lighter than the 500mm so more likely to take it out
with 1.4 TC still excellent image quality and losing 'only' 10% image size to the 500mm
Offers f2.8 if light is really challenging.
500mm f4 advantage:
500mm is 500mm...
with extenders takes me even further
£1,000 cheaper than the 300mm f2.8
500mm disadvantage: bulk and lower spec IS means I will probably end up using a tripod more often.
Any suggestions?