Canon 300mm or 400mm Dilemma?

I just went on my first trip to Yosemite and loved it. Didn't have anything big that could give me crazy shots of animals and what not, though not many were out, but being summer they're bound to be, I'm looking to get something that should give me decent shots of them.

Also, my nephews and nieces play sports so I want a good lens to get decent shots of them as well for family photos and what not.

I originally was thinking about the Canon 300mm F/4L IS, but now question whether it's going to give me enough distance to shoot things from further away.

Additionally, I leaned more towards the 400mm F/5.6 as that would give me more room.

Well now I'm think about Just getting the 400mm, as well as the 1.4xIII extender.

Was thinking I could put that on the 70-200mm F/4L and turn it into a 98-280 (perhaps as a side camera for the sporting events), with the 400mm by itself.

Then at Yosemite attach the 1.4xIII to the 400mm if I don't have enough room and have a 560mm.

I understand the stop loss and what not. Has anyone done this? Is this a good idea? Should I just get the 300mm instead? 400mm instead?

Any ideas or suggestions would help a lot.

Thanks!

I debated long and hard before getting my 300mm f/4 IS. I wrongly assumed that I'd appreciate the IS more than the extra 100mm (compared to the 400mm f/5.6). I almost never used it handheld. If I had to do it over again I'd get the 400mm.

There is another option for you.....the Tamron 150-600 VC. There are some current threads going on this lens with images. I bought one and love it for the reach & price $1069.

Vsocks you might have just changed my mind officially. Loving the few shots I've seen with that so far. Very impressed with the colors and sharpeness even at full zoom. Impressive to say the least. Couple hundred saved and another 40mm.

You won't be disappointed with 400 5.6 L.!

ShutterAttack wrote in post #16645464
I just went on my first trip to Yosemite and loved it. Didn't have anything big that could give me crazy shots of animals and what not, though not many were out, but being summer they're bound to be, I'm looking to get something that should give me decent shots of them.

Also, my nephews and nieces play sports so I want a good lens to get decent shots of them as well for family photos and what not.

I originally was thinking about the Canon 300mm F/4L IS, but now question whether it's going to give me enough distance to shoot things from further away.

Additionally, I leaned more towards the 400mm F/5.6 as that would give me more room.

Well now I'm think about Just getting the 400mm, as well as the 1.4xIII extender.

Was thinking I could put that on the 70-200mm F/4L and turn it into a 98-280 (perhaps as a side camera for the sporting events), with the 400mm by itself.

Then at Yosemite attach the 1.4xIII to the 400mm if I don't have enough room and have a 560mm.

I understand the stop loss and what not. Has anyone done this? Is this a good idea? Should I just get the 300mm instead? 400mm instead?

Any ideas or suggestions would help a lot.

Thanks!

Welcome to the world of "you will always want more reach."

I vote the 400. Better yet, I vote a 500mm Sigma. Or maybe test the waters with the 600mm Tamron. Don't worry about teleconverters and all that. Get as much natural reach in one lens that you can afford that is reasonably sharp.

Very best,

ShutterAttack

Check my signature. I love my 300mm and 1.4x but I always wanted more reach.

Guess I might just give the Tamron a try then.