# Another Mention of Big White Lens Revisions [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 10, 2017)

```
We’ve been told that Canon is working on revisions to “some” of the big white lenses for a 2018 release. Beyond the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-is-to-arrive-in-late-2017-cr2/">new EF 600mm f/4 DO IS</a>, which we’re told could be announced in late 2017, Canon does plan for some “minor” revisions of the current lineup. Weight reduction and a new IS system is apparently the goal from the new lenses.</p>
<p>2018 is an Olympic and World Cup year, and Canon tends to release or at least test pro gear during those times.</p>
<p>When were the current non-DO big white lenses announced?</p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS 2008</li>
<li>Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x 2013</li>
<li>Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II 2011</li>
<li>Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II 2011</li>
<li>Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II 2011</li>
<li>Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II 2011</li>
<li>Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS 2008</li>
</ul>
<p>The current iterations of the 300,400,500 and 600mm lenses came 12 years after the previous versions. Which makes a 7 year upgrade cycle seem a bit quick. The possibility of a new 200 f/2L IS and EF 800 f/5.6L IS seem a bit more likely. However, the latter have the lowest volume of sales of the entire series of non-DO “big white lenses”.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## KiagiJ (Jan 10, 2017)

But I only got my 200 f2 a year ago, please tell Canon to relax, there's no rush


----------



## JMZawodny (Jan 10, 2017)

The 200 f/2L IS needs to lose at least a pound in weight. There is also modest room for IQ improvements. Looking forward to that one.


----------



## entoman (Jan 10, 2017)

A replacement for the 300mm F4 L is long overdue.

Fabulous lens, very sharp, especially at close distances, but hoping for a new version, lighter and without the very clunky IS of the current lens.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jan 10, 2017)

Maybe they want to update the "small" whites and the big is just a destraction 
--> root for 300mm F4L IS ii or 400mm 5.6L IS


----------



## Khufu (Jan 10, 2017)

Aye, the 400mm f/5.6L is a brilliant piece of kit, though the size and weight are major selling points; could they produce something similar with IS? I had the 300/4L IS for a while but felt spoilt by the image quality of the 400/5.6 (it is as simple as smooth vs busy bokeh) - maybe they'll come up with great smooth-and-sharp optics and astounding IS for both... and keep the 400 way lighter, smaller and cheaper than the zoom! Maybe.

There's no glass for the first 15-20cm of that thing, maybe we can get something collapsible?!


----------



## haggie (Jan 10, 2017)

I can fully relate to what Khufu wrote about the _*Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM*_.

After I have bought my EF 70-300 IS II USM (at least, if image quality in the following tests will prove to be okay ...), I will want a 400 mm. For me, the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM is no option, because of the lack of IS.

If Canon will produce an L-series 400 mm IS USM with IS (and I think I will prefer ring-USM then), I will probably get it - after all, with Canon's "big whites" the IQ is always very good


----------



## tron (Jan 10, 2017)

The 800 5.6L IS would benefit the most from a revision but maybe they are going to make a 1000 5.6 DO instead. I cannot think of updates to the other big white lenses (apart from 200 2L) since Canon people have made already significant IQ, IS and weight improvements. Any more improvemenets in these lenses would look like diminishing returns.


----------



## padam (Jan 10, 2017)

The 600/4 DO is surely a go and there are plenty of other patents suggesting others as well (like 500/4 500/5.6 800/5.6 etc.) who knows which will make it into production.

The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 replacements (which won't be DO lenses) will probably come much later.


----------



## Jopa (Jan 10, 2017)

JMZawodny said:


> The 200 f/2L IS needs to lose at least a pound in weight. There is also modest room for IQ improvements. Looking forward to that one.


I think IQ wise it's very nice. The weight, and maybe the AF may require some improvement, plus the 3rd IS mode. Oh yes, and the color - to match to the rest of the mighty whites


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jan 10, 2017)

The current big whites are so good (at least the "ii" versions) that new versions seem not very urgent. They would be interesting if:

- they could cut the size/weight (with "do" versions) significantly.
- or even better add new features. Double extender versions (1.4x and 2.0x) switchable would almost make them zooms
- longer reach for the same size/weight would be great, if possible without big jumps in price. Why not 500 2.8 DO 1.4x/2.0x or 700 4.0 DO 1.4x with 5.0 kg . 

I do not see anybody upgrading a 500mm 4.0 ii if there is 200g weight/5cm lenth saving and 0.3 stop IS improvment for 5000$ upgrade cost. For this the current versions are to good

And i think, even for well earning enthusiasts the current versions are painfully expensive, and from my country i am used to high prices. So in my opinion there is not so much room for price increases, i would like to know how many 17'000$ 800's nikon sold, at least i never saw one


----------



## MGN (Jan 10, 2017)

The 200/f2.0L IS is on backorder with all the major shops with no restocking dates available. That might be a sign that we will see a new version of this classy lens!


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 10, 2017)

I think Canon has some room to do something interesting when/if they replace the 800mm F/5.6. The current 600mm is so good, especially with extenders, so I think they'll have to spice things up a bit to get it to sell well. I'm confident in Canon to do that though. Perhaps the 800 will include a built-in 1.4x, or some similar new features that increase its value.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 10, 2017)

MGN said:


> The 200/f2.0L IS is on backorder with all the major shops with no restocking dates available. That might be a sign that we will see a new version of this classy lens!



That's interesting - I don't know which country you are in but out of curiosity I checked the major UK retailers and Park Cameras is the only one with the 200/2L IS stock, and they only have one left. I would never want to read too much into this sort of 'evidence', but who knows?


----------



## Jopa (Jan 10, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> MGN said:
> 
> 
> > The 200/f2.0L IS is on backorder with all the major shops with no restocking dates available. That might be a sign that we will see a new version of this classy lens!
> ...



It's out of stock @ B&H, but available directly from Canon USA. Interesting 8) So it was a new 85/1.4 in the rumors, new 135/2 and now this...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 11, 2017)

I still use a 400mm f2.8 LIS mkI...sure it's big and heavy but it's a remarkable lens. I'd like to be able to afford a mkII...but I can't at the moment and the mkI is doing me just fine.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 11, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > MGN said:
> ...


Good times coming for bokeh loving portrait photogs


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 11, 2017)

If I had the budget for any of these lenses, (which I don't) I'd love to see DO weight and size savings on ALL of the big whites, provided the IQ hurdles of DO can be surmounted.


----------



## Talley (Jan 11, 2017)

I just got my 200 F2 IS about 8 months ago. IQ it's top notch... but compared to the 300 2.8 II the 200 F2 could improve "slightly" in the corners. It already has a 4 stop IS but adding a mode 3 could help. THEN I bet the most they could improve is about .4lbs lighter.

In the end it'll be another $6,000 lens and I paid 4k for mine and there is nothing wrong with it. I will not upgrade my 200 any time soon.


----------



## Woody (Jan 11, 2017)

It appears that Canon is trying to maximize profits in the face of plunging camera sales by focusing on the release of expensive L lenses. Others try to increase profits by releasing expensive cameras (e.g., Nikon's multiple FF models, Sony's recent A6500 & A7 series, Olympus OMD-EM1 II, Panasonic GH5 etc).

Just a neutral observation


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 11, 2017)

I would like to see 500 f/5.6 & 400 f/4 IS L being added to lineup replacing the 300 f/4 IS L and 400 f/5.6 L. Both those lenses still sell lile hot cakes and are in need of replacement soon.


----------



## dswtan (Jan 11, 2017)

Price (cost) reductions are what's needed on these lenses most of all!


----------



## motofotog (Jan 11, 2017)

What's the news with the Canon 200-600 lens? are they planing to compete with Sigma/Tamron 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. If they think 100-400L II is the answer to those lens, then they are wrong. 
I wish they get new Canon 500mm f5.6 L


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 11, 2017)

motofotog said:


> What's the news with the Canon 200-600 lens? are they planing to compete with Sigma/Tamron 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. If they think 100-400L II is the answer to those lens, then they are wrong.
> I wish they get new Canon 500mm f5.6 L



Why do you think the new 100-400 is not an answer to the Nikon 200-500? It is a superb lens and its sharpness allows you to crop significantly. 
Regards the Sigma/Tamron a few reports say that they are both close to the Canon but drop off a bit above 400 and are arguably no better than the 100-400 cropped to the same FOV. The 100-400 is also considerably lighter. 

I am not denying the value of a 500 f5.6, just you logic on criticising the 100-400.


----------



## Rogerdodge (Jan 11, 2017)

> Regards the Sigma/Tamron a few reports say that they are both close to the Canon but drop off a bit above 400


I had a tough choice between the 100-400 II, and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. The reach of the Sigma seduced me, and I have had no issues with sharpness at 600.

Roger


----------



## motofotog (Jan 11, 2017)

Rogerdodge said:


> > Regards the Sigma/Tamron a few reports say that they are both close to the Canon but drop off a bit above 400
> 
> 
> I had a tough choice between the 100-400 II, and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. The reach of the Sigma seduced me, and I have had no issues with sharpness at 600.
> ...


 I tried my hands on Nikon 200-500 and its not comparable with the current 100-400L. Even I like the 100-400, but the reach the third party lens (Tamron/Sigma) have is what Canon is missing.


----------



## Ekpil (Jan 11, 2017)

there is no need for a new 800mm F5,6

Please Canon build a 600mm F4,0 plus 1,4 Extender build in = 840mm F5,6

I love the 200-400mm + Ext it is perfect !! *Please follow this way with integrated Extender.*


----------



## scyrene (Jan 11, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


> The current big whites are so good (at least the "ii" versions) that new versions seem not very urgent. They would be interesting if:
> 
> - they could cut the size/weight (with "do" versions) significantly.
> - or even better add new features. Double extender versions (1.4x and 2.0x) switchable would almost make them zooms
> ...



It's worth remembering what DO does. It reduces the length, and consequently some of the weight, of a lens, but the front element is still the width it has to be for the maximum aperture. A 500mm f/2.8 DO would be rather wide (more than 178mm, second only to the 1200mm f/5.6) and front-heavy.


----------



## rs (Jan 11, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> I would like to see 500 f/5.6 & *400 f/4 IS L* being added to lineup replacing the 300 f/4 IS L and 400 f/5.6 L. Both those lenses still sell lile hot cakes and are in need of replacement soon.



There is a 400/4 IS already:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 11, 2017)

Woody said:


> It appears that Canon is trying to maximize profits in the face of plunging camera sales by focusing on the release of expensive L lenses. Others try to increase profits by releasing expensive cameras (e.g., Nikon's multiple FF models, Sony's recent A6500 & A7 series, Olympus OMD-EM1 II, Panasonic GH5 etc).
> 
> Just a neutral observation



That would correlate with their "glass first" tag line I guess.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 11, 2017)

Ekpil said:


> there is no need for a new 800mm F5,6
> 
> Please Canon build a 600mm F4,0 plus 1,4 Extender build in = 840mm F5,6



Or even better, a 600/4 DO 1.4x. The last big white you'll ever need to buy.


----------



## Vern (Jan 11, 2017)

Ekpil said:


> there is no need for a new 800mm F5,6
> 
> Please Canon build a 600mm F4,0 plus 1,4 Extender build in = 840mm F5,6
> 
> I love the 200-400mm + Ext it is perfect !! *Please follow this way with integrated Extender.*



+1, an integral extender is enough innovation to encourage me to upgrade. I was especially interested in the rumor (patent reported here?) for the 400 2.8 DO + 1.4 and 1.7 integral TC's. Yes, it would still be big, heavy and expensive, but it would provide an amazing wildlife (non-avian) lens. A 600 4.0 DO w similar extenders would cover the avian space. 

I could see a 600 f5.6 DO being a great option for avian pics on cropped sensors too. That would be light enough to differentiate from the f4.0.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 11, 2017)

rs said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see 500 f/5.6 & *400 f/4 IS L* being added to lineup replacing the 300 f/4 IS L and 400 f/5.6 L. Both those lenses still sell like hot cakes and are in need of replacement soon.
> ...


Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC. Since the advent of the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron , that 400mm f/5.6L is the most dumped lens on used market and it can be found for around 45000Rs(~660$). I just hope we get update to those two old L lenses sooner.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 11, 2017)

Talley said:


> I just got my 200 F2 IS about 8 months ago. IQ it's top notch... but compared to the 300 2.8 II the 200 F2 could improve "slightly" in the corners. It already has a 4 stop IS but adding a mode 3 could help. THEN I bet the most they could improve is about .4lbs lighter.


Yes, it is slight, but there _is _room for improvement. I have been ssooooo close to buying this lens so many times but always held back at the end. Maybe because I could never get over that the old 200mm f/1.8 just had a little better IQ (which I believe is due to its lead-based elements).



Talley said:


> In the end it'll be another $6,000 lens and I paid 4k for mine and there is nothing wrong with it. I will not upgrade my 200 any time soon.


I'd be very surprised if a newbie is worth the upgrade price. I took the 200mm f/2.0 for a run this December with the 5DIV and the results were simply great. Handling is also _much _better than the old model.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 11, 2017)

400 f/5.6L no-IS is a specialty lens, still useful for hand-held bird-in-flight freehand panning photos. At 1.1 kg it is light and easy to hold, but one does need a lot of practice to get consistently good BIF photos. I can hand-hold it for 1/500 and faster photos, 1/100 with monopod or convenient improvised support, given burst mode on an APS-C camera. 

I have had a lot of fun with this lens, for not much money.


----------



## haggie (Jan 11, 2017)

Hi NancyP, good to read that you get great results with the EF 400mm f/5.6L without IS. 

But as you write, it requires a lot of practice to achieve repeatable results. I understand that weight is a deciding factor for panning with BIF, in particular the smaller birds (as I know from many failures). 

But would the addition of the IS really add so much weight to the existing 400mm f/5.6L? 

Having some feeling for Canon's pricing strategy, I expect it would probably increase the price a lot. And thus make it less achievable for many 'mortals'. But purely from the point of useability of the lens I think IS would hardly increase the wight but massively increase the number of keepers.
What do you think?


----------



## KiagiJ (Jan 11, 2017)

I don't think the 200 f2 can be improved much right now. My baby! is 9lbs and after a few minutes it's getting a lil tiring Even if they take 1lb off guess what, it'll be 8lbs and still tiring. The image is amazing, the stabilization is amazing at 5 stops to 1/8th second handheld for me, that can't be bettered right now so


----------



## RGF (Jan 11, 2017)

padam said:


> The 600/4 DO is surely a go and there are plenty of other patents suggesting others as well (like 500/4 500/5.6 800/5.6 etc.) who knows which will make it into production.



A 600 DO with builtin 1.4 or between yet 1.2 and 1.4 which could be independently selected or selected together to give 1.7 would be a winner (as long as IQ similar to the current 300 DO II)


----------



## Talley (Jan 11, 2017)

KiagiJ said:


> I don't think the 200 f2 can be improved much right now. My baby! is 9lbs and after a few minutes it's getting a lil tiring Even if they take 1lb off guess what, it'll be 8lbs and still tiring. The image is amazing, the stabilization is amazing at 5 stops to 1/8th second handheld for me, that can't be bettered right now so



aww... I have twins... big baby and a little baby


----------



## KiagiJ (Jan 11, 2017)




----------



## Jopa (Jan 12, 2017)

Talley said:


> aww... I have twins... big baby and a little baby



Are you sure they are twins? The size and the race seem to be different


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 12, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC.



Actually for many people that's not true. Yes the 400 DO is £1000 more (only £650 if you factor in the cost of an extender), but it's smaller, lighter _by over 500 g _than the 300 plus 1.4x, and AF performance is better due to no extender. I have the 300, and the main reason I haven't switched (yet) is the 3.3 m minimum focusing distance which is a concern for small birds, reptiles etc. - and I may still relent on that.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 12, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC.



That is a very broad generalisation and is related only to image quality, not its real-world use. The 400 plus 1.4tc gives you 560mm f5.6 - the 300mm plus 2xtc gives you 600mm at f5.6 with the negatives that a 2xtc bring. And the 400mm gives you the option of going to 800mm. 
So which part of the 'performance' do you think it is too expensive for....? For me, the 300mm would not do 90% of the stuff I have used the 400mm DO for since I got it. 
If I were doing athletics or soccer, or photographing big wildlife, the 300mm would probably have been sufficient for me. But it ain't.


----------



## tron (Jan 12, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Thats a DO lens, and its too expensive for its performance and at the price you are better off with 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC.
> ...


+1 plus 300 +1.4 (latest editions) have less IQ than 400DO II with no teleconverter. For anyone not believing this they can check lensrentals article:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/more-canon-400m-do-ii-comparisons/


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 12, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



I would disagree that one is always better off with 300/1.4. I had both and I sold off the 300 after comparing the two. The 400DOII at 400 is sharper than the 300/1.4. The 400/1.4 at 560 is sharper than the 300/2x at 600. The bare 400 is about equal to the bare 300....the bare 300 may have a slight edge but basically meaingless in real world results.

There is really only one decision one has to make....do you want the option to shoot 800 f/8 or the option to shoot 300 f/2.8? I chose 800 f/8 because of the 1DX2 makes focusing with that combo just as fast and with all the AF options as previous cameras did at f/5.6. Because I mainly do birds, 300mm is rarely used.

Also the 400 is lighter and smaller by a little bit.

So in the end I disagree with your statement and I can speak from first hand experience with both lenses. Have you owned either of them?


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 12, 2017)

I think the only way people would buy updates to the 300, 400, 500, 600 would be with integrated TCs. I don't think Canon updating IS and decreasing the weight (can't see it being a large decrease this time like the 400 and 600 were last time) will be enough for most of us to update.

The 800 could use an update and would be able to lose weight but personally I think the 800 is redundant next to the 600/1.4TC.

DO is the other popular option and I've been wanting to get the 600DO since we saw the prototype over a year ago.

However, remember that DO is not a huge weight saver, DO is a length saver and that does bring some weight savings. DO does nothing for front element diameter and therefore isn't a width/girth saver.

As much as I lust for the 600DO, I continue to wonder if the weight savings will be significant enough to justify what is expected to be a very, very expensive upgrade from the 600II.

I think that if Canon released a 600DO (that didn't get to the 500II weight or better) and a 600 with 1.4TC that weighed the same as the 600II does, I'd probably spend my money on the 600 with 1.4TC built in.

If the 600DO doesn't even get down to 500II weight than I don't think I will spend the money just for the length savings. The length savings would be valuable for flying but it has to have significant weight savings also and I'm not sure if it will have as much weight savings as we all expect.


----------



## ERHP (Jan 12, 2017)

Having had an original 600 and now the 600 II, I do not hesitate to bring up to the Canon reps that I would love to see a 1.4X integrated into this focal length. Being on the DO platform would be nice as the length would still be shorter overall but if it was on the L glass, I'd buy that as well. Not only would it open up a lot more framing possibilities but I'd probably have less dust in my 1DX MK II.


----------



## padam (Jan 13, 2017)

It is either-or.
Canon chose to go simpler, shorter and lighter weight (and possibly better optical quality) as opposed to a built-in extender.

The 400/2.8 could very well be the one to get an extender next time. It is a stop faster and is less likely to be tried hand-held, so it is less of a design consideration.


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 13, 2017)

padam said:


> It is either-or.
> Canon chose to go simpler, shorter and lighter weight (and possibly better optical quality) as opposed to a built-in extender.
> 
> The 400/2.8 could very well be the one to get an extender next time. It is a stop faster and is less likely to be tried hand-held, so it is less of a design consideration.



Good point. That said, I think Canon isn't afraid of putting extenders in hand-holdable lenses. The weight of the 200-400 doesn't give me any issues hand-holding it, even though it could have been lighter without an extender. With that in mind, I wouldn't mind if they made a 300mm f/2.8 1.4x lens, since they could probably find ways to cut some weight to make up for the extender anyway and keep it around the same weight, which would still be very hand-holdable.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 13, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...


I regularly rent both 300 and 400 f/2.8 lenses with or without 1.4x TC. I rarely need a telephoto lens so never got around paying for the big glass(Spent more on my macro gear). Also unluckily the DO lens is not available with any rental service in my city. I do like the results from both those lenses(300mm and 400mm f/2.8) with or without TC attached.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 14, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> I would disagree that one is always better off with 300/1.4. I had both and I sold off the 300 after comparing the two. The 400DOII at 400 is sharper than the 300/1.4. The 400/1.4 at 560 is sharper than the 300/2x at 600. The bare 400 is about equal to the bare 300....the bare 300 may have a slight edge but basically meaingless in real world results.
> 
> There is really only one decision one has to make....do you want the option to shoot 800 f/8 or the option to shoot 300 f/2.8? I chose 800 f/8 because of the 1DX2 makes focusing with that combo just as fast and with all the AF options as previous cameras did at f/5.6. Because I mainly do birds, 300mm is rarely used.
> 
> ...



You have obviously done your own comparisons, but the TDP lens tool shows the 300II + 1.4 slightly better at 400/420 to my eyes:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=962&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I've had the 300 f/2.8 II for a couple of years now and love it, but I'm doing more and more wildlife photography and really need more reach. I briefly considered the 400DOII, but just don't think it will give the reach I'm looking for, and from what I've seen isn't much of an upgrade over my current set-up. You can get 800 f/8 while the 300 can give you 300 f/2.8, so both of strengths. One big plus for me is the MFD of the 300 is much better (79" vs. 130" for the DO), which is something I appreciate as I often use the 300 with and without extension tubes for close-up nature stuff.

Currently, I'm thinking about keeping the 300 and adding a 500/f4 II or 600 f/4 II. I know the 600 is better for the intended use, but am trying to justify the additional cost to myself since this IS just a hobby. I've rented both and can hand hold the 500 effectively, while I can't do that with the 600 for very long.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 14, 2017)

bholliman said:


> I've had the 300 f/2.8 II for a couple of years now and love it, but I'm doing more and more wildlife photography and really need more reach. I briefly considered the 400DOII, but just don't think it will give the reach I'm looking for, and from what I've seen isn't much of an upgrade over my current set-up. You can get 800 f/8 while the 300 can give you 300 f/2.8, so both of strengths. One big plus for me is the MFD of the 300 is much better (79" vs. 130" for the DO), which is something I appreciate as I often use the 300 with and without extension tubes for close-up nature stuff.
> 
> Currently, I'm thinking about keeping the 300 and adding a 500/f4 II or 600 f/4 II. I know the 600 is better for the intended use, but am trying to justify the additional cost to myself since this IS just a hobby. I've rented both and can hand hold the 500 effectively, while I can't do that with the 600 for very long.



This is my story almost exactly, and I went for the 500. No regrets at all.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 14, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Currently, I'm thinking about keeping the 300 and adding a 500/f4 II or 600 f/4 II. I know the 600 is better for the intended use, but am trying to justify the additional cost to myself since this IS just a hobby. I've rented both and can hand hold the 500 effectively, while I can't do that with the 600 for very long.


Utility is a quality in itself. 

I've been considering adding one of these to my 300mm f/2.8 IS L II myself later this year and have decided that if applicable I'll go for the 500mm because I can see myself carrying and shooting it from a sling. Not so with the 600mm. This alone would make me use it less. Rather then go with 500mm + 1.4x when needed.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 14, 2017)

Steve Balcombe said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Currently, I'm thinking about keeping the 300 and adding a 500/f4 II or 600 f/4 II.
> ...




I rented both the 500 II and 600 II for weekends last fall and came away with great pictures from both. Sure, I liked the extra reach of the 600, but being tethered to a tripod and gimbal is very limiting. My attempts to hand hold the 600 were not very successful and I certainly wouldn't want to hike very far with one. 

I'm thinking I'll add a 500 before the spring migration for Sand Hill cranes (mid March). My wife suggested that maybe I consider selling my 300 to help fund the 500, but I convinced her and myself that I will still use it extensively after adding the 500.


----------

