Would you spend $12K on a lens?

gjl711 wrote in post #14893083
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

Depends alot on what you are shooting. I can see 400 being too short, but not as frequently as 800 being too much. The 400 provides alot of flexibility for the money.

Easy Solution: Get closer to your intended targets and save $12K!

dave

I'm also an amateur and have no desire to profit from photography. If I was sure I'd use the lens on a regular basis, I wouldn't hesitate to spend the $12K. I've blown alot more money on far less rewarding hobbies. Besides, you can't take it with you, someone will inevitably rob your grave....

I was in the same boat. I had the 300 2.8 is and used the 2x tc mkiii, all said and done at or under 4k. Great quality, as good as a 600 prime? No, but very useable. I did eventually sell my 300 and picked up a used 500f4 is and I love it. It was 6k so it depends on how much reach you want and how particular you are with the iq. For the lower cost the 300 with tc is hard to beat and is very hand holdable. The 400 you will need a good tripod and gimbal. Just went through that too. (that is another 1k or so)

snyderman wrote in post #14893183
Easy Solution: Get closer to your intended targets and save $12K!

dave

I can hear the lions licking their lips now. .

If it was for my profession? Yes.

For 'fun'?

Yes... if I had much much much more(much much...) than that sitting idle..

maximus_73 wrote in post #14893012
I'll answer your question after I talk to my wife.

LMAO... I see where this is headed.

huntersdad wrote in post #14893155
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.

Very wise words and sound advice.

Mike, unless you really need it, I would very much consider saving $5,000-$6,000 by buying a Mark I versus a Mark II. Also, have you tried shooting with any of the big guns yet? The weight and size are a real thing to consider. Anyone stepping up to the big teles will need to invest in a large tripod (if you don't already own one) and you'll also need to buy a good Wimberly setup too. Plan on budgeting an additional $800-$1,600, depending on what you need. You'll also have to be willing to lug it around and buy a new carrying system for it. (Another $100-$200.) Not trying to dissuade you from getting a big tele, but these are things to consider and it may be worth your time to rent one to see if you'll like using it.

Just food for thought,
Bryan

The perdicament as some may have figured out is that I already had the 7D and the 100-400mm. That's roughly the equivalent of 896, using the 1.4 tele-converter. Yes, I realize it's actually only 560 but with the crop factor, I get the same field of view as if using an 896.

I then bought a 5D3. I don't want to have that sitting around unused, and me still using my 7D, which already had a pretty good reach. If you get my drift.

I'd like to get the equivalent reach back, and have the extra resolution, of my 5D3. I made pretty good use of my 7D. I liked the setup and I liked the reach (although I could have used more). I'd like to have the equivalent, in my better 5D3. I'm thinking it's going to take at least 800mm, to feel like I'm back to where I was, only with a better body. That's where the 800mm goal comes from.

I bought an old 600 f/4 (non IS) some time ago & am quiet happy with it. I already had a good tripod & I also got a wimberley with the lens. I don't make money from my photography & I don't regret spending it on an old lens which could fail at any time. If I didn't buy the lens, I would have simply spent the money on something else that I neither needed nor wanted. My only regret is that I don't get the chance to use it very often & that it's not flexible like a 100-400. Even with the long reach, you still end up wanting more. If I had the money to buy it again, would I? Yes. If you can afford it without putting yourself in financial difficulty, buy it. As someone has already mentioned, you can't take it with you when you die, so live your dream while you're still alive.

Have you considered the Sigma 300-800mm?

20DNewbie wrote in post #14893491
Have you considered the Sigma 300-800mm?

I have looked at it. I'm going to pick up a 2x extender anyway. So this will let me try the 5D3 with my 100-400mm. But I suspect it will be much inferior to an 800 prime. I'm also going to be checking out the rental of one of the larger primes, just to see how well it performs.

Anything is on the table. But my problem is using my 5D and having at least as much reach as I had on my 7D. Still have the 7D but most of the time I'm using telephoto on both cameras. I can get to 800 with my 5D but if the IQ isn't any better than my 7D, I need to fix that. 5D3 with 2x and 100-400 vs. 7D with 1.4x and 100-400 ( had before the 5D). I need to a better setup for the 5D than I had for my 7D.

20DNewbie wrote in post #14893491
Have you considered the Sigma 300-800mm?

Just what I was going to say. It doesn't have IS, but the quality is very high, and the zoom gives some extra versatility.

I would think 500mm f4 + 1.4x would give better results than 400mm + 2x, even if it is "only" 700mm.

This seems to confirm that theory: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

MikeMSD wrote in post #14893509
I'm also going to be checking out the rental of one of the larger primes, just to see how well it performs.

I'll let you know up front that the Canon 800 prime will perform better than a Sigma 300-800, a 100-400 w/ a 2x extender, or any other lens combo out there. The real question is it worth the extra weight, size, and extraordinary cost.

I know that's exactly what you're trying to figure out...I just wanted to emphasize that the Canon 800's performance will be superior.

Bryan