First off, congratulations.
My quick answer is going to be 200-400 +1.4xTC for the flexibility of the zoom (and built in TC) and amazing IQ. In my mind, primes are all about specific purposes, I would only get the 400 f/2.8 (are you think Mk 1, 2 or 3?) for one reason, bokeh. Really, it is subject isolation. I have heard the 400 f/2.8 II called one of the best bokeh lenses of all time. But, I personally, do not see many around because another factor usually wins out: More reach, 500/600 mm. More flexibility, 200-400 f/4.
Next, you did reference the 400 f/2.8 MK 1. Just keep in mind, that was a beast of a lens at 5.4 Kg. The newer versions are much lighter. Personally, I would avoid the Mk1 due to weight. The 400 f/2.8 Mk 2 is 3.9Kg, and the MK 3 is 2.84 Kgs. The 200-400 f/4 is 3.6Kgs.
There is a very detailed review of options.
You are young enough and I assume into photography enough, I would not consider this a "once" in a lifetime decision. So, think about kit construction.
My quick answer is going to be 200-400 +1.4xTC for the flexibility of the zoom (and built in TC) and amazing IQ. In my mind, primes are all about specific purposes, I would only get the 400 f/2.8 (are you think Mk 1, 2 or 3?) for one reason, bokeh. Really, it is subject isolation. I have heard the 400 f/2.8 II called one of the best bokeh lenses of all time. But, I personally, do not see many around because another factor usually wins out: More reach, 500/600 mm. More flexibility, 200-400 f/4.
Next, you did reference the 400 f/2.8 MK 1. Just keep in mind, that was a beast of a lens at 5.4 Kg. The newer versions are much lighter. Personally, I would avoid the Mk1 due to weight. The 400 f/2.8 Mk 2 is 3.9Kg, and the MK 3 is 2.84 Kgs. The 200-400 f/4 is 3.6Kgs.
There is a very detailed review of options.
You are young enough and I assume into photography enough, I would not consider this a "once" in a lifetime decision. So, think about kit construction.
Upvote
0