Poll: 400 f2.8 IS USM, 500mm f4, 600mm f4

bieber wrote in post #2877095
Do you have a tripod and gimbal mount? Do you have a monopod? You're probably gonna need them for the 400 2.8 or the 600 f/4. Given the choice, I'd probably take the 500, because it's something that I could still reasonably use handheld, but it wouldn't suck too tremendously with a monopod and flash for night sports.

Gitzo 1327, RRS-55 ballhead, will get a wimberely or somehting if needed.

I have both the 400 2.8 and 500 f/4 and my vote is for the 500 f/4. It's lighter than the 400 and works great for sports. I've shot NFL and College football under the lights with a 500 f/4 and have had awesome results. It's becoming my go to sports lens because of it's lighter weight.

For a Gimbal mount, I recommend the Bogen 3421 Gimbal head. It's 1/4th the cost of a Wimberly and works just as well.

I love the bokeh of the 400 at f2.8 on a full-frame camera.

Of your list, I will have a 500mm eventually. I do motorsports and birding and have found that my 400mm is adequate, but not enough....even with a 1.4x TC. 500mm would put me right where I want to be and it is still portable. On motorsports, I can just back up - most of the time I can get right next to the track and a 200mm lens is too long on occasion.

The 400mm f2.8 isn't even a consideration for me. I'd rather have the 500mm with either a 100-400mm or 70-200mm zoom on another body.

Now, the 300mm f2.8.....that's another story.

Poindexter wrote in post #2878562
Now, the 300mm f2.8.....that's another story.

Word.. The 300 2.8 is next on my list.

I ran the whole gamut of Canon's "supertelephoto" lenses and settled on the 500mm f 4L IS lens. Plenty of image magnification for demanding avian photography but still portable and can be handheld for flying bird images.