Help me make a decision! 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 1DX etc...

Hello I am on the fence on what lens to get next. I have $6,000 budget but before we go any further. I am very happy with the 7D Mark II so I am more so looking for a lens than a Camera however I will explain below why the 1DX is in the title. Anyway I am an all around photographer but really getting into Sports, Motorsports, and Wildlife therefore a new lens is on my mind. I have been debating one of the big whites for months and right before Thanksgiving I need to make up my mind. My dream lens has always been the 300mm f2.8 however I feel like 200mm from my 70-200 is too close to really benefit from it. So now I am thinking of the 400 f2.8 IS Version 1 to which I saw for $4800 on Usedphotopro in great condition (It already Sold!). The problem with the 400mm is the weight being at almost 12 pounds. I like to run and gun and there is no way I will be able to hand hold that lens all day. Sure I can get a Monopod and would have no issues doing so but what about birds in flight? I am going to look silly with the lens and monopod in the air trying to capture a bird in the sky My next option is the 500 f4 and I hear it is very hand hold-able but judging by The Digital Picture lens chart. It's not as sharp as the 300 or 400. Also I would prefer to stay with f2.8's because of the crop factor on the 7D Mark II. Now the 1DX, I was thinking I can get the 1DX and 300mm f2.8 IS Version 1 and be very happy but consider this. 1DX with the 300mm f2.8 will be the same focal length as the 70-200 at 200mm on my 7D Mark II. So although the 1DX will do much better in low light and AF, I am not gaining in reach. I know I will need a 1DX down the road to shoot any High School football at night however I can easily get one the following month or in January. I would rather focus on lenses first this time around and my keeper rate on the 7D Mark II is over 90% so again, Very happy with the Auto Focus System. It only lacks a bit in High ISO.

Any thoughts?

Heya,

It really comes down to what field of view you want to crop from.

I did the same debate a few months ago between a 300mm and 400mm prime for similar uses. Mostly birds for me. Ultimately I prefer 300mm on APS-C for birds because I get very close and it's a lot easier to track a close range bird that is small in flight with a shorter lens. The 300mm on an APS-C has a very very similar field of view as a Full Frame and a 500mm. So if you're shooting 7D2 + 300F2.8 it's actually going to be very similar to 1DX + 500F4. That's worth noting because the 300mm is very easy to hand hold all day long, and takes TC's super well. The 300mm is one of the best lenses for versatility with minimum focus distance, crazy sharpness, how well it maintains sharpness & focus accuracy & speed with a TC (1.4 & 2.0), and it's very affordable. But really you have to try different focal lengths and see what ultimately works for your needs. I'd rather be a wee bit too short and crop, than too long and not be able to get the composition I want fully framed without clipping a detail of the subject. I was very close to going with a 400mm, but the weight was a put off to me too.

If you were purely birding, I'd say get the 500 F4L and a 1.4x TC, with your APS-C or full frame. Easily one of the best birding setups that can be hand held decently.

But since you're also doing sports, I would actually not push having that field of view, though it depends greatly how close you are to the action, and instead recommend the 300mm with some TC's.

Very best,

Good points and agree. I think the 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 TC is my best option but now what do I do with the extra $3,000? I might as well get a 1DX for my low light needs but I am debating that as well because Ill end up loving it and never touch my 7D Mark II again. I guess I could do 70-200 on the 1DX and 300 on the 7D Mark II, That will give me 200mm and 420mm without the extra weight of a 400mm f2.8. Has anyone done a comparison of the 1DX with 300mm f2.8 and 1.4 TC versus 7D Mark II and 300mm f2.8 bare?

DJHaze596 wrote in post #18172044
... My next option is the 500 f4 and I hear it is very hand hold-able but judging by The Digital Picture lens chart. It's not as sharp as the 300 or 400....

Just to address this one aspect, according to both Photozone.de and Canon's own published MTF charts, the opposite is true. So IMHO from a website testing stand point it's a wash.

I'd argue that all are so sharp that NO ONE could tell the difference either way under any circumstances. Only measuring equipment would be able to discern.

Big picture, since you do not seem to be sure of what focal length is best,. I'd approach your dilemma this way.

First, what aperture is required?

Second, what weight will you truly want to handle?

The f/2.8 lenses used to be the choice for sports. Shutter speed over focal length. Wildlife is focal length first in most situations.

This means MOST wildlife shooters choose the 500m or 600mm f/4 lenses, and MOST sports photogs choose the 300 and 400mm f/2.8 lenses.

Lines have blurred, Digital ISO settings have skyrocketed vs. the film days when those rules of thumb evolved,.

For me, I drew the line at the weight of the 500mm f/4L IS. I would have loved 600mm, or f/2.8, but I was not willing to carry around a 13 pound lens.


The MkII 400mm f/2.8 changes things as well, suddenly it's about the same weight as a gen 1 500mm f/4. But if cost is taking that out of the options, you might want to narrow your choices to 500mm f/4 vs 300mm f/2.8.

As a birder, the 500mm really is the best choice. Sports I would think a faster short lens would be more flexible.

The 300mm is very flexible and excellent with teleconverters. you could afford the modern version II used. (vs version 1 for the others mentioned) Which would also give you a very good 600mm f/5.6 and 420mm f/4 with t-cons.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #18172134
Good points and agree. I think the 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 TC is my best option but now what do I do with the extra $3,000? I might as well get a 1DX for my low light needs but I am debating that as well because Ill end up loving it and never touch my 7D Mark II again. I guess I could do 70-200 on the 1DX and 300 on the 7D Mark II, That will give me 200mm and 420mm without the extra weight of a 400mm f2.8. Has anyone done a comparison of the 1DX with 300mm f2.8 and 1.4 TC versus 7D Mark II and 300mm f2.8 bare?

Get version II with both MkIII T-cons..

Or get a 5D4 for it's full AF functionality @ f/8 (all AF points at f/8 with the Version II IS lenses and MkIII t-cons )

Is tbe 300mm f2.8 IS ii with 1.4 TC worth the extra 3k over version 1? I would only do 1.4 TC not 2x. Being that my budget is 6k, I can get 300 V1 and 5D4 or 300 V2 + 1.4 TC.

I mentioned the Version II only because you seemed hard pressed to spend another 3K

300mm with 1.4x and either 1Dx or 5D4 seems like a lot more bang for your buck.

Ok one more question. As far as TCs go. 5D4 would handle it better than the 1dx?

DJHaze596 wrote in post #18172295
Ok one more question. As far as TCs go. 5D4 would handle it better than the 1dx?

Not so much with the version 1 lens.

Thus far only the 1Dx2 and 5D4 have this feature, but it is ONLY available with Version II IS lenses, AND MkIII T-Cons.

With these bodies, and the right glass, you can shoot for example a 500mm f/4L IS MKII with 2X MkIII t-con and use all AF points. Also, with T-Cons on these bodies, the standard Canon "pussyfooting" that t-Cons have forced on all Canon bodies from day one is gone, and the 5D4 and 1Dx 2 will attempt to AF at full speed. (as opposed to automatically dropping AF speed in favor of attempting to maintain accuracy)

After decades of knowing what to expect from a Canon body of ANY caliber with a t-Con equipped, I found the AF speed of the 5D4 with 500mm and 2x to be nothing short of miraculous.

See this post for more on the advances in T-Con AF that comes with the 5D4 (and 1Dx2)

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18140093

"I am going to look silly with the lens and monopod in the air trying to capture a bird in the sky "

Check my Avatar - that's me with my 800 F5.6 L IS, 1DX and mono pod chasing birdies! Very good combination but a bit heavy and you have to aim it very accurately before putting your eye to the viewfinder!

For reference I currently use a 1DX and 7D2 and my wildlife (+ occasional landscape) lenses are the Canon 100-400 Mk2, 300 F2.8 L IS and 800 F5.6 L IS. I used to own a 400 F2.8 L, 600 F4 L IS and shot with a 1D4 before the 1DX.

So just my 2p!

I very much like my 7D2, it has it's limitations (mainly ISO) but it does produce very nice images and the AF is very good. The 1DX is certainly better in all respects so long as your subject is a reasonable size in the frame. the 1DX crops much better than the 7D2 - but then it has to! I cannot crop my 7D2 images by as much - but I don't have to due to the crop factor, so in practical terms the 7D2 has a bit (not a lot but a bit) more reach with a given lens. However the 7D2 struggles with ISO in poor light. It is all down to your personal needs/environment.

Much as I love my 300 and 800 mm lenses, if you are looking for a single lens solution then it has got to be the 500 pure and simple. The 500 L IS Mk1 takes the 1.4 extender very well and the 2 x (MK3) pretty well in good light. It's weight is not too bad and can be hand held for reasonable periods. The IQ and AF are top notch and the AF is still pretty good with the 1.4 extender. With a 2 x then AF is somewhat slower but still accurate with any higher end Canon body.

I am not up on US prices but if you could find a good used Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 at your budget or a bit over then that would be my choice. The Mk1 is excellent - but the Mk2 is just that bit better and quite a bit lighter - roughly the same as a 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 with a 2 x extender attached. If you decide on a 300 F2.8 then the 7D2 will come into it's own. The extra aperture will help negate the more limited ISO performance and mine does AF very well with this lens. A friend has the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk2 and in head to head testing (with both our 7D2 cameras) I could find little advantage with the Mk2 except that it did perform noticeably better with the Canon 2 x Mk3 extender - but not enough for me to spend the extra pennies.

This is a big purchase so take your time and weigh up the pros and cons. I would say stick with your 7D2 and get a 500 F4. But if if you need more mobility/aperture then 300 f2.8. I love my 1DX but glass is more important IMO.

Happy deciding!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18172310
See this post for more on the advances in T-Con AF that comes with the 5D4 (and 1Dx2)

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18140093

Thanks, I am slowly wanting a 5D Mark IV now and if I do, I see no reason to keep my 7D Mark II other than to have it as a backup. So 5D Mark IV, 300 f2.8L IS V1 and maybe a 1.4 TC after I sell the 7D Mark II. I want to be very clear however that I am an all around shooter and reach is not always an issue because I am not completely dedicated to Wildlife. I shoot literally everything. Now I need to see if the 1DX is a better option for my needs than the 5D Mark IV.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #18172483
Thanks, I am slowly wanting a 5D Mark IV now and if I do, I see no reason to keep my 7D Mark II other than to have it as a backup. So 5D Mark IV, 300 f2.8L IS V1 and maybe a 1.4 TC after I sell the 7D Mark II. I want to be very clear however that I am an all around shooter and reach is not always an issue because I am not completely dedicated to Wildlife. I shoot literally everything. Now I need to see if the 1DX is a better option for my needs than the 5D Mark IV.

The higher megapixels of the IV will give you more versatility for cropping, making the adjustment from the APS-C to the full frame a lot easier, and also helps with using shorter focal lengths like the 300mm in situations where you might want more reach. Resolution helps here. Kind of like how the 5DSR is useful in this way. I'd take a high resolution full frame with a 300mm lens for fast birding no problem over a smaller sensor and longer lens, simply because it's a ton easier to track and focus at closer range with a larger field of view, but yet you can crop it to be the same resolution as the 7D2.

5DSR or 5DIV would be the way to go for all around versatility. 1DX if you need the raw FPS or slightly better high ISO.

Very best,

7D mark II + 300 f2.8L IS II would be a nice combination for sport-wildlife. Less weight, more versatile, cheaper, dont need a bigger bag to load it, etc. When you capturing sport, i think you dont need the extender (480mm), and when capturing wildlife, 1.4 III TC still get you very good images.

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18172585
7D mark II + 300 f2.8L IS II would be a nice combination for sport-wildlife. Less weight, more versatile, cheaper, dont need a bigger bag to load it, etc. When you capturing sport, i think you dont need the extender (480mm), and when capturing wildlife, 1.4 III TC still get you very good images.

I might actually go that route, I can always get my 1DX / 1DX II / or 5D IV the following month or in January. but an extra $3,000 for what? Sharpness wise they look identical.