300 2.8 vs 500 f4

Hello

Up until March this year I had a version 1 Canon 500 f4 IS. I was in the process of doing up a property to sell, so I sold it help out with cash flow.

I've now accepted an offer on the flat which means I'm planning what to replace my old 500 with!

The easy foolproof (as in I know what I'll be getting) is to replace with the version 2 of the 500 and maybe also add a 100-400ii to be used with a 5D3, but part of me thinks that getting a 300 2.8ii, 100-400ii and a 7D2 might be nice, mainly as I'll have a more portable set up for similar performance.

I shoot mainly wildlife, birds and mammals, but also dabble a bit in motorsport too.

Has anyone compared the above and gone in a particular direction? If so, what and why?

Thanks

I sold my 300f/2.8L IS to help fund my 500f/4 II. While I do miss my 300 on occasion, the 500 is more useful to me.
I often carry both the 500 and 100-400 II, and they pair very well.
If you mostly shoot wildlife, it is a hard combo the beat.

Reach is king: It all depends on your distance to subject, and how close you want to get. If you're shooting from a blind and can get super close, the 300 and the 100-400 would be an awesome combo. If you're shooting wild at a distance, on a FF camera both of those lenses bare will be a little short, unless you are intending to use TCs.

100-400: w/ the 1.4, at you're at 560mm f/8 on FF, and 896mm FOV on the APSC. For me personally, the 7D2 + 1.4 + 100-400 at 896mm is a good focal length for birding. f/8 runs out of light quick though, and on the APSC camera you'll start dealing with noise a little sooner.

300 f/2.8: the max you'll get here is 600mm f/5.6 on FF, 960mm FOV on APSC. This would be a fantastic combo, but I'm leery about relying on the 2.0x TC due to the AF performance hit. I personally haven't used this combo, but the lenses I have used it with the impact was noticeable even for stationary subjects in other than perfect lighting. THe great thing is that once you're done shooting long distance birding/wildlife/motor​sports, remove the TCs and you have the sharpest Canon lens that can take stunning shots at f/2.8.

I've recently landed on the 500 f/4 II for birding, and primarily shoot it bare on my 80D. It's a little shorter than the 560mm f/8 and 600mm f/5.6 combos that the other two lenses provide, but being able to shoot at bare f/4 with the optimum sharpness/AF/lowest ISO is a huge benefit. Throw on the 1.4, and you're at 700mm/1,120mm f/5.6. The main negative here is the huge bulk and weight, but you already know what to expect since you've owned the even heavier v1!

I think the 100-400 II is mandatory, so buy that

Choosing between the 500 and 300 is the million dollar question. If you want a shorter/faster capability, the 300 f/2.8 is where it's at. For all out reach, 500 f/4 II.

nellyle wrote in post #18429858
Hello

Up until March this year I had a version 1 Canon 500 f4 IS. I was in the process of doing up a property to sell, so I sold it help out with cash flow.

I've now accepted an offer on the flat which means I'm planning what to replace my old 500 with!

The easy foolproof (as in I know what I'll be getting) is to replace with the version 2 of the 500 and maybe also add a 100-400ii to be used with a 5D3, but part of me thinks that getting a 300 2.8ii, 100-400ii and a 7D2 might be nice, mainly as I'll have a more portable set up for similar performance.

I shoot mainly wildlife, birds and mammals, but also dabble a bit in motorsport too.

Has anyone compared the above and gone in a particular direction? If so, what and why?

Thanks

It really comes down to how you approach wildlife.

While the physical reach is a good thing, the 500 F4L you already know has it, and performs great with a 1.4x TC at 700mm. Great physical reach and still sharp and fast. The MKII is a bit nicer than the MKI too with the weight changes, so it is a great lens.

That said, a 7D2 with a 300 F2.8L II has nearly the same FOV and high pixel density as a full frame and a 500mm lens. But is still shooting at F2.8 and you get the much higher FPS of the 7D2 compared to your 5D3. That's worth considering, because to me, that's even more compact, yet has faster focal-ratio and achieves the same FOV essentially, with 2lbs less weight, yet again, able to shoot at F2.8 with that same FOV. You can use TC's to get to 420mm and 600mm and still have upwards of F5.6. So the point is, you may give up 700mm to 600mm at F5.6 and lose a wee bit of reach, but you gain a wider potential FOV if you want it, the same FOV if you want it, and F2.8 which you didn't have access to.

It also depends on what you're calling mammals & birds. If we're talking big lumbering mammals and huge lumbering birds and you're doing it from maximum distance, then the physically longer lens will suit you more. That said, if you're getting very close to smaller birds, especially fast moving ones, and smaller mammals, especially fast moving ones, you may appreciate a smaller kit that is lighter, if you're getting close via hunting methods (and not just shooting from a car or a park or a big comfy blind). I bring this up because I went from 600mm on full frame & APS-C to using a 300 F4L IS on full frame & APS-C for my birding & wildlife in general because I changed how I approached things and was getting closer. So close that I found my 600mm to be too long for a lot of it. And I super appreciate the light weight, small size and speed of the 300 F4L IS for this. While I'd love to have the 300 F2.8L, it would add to the weight, and I'd stop it down anyways because I don't want F2.8 when I'm really close to a subject (getting half a bird in focus). But F2.8 would be great for distant things in lower light.

So really it comes down to how you do things, what you shoot, and how much weight you want. For me, it's a no brainer, for my purposes I would get the 300 F2.8L IS II if I could. I'd be happy with any old 300 F2.8L with AF actually. They're stupid good lenses and still reaosnable with weight (5lbs or so; compared to a 13lb beast like the 400's). They take TC's very well making them flexible, while still being F2.8 when you need that. So for me, I'd favor that lens over the 500. But, if I were shooting elk and eagles, I know I'd just get the 500 or something for that (but honestly, that's why I have a 600 because for huge lumbering things from max distance, you just need physical reach as you don't need crazy shutter speeds as they're not moving fast; unlike a close range bird that is moving or a fast moving mammal at close range, there you need shutter speed, so having aperture helps).

I think you'd prefer the 300 when doing Moto too.

So I'd lean towards the 300 and a handful of TC's (1.4 & 2.0) and either a 7D2 or 80D as a sidekick to your 5D3. You can fit the 5D3 with a 24-105 or 70-200 as your wide FOV system to compliment the reach system. I never roll with one camera. And that's why I like having full frame & APS-C to help with managing FOV with physical lenses.

+++++++++

Now ALL that said, I just went through your recent Flickr and based on the subject material and your proximity, it seems to me that you will live at maximum focal lengths available. Thus, for your situation, you probably should just get the 500 and a 1.4x TC and consider adding a 7D2 or 80D or 1DIV (unless you're happy with the 1D3, as it's great still!) to get the most pixel density on subject as you're shooting subjects from very far away that are very spooky of humans so you won't be getting close unless you're in a blind or something. So maybe the 500 is best for you based on that.

Very best,

Looking at you pictures, I think 300 for sport and 150-600 for birds.

gonna ruffle some feathers

300 F/2.8 with a 1.4 TC all the way. Being portable and able to move about is King for wildlife....not reach....but reach helps to a point. Quick and nimble, being in Camo gear and being quiet will get you better shots. Plus its a heck of a lot cheaper

I use a 7D2 and 1Dx2 with the 300 and 1.4 tele converters and I dont Miss much rented a 150-600 and loved the reach.

I am getting a 150-600 and going to Alaska next year to photograph grizzlys and browns and other wildlife..we are flying in and hiking...a 500F4 is a non starter when you want to get out there

150-600 if you get a get a good copy is a better way to go than the 100-400 as well...in my opinion. The Siggy and the 1.4 siggy TC and a 7D2 gets you anywhere you want to go....especially on the new sensors

No Brainer

You list wildlife as the main interest, and motorsports as a "dabble'

= 500mm IMHO.

100-400mm will cover your shorter dabbling.


One other option might be a used 120-300mm f/2.8 EX OS. But it's a lot bigger and less flexible than the 100-400mm, and really, these days f/2.8 is much less a requirement for action.

Thanks for the responses, I have to say, I'm leaning towards the 500 again as I know what to expect (but a bit better than what I had before)

Most of the time I'm not close to what I want to shoot.

Another curve ball, and this is pushing the budget a bit, but the 400 2.8ii is a possibility, but at a cost.

Would you be using it on tripod? The 400 f/2.8 is enormously heavy, but w/ TCs you'd have an awesome 560 f/4 and 800 f/5.6.

nellyle wrote in post #18430115
Thanks for the responses, I have to say, I'm leaning towards the 500 again as I know what to expect (but a bit better than what I had before)

Most of the time I'm not close to what I want to shoot.

Another curve ball, and this is pushing the budget a bit, but the 400 2.8ii is a possibility, but at a cost.

Do you want to hand hold often, or is this strictly for use on a mount?

Very best,

Isn't the version 2 400 the same weight as the version 1 500?

I could handhold that all day without an issue.

nellyle wrote in post #18430564
Isn't the version 2 400 the same weight as the version 1 500?

I could handhold that all day without an issue.

8.5lbs, so fairly close. Not the 13lbs of the old 400 F2.8L!

Very best,

Wow, you're right, it actually weighs a little less than the 500 f/4 (8.54 vs 8.49lbs). The 500 f/4 II weighs 1.5 lbs less though

I guess you may not know if it's too much lens until you put it into use; I'd definitely want to rent it first if possible. As with the 300mm discussion though, it's going to come down to what you are shooting and whether or not 400mm + TCs is going to get you where you want in terms of reach. I personally found 400mm + 1.4 TC on APSC barely adequate for small birds (in the wild, not from a blind, mind you).

Choosing one of these is going to be tough, but you're definitely in an an enviable position

Sorry to bump up an old thread, but the sale of my flat completes next Wednesday, so I now have some big choices to make!

I've gone over the choices a thousand times and it's come down to this....... used 500 f4ii and new 100-400ii or used 300 2.8ii and used500 f4i

The sensible part of my brain says 500 and 100-400, the part of my brain that wants two big superteles says 300 and 500!

I'm 80% leaning towards the first option as it offers greater flexibility.

Any thoughts?

nellyle wrote in post #18512035
Sorry to bump up an old thread, but the sale of my flat completes next Wednesday, so I now have some big choices to make!

I've gone over the choices a thousand times and it's come down to this....... used 500 f4ii and new 100-400ii or used 300 2.8ii and used500 f4i

The sensible part of my brain says 500 and 100-400, the part of my brain that wants two big superteles says 300 and 500!

I'm 80% leaning towards the first option as it offers greater flexibility.

Any thoughts?

I have some nice big supertelephotos, and the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is, by far, the most useful lens I have. The others are a Canon 400 f2.8 IS (version 1) and the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6

There are so many images I have taken with the 100-400mm that I never could've gotten with either of the big lenses. It is pretty much what I would consider a mandatory acquisition for you if you want to best capitalize on the wildlife opportunities that come your way.

If I were in your shoes I would get the 500 v2 and the 100-400mm v2, and a 1.4 tele-extender v3 for use with the 500mm.

.