# I'm conflicted please help



## Chisox2335 (Jan 26, 2015)

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


----------



## LovePhotography (Jan 26, 2015)

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


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2015)

It depends on how you operate. If you like sitting in a hide (blind) and use a tripod or sitting in a car with a beanbag, then the 500 + 1.4xTC would be suitable or the 300 II + 2xTC would give you nearly as much reach and quality. If you don't use a tripod and you like walking/hiking, then the much lighter 300 is the clear winner, as it is also for sports etc. The new 400 DO II also adds to the dilemma, as does the 100-400 II.


----------



## tomscott (Jan 26, 2015)

The thing is the difference between 400 and 500 is 2-3 steps. So what I would do is spend some money on camo, learn some hunting skills and improve technique and save a lot of money.

The 400mm F5.6 is one stop slower but 1/7th the price and very lightweight, missing IS but with the speed needed for birds IS isn't that usable although still animals in low light it can be very helpful. The 100-400mm MKII is pretty much equal on quality to the 400 F5.6 and has IS and the ease of a zoom but heavier.

The new 7D is a great cam good high ISO so for me I would have the 400mm 5.6 or 100-400 buy the 7D and some camo gear and maybe a hide.

In an ideal world the 500 would be awesome but for an extra stop and 100mm with the added weight it just doesn't equal the price difference imo.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 26, 2015)

AlanF said:


> It depends on how you operate. If you like sitting in a hide (blind) and use a tripod or sitting in a car with a beanbag, then the 500 + 1.4xTC would be suitable or the 300 II + 2xTC would give you nearly as much reach and quality. If you don't use a tripod and you like walking/hiking, then the much lighter 300 is the clear winner, as it is also for sports etc. The new 400 DO II also adds to the dilemma, as does the 100-400 II.



+1, and if you add the cheap and light 400mm f5.6, then the dilema is even bigger. Anyway, for BIF you will need fast AF anf the teleconverters reduce AF speed drastically.


----------



## steepjay (Jan 26, 2015)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2015)

tomscott said:


> The thing is the difference between 400 and 500 is 2-3 steps.



Yes, if your subject is 8-12 steps away. Whatever the distance, you need to get 25% closer to your subject with the 400mm lens to match framing. That can often be quite a challenge with wildlife.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is the difference between 400 and 500 is 2-3 steps.
> ...



You need to get 20% closer, not 25.


----------



## candc (Jan 26, 2015)

If you are saying that you want More fl for birds then get the 600. You will not regret it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2015)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...



Fair enough. In that case, you can be 25% further away with the 500mm lens. Potayto, potahhhto.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Reminds me of Robert Maxwell's suggestion that they should increase the list price by 25% and then offer a 29% discount to get the same selling price. It took a while to convince him that he would lose 6.25% that way.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 26, 2015)

candc said:


> If you are saying that you want More fl for birds then get the 600. You will not regret it.


I have never heard of someone with the 600F4 that didn't love it....


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 26, 2015)

Chisox2335 said:


> 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).
> 
> ...


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....


----------



## tomscott (Jan 26, 2015)

My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.

Most of the time to get enough DOF With birds you shoot higher than F5.6. 

I would probably look at bigger, but the weight puts me off especially for a full days shooting.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 26, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > If you are saying that you want More fl for birds then get the 600. You will not regret it.
> ...


I had the 500 MkI, which I was happy with, but it prematurely had to retire, due to an abusive hike. I then bought the 400 f2.8L IS II, which is a fantastic lens, which also works well with both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. But when we got f8 autofocus on the 1DX, I could not resist the 600 f4L IS II, to be able to go to 1200mm. I had the 2xIII extender mounted on the 400 most of the time and always wanted a little bit more. I occasionally miss the f2.8, but overall I am very happy with my choice.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 26, 2015)

tomscott said:


> My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.
> 
> Most of the time to get enough DOF With birds you shoot higher than F5.6.
> 
> I would probably look at bigger, but the weight puts me off especially for a full days shooting.



Never mind that. Where are the pictures from your Amazonian expedition ?


----------



## tomscott (Jan 26, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that in the uk the 500mm is £8000 the 400 is £1100 and most of the time can be found for <£800 if 20% reach one stop and IS is worth £7000 extra... By learning a little more about the subject and also learning some hunting/tracking skills and wearing camo your images will be better, your arms and body not as tired and your wallet will be a lot larger.
> ...



The expedition was incredible got some amazing pictures! One of the best experiences of my life. But I currently just have my iPad mini and was shooting small jpegs to my sd on the 5D so they look ok but haven't got round to editing them and still got another 2 months on the road! Would rather have a go with the full red RAWs before I post. But will post then when I get home. Taken nearly 13,000 images so far in the first 3 months so a lot to get through! 

I will make a thread when I can 

To add to the thread I took the 70-300mm L with me on the trip and 400mm would have been perfect. Or maybe taking a crop camera, wish I'd had that extra bit of reach. But because it was down season for 2 days it was just me and the ranger traveling through the tambopota forrest so we got very close and saw a lot of wildlife we probably wouldn't have seen with a large group. The 5D has been flawless and the lenses I've had it in -20C in the states and +50C in the Atacama desert then the moisture and rain in the rainforest not got one spec of dust in any of the lenses just a little bit of dust on the sensor. What a system, a lot of people really spend a lot of time worrying about the technical features but when you get out into these harsh environments it really proves how incredible they are, the 5D hasn't missed a beat and I haven't wanted more from it apart from maybe a couple of extra FPS. The 5DMKIII 24-105, 16-35, 70-300mm and 50mm has been such a great choice can basically do anything in any situation. 

The canon system is amazing.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 26, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...



Sounds like a job for *Photo Mechanic*!


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 26, 2015)

Chisox2335 said:


> 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.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Jan 26, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> 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



Already have the 24-70 f4 and a nifty fifty (which I hate, the AF sucks). 600ii is just too much lens.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Jan 26, 2015)

steepjay said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Chisox2335 said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the 500 mkii with the 1.4x or the 300 mkii with both mkiii converters.
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2015)

NWPhil said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I'd start over with the 16-35 f4, a nifty fifty, the 100-400 ii, and a 600 ii.
> ...


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 (Jan 26, 2015)

Chisox2335 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Chisox2335 said:
> ...


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


----------



## Chisox2335 (Jan 26, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Chisox2335 said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the 500 mkii with the 1.4x or the 300 mkii with both mkiii converters.
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Chisox2335 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


----------



## Chisox2335 (Jan 26, 2015)

NWPhil said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I'd start over with the 16-35 f4, a nifty fifty, the 100-400 ii, and a 600 ii.
> ...



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 (Jan 27, 2015)

steepjay said:


> 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 (Jan 27, 2015)

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 (Jan 27, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> steepjay said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



600 with the 1.4x?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> steepjay said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 27, 2015)

Chisox2335 said:


> 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 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 (Jan 27, 2015)

adhocphotographer said:


> Chisox2335 said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the 500 mkii with the 1.4x or the 300 mkii with both mkiii converters.
> ...



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 (Jan 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > steepjay said:
> ...



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!


----------

