Experience going from 100-400 to 500 prime?

I currently photograph birds with a 7D and 100-400. I'm lusting after a 500mm but have some questions given the cost and my usual shooting style - hiking with lots of hand-held shots of BIF. Of course, I often would like more reach and I've read about the wonderful quality of the 500mm f4, which I could also use with a 1.4 converter. I'd love to hear from those who have gone from something like the 100-400 to the 500 and how that affected their bird photography. I have lots of specific questions, but let me leave it that general for now.
Thanks.

I have shot similar focal length lenses, 300L F4 IS and 400L F5.6 + converter, before jumping to the 500L. The difference is night and day. With your 100-400, you can just take a stroke in the park and point your lens at will whenever you see some activities. With the 500L, you can't. That's because the size and the weight of the lens. Also, the focal length gives you a very narrow angle of view. Is really hard to use it to spot your subjects. Even if you could, you would have a hard time keeping it steady and placing the AF point on the subject, without causing the body to AF something else. A slight movement to the right or left, you can misplace the AF point. When the AI servo is engaged, the AF system will change focus.

I did it once mainly shooting handheld in Central Park. It was a very tiring experience. I like to be more mobile and I use a monopod and a full gimbal head to support the 500L. The flash is mounted on the hot shoe. I could still hike for hours with it and less tiring. Because the minimum focus distance of the lens is something like 9ft, it is very, very difficult to use it in a dense vegetation area.

Because of the excellent optics and the reach you get, you get more good shots with it than with your 100-400. You don't need to be that close anymore. A 50% crop shot from the lens is still usable and you could hardly tell the difference.

I did exactly that about a year ago and while I have no regrets I sometimes wonder if I enjoyed photography more when I was just hiking around with the 100-400mm. The 500mm is a beast compared to the 1-4 but I have hiked dozens of miles with it on a monopod and a RRS mh-01 head so it can be done but it is tiring on your shoulder. I personally wouldn't want to hike more than a couple miles with it on my tripod. The lens is much more of a specialized use lens than the 1-4 and whenever you take it out it is a bit more of a production than just grabbing the 1-4 and hitting the trail. It will get you some shots that you normally wouldn't get but it will also cost you some shots because of the narrow field of view and minimum focus distance so it is somewhat of a trade off there.

I started out with the 100-400 and shot with it exclusively for about two and a half years. There's no doubt that the focal length flexibility is nice to have but since getting the 500L two years ago I've used the 100-400 maybe once. That was at Gatorland in Florida where the birds are many times incredibly close and an easy place to cart along gear. Since I hike with my 500/MK II/Wimberly II/Tripod/Ground Pod combo it's not practical or worth the effort to include the 100-400. I personally have no problem with the fixed focal length and narrow FOV. I compensate by working at getting myself where I need to be to best photograph the birds I'm after on a given day. For example, when using a camo drape or blind I make sure I'm set up at a distance from the best perches that allows me to get the scale I want with some flex room for action that might take place. I admit there are times when the birds will move closer than is ideal for 500mm but that's the exception and a minor downside I can live with.

The 500 is an incredible lens and fits my needs well. The bokeh, contrast and clarity it contributes are a thing of beauty. I agree that a long hot summer morning carrying it for three miles and crawling a few hundred feet with it as well can be a bit tiring, but I never regret the effort. I consider it a good weekend workout. Which brings me to the upper body workout of hand holding the 500. If your upper body strength is good you will have no problem hand holding the 500 for flight work. You'll develop a technique for holding and resting, but be forewarned it's no 100-400 and 3-4 hours of it will be tiring.

I've been told that my photos improved noticeably as soon as I got the 500. I agree that the quality of the glass was visible but I like to think that my techniques and planning improved as well. Good luck and keep us posted when you give into the gnawing temptation.

Hiking, 500 f4 and handheld is a combination I would only attempt if I were Chuck Norris. My friend went from using a 100-400 to a 500 f4 for birding. The extra weight (of the camera, plus tripod, plus gimbal head) was just far too much for her. She's now switched to a 300 f2.8 and a monopod (which is the same setup as I use).

Thanks for the replies. Lots of trade-offs here. I think I have to find a way to try a 500 before deciding whether to buy.

SteveHS wrote in post #11413609
Thanks for the replies. Lots of trade-offs here. I think I have to find a way to try a 500 before deciding whether to buy.

You could rent one:
http://www.lensrentals​.com …ephoto/canon-500mm-f4l-is

I hike with mine all the time. I carry it in a kinesis long lens case with the optional backpack straps. It holds the 500mm plus attached camera plus 1.4 TC. It also has a pocket on the side for whatever else you might want to bring. I tried mounting my tripod to the kinesis but it seemed to throw the balance off so I carry the tripod-monopod over my shoulder. Once you get past the learning curve you will be astounded by the quality when compared to a 100-400. I also own the 300mm f 2.8 and I used to use it with a 2X TC before I got my 500mm. The AF speed and IQ on the 500mm is considerably better then the 300mm f 2.8 used with a 2X TC.

Having had the 100-400 also and the 500 I sold the 100-400,cause I never used it anymore after getting the 500. Its a great piece of glass and the IQ is unbeatable,a prime lens will ALWAYS be sharper than a zoom. Get the 500 and dont waste your time on anything else you wont regret it one bit .

Another option to consider and one that has worked for me is the 400 f4 DO. It is sharper than the 100-400 and since you already have a 1.4, you'll have a pretty good reach, plus less weight than the 500. At my age I don't hike anymore, but for me the weight of the 500 or 600 ( which I have) is a chore just getting from the house to the blind. When I do go afield, the 400 is the lens of choice.

I shoot with both.

I did not go from the 100-400mm to the 500mm though. I had the 500mm f/4L first and added the 100-400mm

I did go from a Sigma 50-500mm to a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX HSM though, and that was a similar switch to what you ask about.
Image quality escalated by leaps and bounds.
Adding IS with the EF 500mm f/4L IS brought keeper ratio much higher still.

For me, trekking with the big prime on a tripod or mono pod slung over the shoulder was not a huge issue. (I guess I'm Chuck Norris ) However, I do like the ability to pack a lightweight flexible zoom as well. Sometimes, the shot gets too close.

So I got the 100-400mm to go WITH the 500mm prime, and usually shoot both at the same time, with two bodies.

I did this exact thing. That extra 100mm seems like a world of difference.

I don't hike with the lens, but do carry it around on short walks (1 mile or less) and hand-hold it the whole time.

I guess it ultimately boils down to if you feel you need the extra reach. The 500mm is the workhorse lens in wildlife photography but obviously the weight is a consideration for your style of photography.

For me...going from the 400mm prime to the 500mm was a no brainer. I rarely use my 400mm now since purchasing the 500mm over a year ago. I mainly use a tripod with my style of photography so the weight was never a consideration. I now hand hold the 500 for in-flights and have no problems finding my target in the viewfinder...of course, I manily photograph Bald Eagles. To me the IQ from both lens's is the same but I wanted that extra reach and be able to use an extender and not be at f/8.

I think with any piece of gear you purchase you have to get used to it and with enough practice you can learn how to take advantage of it's limitations.

I have never doubted why I purchased my 500mm f/4L.

I would prefer having to much reach (which never seems to happen ) rather than not having enough.

I'm considering the jump from the 100-400 to the 600mm. Anyone have any experience with this behemoth? Good, bad, ugly?