Poss lens change

Ok guys and gals let me have it.... Tell me what you think...

I think I am going to sell my 400 5.6L and buy a 300 2.8L

I already own the 2x and the 1.4x and figure this will give me an awesome advantage over my 400 5.6. I will be able to use the 2x and maintain AF at 600mm f5.6 and even use the 1.4x stacked and maintain a workable AF at 840 f8 when you have good light.

I still want to get the 500 f4 but it is taking me forever to save for it.. Just throwing the ideas out there for some opinions....

go for it. i am sure that you will love the 300 2.8 and even though it is heavier, it is still handholdable which is good. i think that i will end up doing a similar swap because as much as i want the 500, it is way too rich for my blood...

Thats exactly what I did and with no regrets, I went with the Non-IS version, if you plan on getting IS that only sweetens the deal. I loved the 400 5.6L but the 300 2.8L is just incredible.

The 400 f/5.6L works nicely with a non-reporting 1.4x TC making for a 560mm with working AF. Cost: $86

If you are planning on using it with a TC most of the time (such as for wildlife), I'd say to keep on saving for a 400 f/2.8 or 500 f/4. Looking at your galleries (very nice BTW), I would think you'd find 300mm too short.

I just don't find 300mm that much different from 200mm that I would consider dropping $3K to $4K on a 300 f/2.8L. YMMV and it's a fine lens, although substantially more....... well............. substantial than the 400 f/5.6L.

At the end of the day, all of these are excellent. Get what you want, take pictures and be happy.

After much thought I have decided that I will hold out for the 500.... I was out shooting this morning and as usual I had to stack my converters to get the image I was looking for. That being said loosing 100mm is not going to help me at all!

reewik wrote in post #2090513
After much thought I have decided that I will hold out for the 500.... I was out shooting this morning and as usual I had to stack my converters to get the image I was looking for. That being said loosing 100mm is not going to help me at all!

You seem to be wise beyond your age, Eric.
Any time you start mounting TC's on a lens, you are onto a compromise of some sort or another.
If you need FL because you are into wildlife photography in a very focused way, I think you should aim to get the lens that will get the job done natively.

If you want a versatile super telephoto, a bit of sports, some portraits, birds here and there, relatively good portability.....then the 300 f/2.8 might be the best there is. Such being the case, on occasions when pressed for FL, you can even place a 2XTC on it for a viable 600mm.

If I remember right, your 400 f/5.6 is a very fine lens. You could gain some operational advantages with the 100-400. However, for a decisive upgrade, it looks like you just need to get the 500.