Would you spend $12K on a lens?

I'm stuck between a rock and a hard spot.

I'm trying to find a solution to a longer lens. I have a 7D body and a 5D3 body. I have a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom and the 100-400mm f4L zoom. I'd like to have something in the 600 or 800mm range. I would prefer to have a prime but they are costly.

Options include:
1) using my 100-400mm on my crop body, as I do now. But that leaves my new 5D3 kind of out of the picture (no pun intended).

2) using the 100-400mm on my 5D3 and a 2X tele-converter.

3) buying an after-market prime

4) buying a Canon prime

Problem: I'm not a pro and not making any money on photography. I just take photos for fun and for my own use. But I'm a bit of a perfectionist, when I have a choice between good and not so good.

What would be a good solution to hitting that 600 or 800mm goal? Does one lose too much going to a 2x tele-converter? Would a 400mm f2.8L prime, with a 2X even approach the quality of an 800 prime?

Would you spend $12-$14K for a lens, if you weren't making money on photography?

Thanks,

To me, it's not really about whether I'm making money or not. Photography isn't the only expensive hobby, and lots of people spend much more on toys just for pure enjoyment and never make a dime from it.

In short, yes, if I had the money for a 600/4 or 800/5.6, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Enjoy your time here, you can't take your toys with you to the grave.

Yes, if I identified a real need for the lens and knew it would be used regularly, otherwise for the occassional shot I would rent it.

no!

ive seen a 600L for 6500 range... the old versions... but it's rare, but seems there are folks upgrading to the Mk2 lenses...

but if i had the cash, yes, i would.

def wouldnt spend that cash on a lens if you werent paid for shooting. rent and try!

Gizmo1137 wrote in post #14892666
Yes, if I identified a real need for the lens and knew it would be used regularly, otherwise for the occassional shot I would rent it.

Oh, I know I'd use it. Most of that I like taking photos of require telephoto or macro. For other photos I don't really setup and try for the shot. For those, I could just as well use my G12. But for the telephoto and/or macro, I make a special effort to capture those so I know I'd use it. Most of the time, my tele-zooms are on the camera bodies.

But, those primes are up against a 300 or 400 prime and a 2x extender. I just don't know how much better the longer prime would be, compared to a lesser option, to warrant spending $13K. I know it would be better or no one would buy them. Decisions, decisions.

The long primes are better. The question is, would you notice if the image never gets shown on anything larger than a desk top monitor. Posted on the web, no way.

Which brings up qnother question. If it is better, is the cheaper, clunkier, solution good enough?

I'll answer your question after I talk to my wife.

bohdank wrote in post #14892852
The long primes are better. The question is, would you notice if the image never gets shown on anything larger than a desk top monitor. Posted on the web, no way.

Which brings up qnother question. If it is better, is the cheaper, clunkier, solution good enough?

Good point. I do print images, but mostly for my wife. And I would print some on paper, no larger than 8x10. Most of mine never make it to print. But would/could/might be viewed on the larger HD monitors, used for TV. My original consideration was for the raw image quality only. Kind of a quest for the best solution, without regard for how it would actually be viewed.

Get the 400 2.8 w/ a 2x Teleconverter

photopr0 wrote in post #14893061
Get the 400 2.8 w/ a 2x Teleconverter

Hmm 400mm f/2.8+2x t-con or 800 f/5.6. They cost the same so I think I would go for the 800mm

$12K is a lot of money for a lens if you're not making any money with it!
I'd get the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 OS HSM and 2x TC instead of a $12K lens.

Rush87 wrote in post #14893097
$12K is a lot of money for a lens if you're not making any money with it!
I'd get the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 OS HSM and 2x TC instead of a $12K lens.

The thing is, I already have the Canon 100-400mm. Even though the Sigma is 2.8, I'm wondering if that would be wise, considering I already have a 100-400 zoom. A prime in 400 I understand but not another zoom.

The non "II" is only about $8K. with the 2x, it's about $5K less than the 800mm.

Like you I am a hobbyist photographer - very little money coming my way form this. I picked up a 400 2.8 IS and received it today with a 1.4xII. Sometime in the next couple months, I'll add the 2xIII, for 800 5.6 on my 7d.

I can't justify the new supertele prices and really can't understand who can based on the meager gain in IQ and a little weight loss. SO I opted for older WHILE THEY ARE STILL REASONABLY PRICED ( so to speak). I look at it this way - I'll miss 100% of the shots I don't take because I lack reach, but miss far fewer with reach.

Buy the older models, save some cash. You can find the 600s regularly for $6500-6700, same for the 500. My 400 is older but considerably cheaper at $5400 with the TC. Body is a little beat up paint-wise, but glass is excellent as is AF system. IMO, best money I've spent.