Which one and why?

I've decided to add either the 400 2.8 or the 500 4.0 in the next few months. Mostly for wildlife, but may see some sports action. I ruled the 600 out since it's tough to handhold and I want the OPTION to do this (it will spend time on a tri or mono).

I understand that the 400 takes both Canon TCs very well and that the 500 takes the 1.4 TC well.

Which one would you get and why? Would you suggest another brand or stick with Canon?

I don't think you're going to hand-hold the 400 f/2.8. It weighs 11.8 pounds, about the same as the 600mm f/4 L.

Scottes wrote in post #8353278
I don't think you're going to hand-hold the 400 f/2.8. It weighs 11.8 pounds, about the same as the 600mm f/4 L.

Believe it or not, you can handhold this big monster of a lens quite effectively. I have the 40 2.8, and did not even own a tripod until about 3 months ago. I used the lens handheld to make many decent images. Yes, it is very big & heavy, but that works in it's favor to some degree, as all that mass tends to stabilize it a bit. All that being said, I sure am glad to finally have a tripod!

As far as which one, I really don't think you can go wrong with either. Perhaps it depends on what and how you shoot. I know several guys who are almost exclusively bird photographers. If you primarily shoot birds, then the 500 is probably better. For that matter, you'd want a crop body if birds are your thing.

If you shoot both birds and large mammals such as deer and bighorn sheep, then the 400 may be a slightly better choice. There are times when you'll enjoy shooting large mammals that allow you to get quite close, and in those situations you'll be very glad to be able to fit more into the frame.

Here's an image of a Coyote, taken in Yellowstone a few weeks ago (attached). It was with the 400, on a full frame 5D. It's uncropped - if I'd had a 500, I wouldn't have been able to fit enough of his head into the pic to make a good image. This has also happened with Grizzlies, Elk, Moose, Sheep - you name it. Too much focal length can present difficulties at times. But remember, most of the time we want more focal length, not less.

Another thing to consider is what body you plan to use. If you use a 40 or 50D, then the 400 may be best, as your effective focal length with the 400 will be 640mm - and that's without any extender on there! If you're using a 5D, then maybe the 500 is a better all-around choice.

So, I suppose there are many factors to consider, but no clear answer. Whichever one you choose to go with, you're going to love the IQ it provides - a world of difference compared to the zooms.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

For my two cents I think I would recommend the 400. The reason is that the 500 will work with the 1.4tc in full autofocus and this gets you to somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 plus the crop body effect. The 400 will autofocus with both of the tc's and like Tom said it is helpful to have the smaller lens for the bigger wildlife. This would give you 400, 560 with the 1.4, and 800 with the 2.0.

I know I will be looking seriously at the 400 in the future.