# New lens, Big White, if I can only get one. Which One???



## WPJ (Dec 13, 2013)

OK, so here is my shooting style.

kids & Adult sports
nature not a heavy birder
landscapes
candid's
family stuff.

I have 2 X 7D, love them, probably get the mark II if when it comes out.

One day I can see myself going full frame a 1Dx, but presently I loving my 7D

I have the following lenses.

17-40L
24-105L
50Mii
18-200
100L Macro
100-400L
70-200L Mii IS
300f2.8 IS


so I have a possible opportunity to get a big guy.

I am thinking about either a 400f2.8 Mark II or the 200-400.

I can't see myself owning both as I'm non pro. However I would use either enough to have them vs renting them.

I will be renting both over the next few months to figure which one works in my hands better.

my personal opinion is I will get more versatile use out of the 200-400.

open to thoughts


will.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 13, 2013)

If you do not shoot birds in most of the time, and already has 300mm F2.8, so 400mm F2.8 seems so redundant. In this case a zoom lens like 200-400mm will be more useful and versatile, allowing you to sell the 100-400mm if you use very little.


----------



## Bohns (Dec 13, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If you do not shoot birds in most of the time, and already has 300mm F2.8, so 400mm F2.8 seems so redundant. In this case a zoom lens like 200-400mm will be more useful and versatile, allowing you to sell the 100-400mm if you use very little.



Personally, If buying the 200-400, I would sell the 300 f2.8 IS but keep the 100-400 to have a more portable "long reacher" with still good IQ. It seems the 200-400 is not very light for hand-held shots (as well as the 400, anyway, so you should have considered this aspect). Reading the reviews about the 200-400, I am almost sure that having it, my 300 f2.8 IS II would remain too often in its case, which would be a pity...


----------



## Menace (Dec 13, 2013)

What a nice dilema to have!

I love the 400 2.8 II (esp the f2.8 part) but in your case the versatility of the 200-400 may suit you better. 

Do let us know your thought after renting both.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 13, 2013)

To be honest it doesn't matter which one you get because once you get hooked you will own them all.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 14, 2013)

The lenses you have are all easy to handhold. I handhold the 400 f2.8L IS II and the 600 f4L IS II, also with the 1.4xIII extender on both and the 2xIII extender also on the 400mm. A 200-400 4L IS 1.4x is NOT easy to handhold. The weight is the same as the 400, but it is very difficult to operate the zoom ring while handholding. 

The 200-400 is an exceptional lens. In fact so good that I sold the 400mm (and I know I´m not the only one). But since you already have the 300, I would seriously consider the 600mm, but only if you also get a 5DIII or preferably a 1DX body to go with it. With extenders you have very good coverage from 300 - 1200. It might be that you´re not into birds and wildlife today, but that may well change when you get your hands on the 600


----------



## mwh1964 (Dec 14, 2013)

Why not get extenders to the lenses you already have. Your current gear should plenty enough cover your shooting style and even more so with extenders. An d you will save a lot for that FF purchase.


----------



## arbitrage (Dec 15, 2013)

I just don't see the 400 f/2.8 fitting in that well with your current lenses. Not saying it couldn't work but probably not my first choice. Of your two choices I'd go 200-400. However, I would also consider a 500II or 600II if you have enough time to shoot wildlife or birds at a distance. I currently use the 300II and 600II and both Mark 3 TCs between them. I find that combo the ultimate setup but I still have an itch to pick up the 200-400. Maybe before my Antarctica trip I will.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 15, 2013)

As someone already mentioned, not a bad problem to have.

It's interesting to think about this, from my perspective, as I pretty well only shoot FF, I do keep my 1DMK IV just in case I need more reach, but the 1.4x generally takes care of reach when attached to the 600f/4.

So your 7D (1.6) throws an interesting curve into the decision.

My feel would be the 200-400f/4, as Eldar has mentioned, this is a superb Lens, with your 7D your going to have a 320-640 @ f/4 with the 1.4x converter bringing you out to 900ish @ f/5.6, not too bad.

Keep the 300f/2.8 as I've found at times you just need f/2.8.

Like Eldar, once I had the 200-400f/4 I sold my 400f/2.8 II and although at times I reminisce on wether I needed to or not, I do still have the excellent 300f/2.8 II sitting in the wings.

With the reach & versatility offered by the 200-400 on your 7D I'm not sure you need to even consider the 400/500 or 600.

If you have the opportunity try renting the 200-400 for a week, should be enough time to fall in Love.


----------



## beckstoy (Dec 15, 2013)

For what you're looking to use it for, no question in my mind:

70-200mm f2.8L USM IS II

and maybe an extender or two.


you'll not regret it.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 15, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> For what you're looking to use it for, no question in my mind:
> 
> 70-200mm f2.8L USM IS II
> 
> ...



thanks for the recommendation but that's already in the kit.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 15, 2013)

Thanks for all of the comments so far.

I will be renting the 400 f2.8 and the 200-400. Probably just,for the weekend each, as that's fairly affordable 125$ per weekend......if I can get a trip in I'll do the week.

I also have the mark II 1.4 extender, so I will also be adding I, the 1.4 and 2 mark iii's to the kit.


----------



## beckstoy (Dec 15, 2013)

WPJ said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > For what you're looking to use it for, no question in my mind:
> ...



oh, I missed that. for some reason I thought it was the f4


----------



## WPJ (Dec 15, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > beckstoy said:
> ...


 no worries mate, and you are absolutely right I do not regret that purchase one bit. Its a bloody amazing lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

WPJ said:


> OK, so here is my shooting style.
> 
> kids & Adult sports
> nature not a heavy birder
> ...



I can't relate to your needs because they're kind of vague, but it seems to me you have a lot of glass already, and only 7D's. Consider getting a 5D3 before you get anything else, or sell a couple of lenses maybe?

To consider pairing the 400 f/2.8, to a 7D, seems like a total waste to me. I know it's been done, it works fine...but I don't see why. The whole point of that lens is low light, and the 7D can't do low light well. It's kind of like putting a Ferrari 458 engine in a prius or something...and then towing a 50 foot yacht cross country. As for the 200-400, that does seem like a better choice in your scenario. However you already have that focal length (kind of) covered twice over, with your 100-400, and 300 f/2.8. Just seems like you like to collect expensive toys...and that's fine I guess. I envy that! My friend had a 7D for 4 years or so, then got a 70-200 f/2.8 ii. He finally broke down and went full frame. He's happier now, seems like. He "only" got a 6D...also what I have.


----------



## 100 (Dec 15, 2013)

WPJ said:


> OK, so here is my shooting style.
> 
> kids & Adult sports
> nature not a heavy birder
> ...



I don’t see the 400 f/2.8 and 200-400 being used for landscapes, candid’s and family stuff a lot. That leaves sports and nature. With the 70-200, 100-400 and 300 f/2.8 you got everything covered up to 400mm (or 420mm with a 1.4 extender on the 300). That leaves the long end. The 600 mkII would be my choice unless you want/need an one lens option for everything between 200 and 560mm.


----------



## Vossie (Dec 15, 2013)

You already have the 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f2.8, which can be combined with extenders very well; the 300 f2.8 with a 1.4x will yield you a hand-holdable 420 f4 with still very good IQ; the 400 2.8 will slightly better in the IQ and AF departments (plus it's a sop faster ofcourse), but not with an order of magnitude and at the expense of hand holdability. 

The 200-400 will do well for your sports shooting due to its flexibility. But it will not open new focal length ranges that you do not already have covered. Have you though about a 500 f4 or 600 f4?


----------

