Which Supertele?

Since I am trying to amass opinions everywhere else, why not, right?

Due to some unfortunate circumstances, I had to sell my 500 a few months ago. My Sigma 120-300 OS with TCs has been filling the spot since and has done an admirable job. However, with fall and winter right around the corner, I am convinced that while it could a wonderful job with the 1.4 on waterfowl, that's gonna leave me lacking some reach.

So, I am going to pick up another super. 500s and 600s are running the same price, 400 2.8 slightly less. As this will be mated to a tripod and gimbal head and I have very short hikes required in my area, weight is truly not an issue - so rule it out.

The 400 draws me because it can handle both TCs well, giving me 400 2.8, 560 f4 and 800 5.6, if needed. The 600 gives a little more reach vs the 500, at a similar cost. And the 500, well, we all know it is awesome.

So, I am a little stumped as to where to head in my search. Keeping in mind that weight is ruled out and the lens will be mated to a 7d for BIFs and lare mammals (deer, bears, elk, so on), which would you choose and why?

I think the 400 f2.8. They are at an affordable price now as people upgrade to the markII. And as you said with the tcs, they provide some great reach. And when need be you can shoot hand held. I dont shoot mine on anything I hand hold all the time.

I love mine. I just want some TC's now I think.

Considering that weight is not an issue, I think the 400 f2.8 would be the best option. IMO, it offers the most versatility. You could pick up a used one for the season and resell it when your done for a minimal loss (or keep it if you completely fall in love with it).

You are keeping the Sigma 120-300 or selling it?

If selling it given you are shooting large mammals and birds I would say the 400mm.

If you are keeping it, I would say go with the 600mm.

Probably going to sell it. Gonna hate to see it go as it a superb lens.

400mm f2.8 as you can use it for sports. Let me know when selling 120-300mm OS.

Brad,
I am always having this debate with myself. Often I have considered selling my 400 f2.8 and getting the 600 f4 instead. But, whenever I really think about it hard, I always decide that I am better off with the 400.
Why? Because it is the most versatile of Canon's supertelephotos.

As you mentioned, it can be used with either the 1.4x or the 2x, and maintain AF with any of Canon's bodies.

Also, an often overlooked point is that the 400 f2.8 has a very close minimum focus distance - about 10 feet! Adding a teleconverter does not increase the MFD, so when I add my 2x to the 400, I have, in effect, an 800mm lens that can focus on something less than 10 feet away! I have actually had to back away from grasshoppers and butterflies, at times, to be able to fit them into the frame in a compositionally pleasing way. The MFD of the 500 and 600 are significantly longer, so that they are not as useful for photographing the little critters such as frogs, toads, insects, etc. Nor is a conventional macro lens a viable substitute; try getting within frame-filling distance of a frog, or a dragonfly, with a 100mm lens, and it will usually flee before you get anywhere near close enough. Conversely, you can set up 10 to 12 feet away with the 400mm + extender, and shoot the critter quite effectively without it getting nervous and moving off.

Lastly, there are those times when 500mm is simply too long - even with a full frame body. It's not always practical (or possible) to carry around a supertelephoto and another lens, such as your 120-300. So, it's nice to be able to capture full-body shots of large mammals such as moose and elk, even when all you have with you is your "primary" lens.

Thanks guys. Leaning towards the 400. Found one on another site that's about 13 years old. Clean glass on both end, little bit of "battle scars" on the body, nothing major. Low $5k so probably gonna grab it.

How does the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS handle 2.x TC's ?

Personally I would also consider a 300 f2.8IS II with both MkIII teleconverters. IQ is just incredible with the 2X MkIII and it's very easily hand-holdable giving 960mm equivalent FL on a 7D. AF speed with the 2x is not great for BIF but fine for slower subjects. On a 7D the 300 +/- 1.4X is plenty for most BIF anyway and this combo retains lightning AF too.

snapperz wrote in post #14875244
Personally I would also consider a 300 f2.8IS II with both MkIII teleconverters. IQ is just incredible with the 2X MkIII and it's very easily hand-holdable giving 960mm equivalent FL on a 7D. AF speed with the 2x is not great for BIF but fine for slower subjects. On a 7D the 300 +/- 1.4X is plenty for most BIF anyway and this combo retains lightning AF too.

Won't work for waterfowl around here due to NWR restrictions. Also, way too short for wildlife.

If I had it to do over again, I'd probably get the 400mm f/2.8 MkII and use it with TCs instead of having the 500mm f/4.

500mm MkI is a damn fine lens but it's actually a little too long for me sometimes.

Wish I was closer so to check that sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS for sale. ANyways if shooting more wildlife then 500mm f4 is better. It makes a very nice 700mm f5.6 lens. 400mm f2.8 IS is nice if using it for sports mainly and then some wildlife. 500mm f4 can be easily hand held for bif shots. Much harder to do those with 400mm f2.8 is.

In the end, birds focal length over aperture
sports - aperture first

500mm f4 IS I with 2xTC so 1000mm f11. 400mm f2.8 is better but won't go to 1000mm.

bobbyz wrote in post #14876376
Wish I was closer so to check that sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS for sale. ANyways if shooting more wildlife then 500mm f4 is better. It makes a very nice 700mm f5.6 lens. 400mm f2.8 IS is nice if using it for sports mainly and then some wildlife. 500mm f4 can be easily hand held for bif shots. Much harder to do those with 400mm f2.8 is.

In the end, birds focal length over aperture
sports - aperture first

You're gonna be disappointed you didn't get it.

I'm pretty sure you "NEED" one of these.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Only problem is you have to sell your house to finance it.
OH, and you need a sherpa to lug it around for you. LOL