Real World 300mm Use

500mm f4 IS is quite hand holdable IMHO. If I can do it so can any able bodied person IMHO. If money is not a concern I would look at newer II models which are lighter and probably better in picture quality..

Given the loss of my 1d I think a 7d might be something I could try for the crop factor in the meantime.... They guy that bought the 1d is a photojournalist, said he put 600k clicks on his mkiii real fast, was all about the 500L v1.....I guess that would have to be used since they are discontinued.

So if I was to get a 7d, what lens would you guys recommend?

Thanks for all the info so far!

If you are looking at MKII lenses I would echo the earlier suggestion to wait for real world reports on the 200-400. I certainly think if it has prime sharpness, comes in under 10K (one can hope), and focuses fast, it could be a big winner. Also, since the 600 MKII will be the same weight as the 500 mkI, if you are going to go for 500 might as well go for 600. You could always get the 300 F4 IS no matter what as a handholdable backup/ready camera if something comes at you close while the tripod is locked down in mirror lockup waiting for the subject in the distance.

I use my 500 on the tripod and 400 5.6 around my shoulder in that way with quite a bit of success. Many times with nature, birds particularly, it is easier to just swing up the lighter lens for a quick shot then loosen your tripod, get re-situated, and start shooting again.

The 7D wouldn't be bad, I have a 7D and 1DMKIII, just got the 7D a month or so ago, but it is a capable camera. Focusing isn't quite as quick as my 1-series, but certainly adequate.

The Egret was about 80 feet away if I recall, that shot was a crop from the full frame.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14219425
I am beginning my (always extremely limited) research on long lenses.

I can get up to 200mm with my current lineup, I will definitely be purchasing the 2xIII regardless.

What I am trying to decide is:

1) Whether the 500L2 is worth 3200 over the 300L2

2) Whether the 300L F/4 is a huge value over the above two

Practical, real world differences and experiences you can share between the three....

1500 for the 300 F4 is really attractive vs 7300 for the 2.8....unless they are night and day different.

Well, with 200mm on your APS-C body, an object which is 10' tall and 300' away fills 45% of the frame height. It fills 2/3 of the frame height with a 300mm lens, 91% of the frame height with a 400mm lens. And you capture about 90% of the 10' object with the 500mm lens. 'Worth it' is relative to what you are trying to accomplish.

Wilt wrote in post #14222091
Well, with 200mm on your APS-C body, an object which is 10' tall and 300' away fills 45% of the frame height. It fills 2/3 of the frame height with a 300mm lens, 91% of the frame height with a 400mm lens. And you capture about 90% of the 10' object with the 500mm lens. 'Worth it' is relative to what you are trying to accomplish.

I don't have an APS-C camera. I guess this is if I get a 7D (again, lol)....

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14222152
I don't have an APS-C camera. I guess this is if I get a 7D (again, lol)....

The percentage sizes are all 60% smaller, with FF!

Well, with 200mm on your FF body, an object which is 10' tall and 300' away fills 28% of the frame height. It fills 42% of the frame height with a 300mm lens, 56% of the frame height with a 400mm lens, 71% of the frame height with a 500mm lens. 'Worth it' is still relative to what you are trying to accomplish.

I hear ya. I appreciate the math!

I think I will probably pick up a 7D (for when the light is good of course) and try to find a 500Li somewhere.....That Lii is big money no whammies! I'll have to consider the 1.4iii vs 2iii as well now.

Great help and examples from all, truly appreciated!

edit:

Alright, I guess this is what I will do:
Get a 7D (is there a better option for tele shooting?)
Get a 300L F/4 (how can I not at 1400 dollars?)
Get a 1.4Xiii
Get a 500L (somehow find a used one, I have a thing about date codes though, needs to be fairly recent, some 2004/2005 models on Ebay for 7K, pass on that!)

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14222201
I hear ya. I appreciate the math!

I think I will probably pick up a 7D (for when the light is good of course) and try to find a 500Li somewhere.....That Lii is big money no whammies! I'll have to consider the 1.4iii vs 2iii as well now.

Great help and examples from all, truly appreciated!

edit:

Alright, I guess this is what I will do:
Get a 7D (is there a better option for tele shooting?)
Get a 300L F/4 (how can I not at 1400 dollars?)
Get a 1.4Xiii
Get a 500L (somehow find a used one, I have a thing about date codes though, needs to be fairly recent, some 2004/2005 models on Ebay for 7K, pass on that!)

Mk1 owners are going to ask more now, with the new Mk II prices. Try and find a new Mk I if you can.. probably be the same price...or not enough difference to be worth buying used.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14220815
At this juncture, given the prices involved with the MkII large primes, I wouldn't make a move until the EF 200-400mm 1.4X hits the market and there is some real-world feedback.

With the improvements in higher ISOs in general (not tied to any one specific camera .. although I see the OP has the two best right now), having a range of 200-560mm could be extremely useful to many shooters.

Personally, if the 200-400 shines, I can see it replacing both my 100-400 and 300 f/2.8...

Food for Thought!

I agree, but for me it will replace the 100-400 and 400 DO.

I'll also then avoid the 400 f/2.8, for the moment.

I still wish I knew when it was coming out!

S.Horton wrote in post #14222758
I agree, but for me it will replace the 100-400 and 400 DO.

I'll also then avoid the 400 f/2.8, for the moment.

I still wish I knew when it was coming out!

whoops, I guess I should wait on that also....forgot about that even though it was just recommended.....too much excitement.

If you are shooting from 100-400 yards and 200mm looks like a wide angle, I think 300mm might not cut it. It'd look like you are using a "normal" FL like 50mm... I was shooting some seals at the local marina sometime last year with a 300mm f/4L IS and a 2x mkIII. Great combo, but I needed to stop down to f/11 for the image quality to be sharp enough for my expectations. Wide open at f/8 with the 2x TC the 300L f/4 doesn't perform very well IMO. The seals were probably only 100ft away and they filled the frame nicely, I had to do little cropping. But 100yds!! I'd go as long as possible at that distance. With lower light you may want to get as fast a lens as you can also. Even with the ISO performance nowadays, there's always going to be a time when that extra stop will help more than cranking the ISO.

In your situation, I would go for a 500L or 600L.

Canon 300mm f/4L IS and 2x mkIII TC on a 1D2 (I think), shot at f/11 from about 100ft, less than 200ft for sure.

A pertinent difference is weight. The 300mm f/4L IS weighs 2.6 pounds and the 300mm f/2.8 IS lens weighs three pounds more 5.6 pounds. That is quite a difference to hand-hold as well as to carry for any length of time. Especially since you are probably going to need another lens to shoot with...

1Tanker wrote in post #14222637
Mk1 owners are going to ask more now, with the new Mk II prices. Try and find a new Mk I if you can.. probably be the same price...or not enough difference to be worth buying used.

Good luck finding a new one, I looked a while back with no luck and ended up purchasing a used 500 F4.5 L. About a year ago when the 500 was still largely in stock, and the new version was just announced they were still selling a few years old in the low to mid 5,000's, when they were discontinued and ran out of stock at major retailers they shot up to $6k overnight, and have steadily creeped up in the last 6 months. Now people are asking just silly (to me) numbers like $7k and more and the crazy thing is they are getting it, at least from what I have seen on eBay recently! I don't know if the buyers are pro's out there who need the lens, cannot get it new any more, and are willing to pay top dollar to have one quickly or what. I personally would kick myself if I had to pay more than they were new for a used one just because it was discontinued.

With the numbers jumping up so high on the used value of the MKI lenses I will wait for the MKII versions to come out, as well as the 200-400, see some real world results, maybe wait for the first price drop, and make a move then. For right now my 500 F4.5 is still a great lens.

I own two of the lenses in question and used to own the other. Here is what I think for the type of photography I do. Yes , in my opinion the 500mm f4 is worth $3200 more then the 300mm f 2.8. I need the distance this lens gives me and I also use it with a TC giving me 700mm. To me the 300mm f 2.8 is worth more then the 300mm f4 because I need the extra stop and also because I sometimes use this lens with a 2X TC , also I feel that in general the results for this lens are usually sharper then the 300mm f4 that I used too own. There are other factors at play here in determining what lens you get. What are you going to use it for? Are you going to do allot of walking with it, the 300 f 2.8 weight can really become a liability on long hikes, the 500mm f4 really requires a tripod and gimbal head The type of photography you plan to use it for should be the determining factor.