Have a 400 2.8, but is it time for a 200-400 1.4x?

So I'm in a bit of an oddball situation here. Over the past 10 or so months, I started out by buying a 500/4 mk1 at a really good price. Then I saw a 400/2.8ISmk1 on the local forums, confirmed the sale of my 500/4 and pre-bought the 400. Well, it turns out the original buyer for the 500 backed out and left me with a measly 100 bucks deposit... and I was the proud owner of a 400 + 500 combo.

Easy, Sigma 200-500 f/2.8

I kid i kid.. if you shoot low light concert stuff my first thought is that losing 1 stop of speed will kill you.

What about something like the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8? You'd gain the wider end, while also staying at f/2.8, You could perhaps go for that and a second body (for quicker switching) OR you could use the 120-300 with a 1.4x TC when you need longer length.

The 200-400 is fantastic i mean, but im not sure its good for what you want it for, f/4-5.6 in low light is pretty slow, even with the 1DX's excellent high ISO performance. Can you share an example of how low light we're talking? What ISO are you typically at?

.

Headshotzx wrote in post #18213106
The problem is that depending on the venue, sometimes (the 400) is a little too tight if I'm at side-stage, such as shooting a conductor of an orchestra for example, and sometimes I fumble and lose shots because I placed the 1.4x or 2x TC on and don't have time to change out. But then again, when 400mm is the ideal focal length, the shots are brilliant in the situation.

Your position is fixed (or at least not able to be changed readily), and your subject(s) expand and contract on a continual basis throughout the performances. As a wildlife photographer, I can relate to these challenges. Seems like a zoom is a no-brainer based on these shooting conditions and the subject matter.

.

That is why pros have a second body with a 70-200/2.8 on it.
It is as simple as that

CheshireCat wrote in post #18213504
That is why pros have a second body with a 70-200/2.8 on it.
It is as simple as that

Yeah, but the OP doesn't seem to have any need to shoot anything in the 70-200mm range. At least he didn't express any such need.

Based on what he explained in the 3rd paragraph of his post, his needs seem to range from slightly less than 400mm all the way up to 800mm.

.

you could probably add a 120-300f2.8 and a 5DIII for the cost to go to the 200-400mm...or go to something crazy like a 200mm f2 instead...it seems like you need low-light, so not sure why you want to consider something that would be f5.6 the only time it would be an advantage over what you have

Good points, folks. Really helpful. I appreciate your responses.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18213559
Yeah, but the OP doesn't seem to have any need to shoot anything in the 70-200mm range. At least he didn't express any such need.

Based on what he explained in the 3rd paragraph of his post, his needs seem to range from slightly less than 400mm all the way up to 800mm.

.

Tom is half-right here. I do often borrow another 5D3 and use it with my 70-200, and I did try putting a 1.4x on that (100-320mm ish + 400 2.8 / 500 4). Problem there is that I require the wider 70mm in local concert halls to do the full stage shots from different angles (while I have a PW'ed 50mm remote from back of audience).

A lot of my subject matter is in the 300 - 500mm range. That's where I get the solo shots, duets, trios. The 70-200 handles section and full-band or full-choir shots. I realised I had to juggle the 1.4x around a bit too much, at the cost of annoying audience members with some noise at times, and losing moments.

DreDaze wrote in post #18213576
you could probably add a 120-300f2.8 and a 5DIII for the cost to go to the 200-400mm...or go to something crazy like a 200mm f2 instead...it seems like you need low-light, so not sure why you want to consider something that would be f5.6 the only time it would be an advantage over what you have

I might have over-exaggerated the low-light aspect. Most concert venues where I am are pretty well lit such that a 100-400 might do the trick, but the fall-off nearer the corners are insane. That's where I might encounter ISO4000, f/2.8, 1/125, for example. Pretty ok for static symphonies, but not ideal if the choir starts dancing or the violinists go berserk with their bowing.

Oftentimes I'm getting decent tungsten stage lighting - ISO2k, 1/250, f/2.8.

I used to try 2x TCs on my 400 and 500 to get f/8 and pray that the CU headshots are decent. High risk high yield I guess

I don't have the capacity to handle two larger lenses at the same time. A 70-200 with a larger white is okay, but not 120-300 + 400, or 120-300 + 500. We often need to use monopods because we might be allowed a certain amount of room to move a few steps along blocked off seat areas in concert halls, so a tripod is not ideal at times.

I would not trade a 400 2.8 for a 560 5.6. (I can't afford either lens, BTW.) Shutter speed and/or ISO will suffer. That may affect your results more than the change in lenses.

Headshotzx wrote in post #18213648
Good points, folks. Really helpful. I appreciate your responses.

A lot of my subject matter is in the 300 - 500mm range. That's where I get the solo shots, duets, trios. The 70-200 handles section and full-band or full-choir shots. I realised I had to juggle the 1.4x around a bit too much, at the cost of annoying audience members with some noise at times, and losing moments.

.

What about an APS-C body like a 7DII? Simply demount the 1DX and put the 7DII, less juggling than a TC and less weight

Good point - but only if the light is good to very good.

I own both the 1DX and 7D2 and the 7D2 really shines when the light is just right - under all other conditions the 1DX does a better job for me.

Note I am only speaking for use with long (400-800mm) prime lenses here, if you start using extenders/zooms then the 1DX gets even better IMO.

Just my experience with my 2 Big Whites and a small one

I would be hesitant to give up the stop of light. Any chance you could rent/borrow the 200-400 or even a 100-400 to see if the loss of the stop or two of light is acceptable to you?

I have both, but I shoot sports, so need the shutter speed. If the light is even questionable, I take the 2.8. The 2x4 is wonderful when the light is good though.

johnf3f wrote in post #18216041
Good point - but only if the light is good to very good.

I own both the 1DX and 7D2 and the 7D2 really shines when the light is just right - under all other conditions the 1DX does a better job for me.

Note I am only speaking for use with long (400-800mm) prime lenses here, if you start using extenders/zooms then the 1DX gets even better IMO.

Just my experience with my 2 Big Whites and a small one

TBH I'd really hope the 1DX does a better job given the immense price difference

Yes the price difference is scary. Frankly the 7D2 represents far better value for money but if you want that bit extra it costs!