Finally able to go for a big lens, but which one?

I'm in the lucky position of being able to go for one of those lenses most of us drool over the idea of owning; but the reality of choosing one is not so straightforward. Obviously I already have my own thoughts and I'm researching too, but I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences and thoughts. My interest is mainly birds/wildlife, and secondly sports/airshows. I am considering one of the following lenses, each listed here with my current thoughts:

400mm f/2.8 L IS - probably not long enough for my needs, as I already have the 100-400L, which I really like. I know it gives a lot of flexibility with 1.4x and 2x conerters though, which others here say work well with this lens. Most people think of this lens as primarily best for sports.

500mm f/4 L IS - lightest and therefore easiest to handle of my four options. My concern is that if I already have the 100-400, the 500 isn't that much longer.

600mm f/4 L IS - being 50% longer than my zoom, this is where my heart is pulling me. With a 1.4x extender I'm on 840mm and still have AF on my 40D. The main worry about this (and indeed all others except the 500) is how the weight will impact my use of it - would it be so heavy I'd be reluctant to take it out?

Sigma APO 300-800mm f/5.6 EX DG HSM - slowest of the group, but perhaps most versatile, giving infinitely adjustable fraiming between 300mm and 800mm, but lacking IS, and not even remotely hand-holdable.

All four are renowned for image sharpness and contrast, so I've no worries there. I think my decision is coming down to being between the 600L and the 300-800 zoom. I discounted the 800L from my list because I'll probably be going for the top end of the used market and I've not so far seen any 800s used, and a new one is outside my budget.

So that's where my thought process has got me up to now. I'd like to hear your thoughts, especially those that are backed by relevant experience.

Congratulations!!!

I've been contemplating which I'd get among the 400 f/2.8, the 500 f/4 and the 600 f/4 (I already own the 100-400). Before I'd buy the 400 f/2.8 or the 600 f/4, I think I would rent them. The fact they aren't hand holdable and are quite large makes me worry I wouldn't take them very often. The 500 f/4 is hand holdable and much lighter but I'd probably rent it as well just to make sure I was happy with it before investing all of that money. I don't know anything about the 300-800 so I can't say much about it. Obviously, a lens you will take with you is infinitely better than one you so make sure you're willing to lug the 400 and 600 around with you before buying one of them.

Based on your lack of comments about needing a faster lens, it sounds like your only real concern is a longer focal length. With that said, one comparison worth making is what you'd get from each lens at f/5.6 via teleconverters. All three of the canon's do very well with the 1.4x so the 500 becomes a 700mm and the 600mm becomes a 840mm. As you point out the, the 400mm can take both the 1.4x and 2.0x and still be an f/5.6 (the 40D will auto focus with all of these combinations). With the teleconverters, you get quite a bit more reach than the 400mm. Below is a simulated comparison of 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, 700mm and 840mm (I didn't include 560mm or 800mm for the 400mm but you can get an idea of what you'd get).

The 400, 500 & 600 have the advantage of a larger aperture for the cases where you need a faster shutter speed but not all of the reach or want a shallower depth of field. The primes should also be sharper, even with a teleconverter, than a zoom but less flexible.

Ultimately, I don't think there is one right answer. I suggest you rent them before making a final decision. Good luck and let us know what you decide.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The 500 is quite a thing to lug around and you can miss some shots whilst messing about setting up your tripod etc. I cannot imagine how much more hassle the 600 would be as it is extremely heavy. You don't see many people using them out in the wilds

If you look at most birders they will be using the 500. I normally have a 1.4x on it and you can hardly tell.

That would be my recommendation

Remember you will also need to carry a very substantial tripod as well as the lens. Factor this into your purchase budget as well. I made do with a Manfrotto 055XPro and a 393 head for about a year but it wasn't really up to it. The Gitzo and Wimberley solution is much much better but also adds a lot to the budget (and the weight)

Edit: Just checked your gearlist and the tripods and heads you have won't cope. These lenses need to be held very steady to get the most out of them

big_g wrote in post #12328483
The 500 is quite a thing to lug around and you can miss some shots whilst messing about setting up your tripod etc. I cannot imagine how much more hassle the 600 would be as it is extremely heavy. You don't see many people using them out in the wilds
[Snip]
Edit: Just checked your gearlist and the tripods and heads you have won't cope. These lenses need to be held very steady to get the most out of them

Agree 100%. You say that the 500 would be the easiest to handle - and you're correct. But that's not the same as being easy to handle. Have you ever used one for a whole day's shooting wildlife? If not then it'd be a good idea to rent one for a couple of days - just so you know what you're letting yourself in for.

My friend went from the 100-400 to a 500 f4 (along with heavy tripod and gimbal) and found it was just too much to carry for more than a mile or so.

I have been shooting in areas where people are using the 500mm and 600mm Canon.

I saw some things common among them ......

Their 500mm/600mm lens/camera combos were all mounted on a tripod and around their neck was another camera with a zoom lens. Most had the 100-400mm IS L Zoom on the camera around their neck.

If you can get the 600mm, go for it and have a second body for your 100-400mm IS L zoom.

In the words of one shooter ..... " If all I had was the 600mm, I would not be able to get all the great bird shots I have gotten. I could have gotten some nice shots of bird parts though! "

His point was that you will need a shorter lens for those in close targets.

Whichever one you decide on getting,I'm sure you'll not be disappointed!

But as people have said above,the larger ones are very heavy.

A friend of mine bought a second hand 600 f/4 (non IS) a week or so back off eBay,and to say its EXTREMELY BIG and HEAVY is an understatement in the least,and I dread to think what the IS version weighs

I'm the kind of (stupid) person who carries all my kit with me when I take it out,just so I have it.
But I wouldn't want to carry that 600 around very far.

More than the couple pounds of difference in weight, the 500 is just better balanced. The 600 is extremely front heavy and that makes shooting up very tough handheld. The 500 is definitely handholdable and much more manageable. I got both the 500 and 600 from CPS and the 500 was my choice. Just much more "usable" for how I shoot. Both are incredible lenses though.

i too have the 500f4 often used with a 1.4 tc it was my choice over the 500 or 600 because of the weight more than anything.
Rob.

Here is a video made by Roger from lensrentals.com. Gives you a good idea about the difference between the 500 and 600

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=S59rV7luKEg

I assume you will use it for birding? 500L F4 IS, period. Is hand holdable for about 30sec. Do that the whole day, you will feel it in the morning, unless you regularly lift weights. You must use it with a study tripod or monopod. I use it on a monopod with a gimbal head. Regardless, the setup will tire you out by the end of the day but you will get used to it. Go with the IS. Lens this long, even when the mirror flaps, the IS would help.

There is a Canon 800 in the FS now

Snatch it up!

Thanks all for your very illuminating and thought-provoking contributions, especially that illustration of fields of view by Kevin B.

big_g wrote in post #12328483
Edit: Just checked your gearlist and the tripods and heads you have won't cope. These lenses need to be held very steady to get the most out of them

Thanks big_g, I would go for a gimbal head to go with my 058, which is indeed strong enough - perhaps you were thinking of the 055.

In fact I've taken on board the weight issue and concluded that I wouldn't really get the use out of one of these biggies to make the expense worthwhile. As others have said, the best lens in the world is worthless if you never take it out. I use my 100-400L handheld all day long, but one of these lenses is a different thing altogether. I've decided I'd get more value from upgrading my 40D to a 7D, and adding a 180L to my macro gear, which is where I'm finding I specialise the most.

Thanks again for all your help with a difficult decision; definitely one where heart was threatening to overrule head! Maybe I'll continue to save and wait for a MarkII, which apparently weighs only as much as the current 500L.

Just checked the spec on the tripod. There is no way you would carry that beast with a super tele on top of it. My 5 series CF Gitzo is heavy enough with a Wimberley, 1D and 500 on it. You would have about 13Kg on your shoulder (I will check the actual weights later)

Your guess at the weights is correct. And so I think is your conclusion; just a bit too much. It looks from my research as though a Gitzo carbon tripod is about the only way to go with the 600L, to maintain any pretence at portability.

Although the new MarkII looks incredibly expensive, the actual recommended prices of the two versions of 600/4 are only £500 apart, so maybe over the next few years it will come down to a half-reasonable amount. I think I can wait, and thanks again for valuable input.

When the Mk2 lenses eventually arrive they will come down in price over the first year or so. When I bought my 70 200 2.8IS a year and a half ago it was £1650. It was replaced about 7 or 8 months later and the Mk 2 was about £2.5k but now it is only about £1800.

Can't wait for the 300 2.8 to get real again. Had to buy a Sigma as a stop gap.