600 VR and 2nd Lens option advise
I investigating my options for making a shift in my gear a bit and wonder what you folks thought about the idea.
I currently shot with a Nikon 500 f4 AFS II (non VR) as my main lens and find I'm often putting on a teleconverter (1.7 mostly and sometimes 1.4) to reach my subjects (mostly due to National Park regulations where I shot and guide).
Given that fact the 600 f4 VR draws my eye. So thats question one, is a 600 f4 VR that much better than a 600 f4 AFS II that VR and the better resolution/adjustments for digital are worth the addition $3k-4k price. It will always be on a big Gitzo and a full Wimberly II.
So then the next part is I need a secondary lens when subjects move in close. I have a 70-300 for my clients to use but I'm not fond of it at the long end. I also have a 300 f4 that I bought for BIF's but I find I like the 500 f4 better for that so its not used much. A zoom would really be handy and more useful.
I'm thinking about selling the 300 for the new Sigma OS 50-500 for the flexibility to handhold on a second body but at f6.3 I fear those nice blurred backgrounds I love with the f4 will suffer. So the 200-400 comes to mind to give me that flexibility and great IQ with the ability to put a 1.4TC on to cover the range between the 200-400 and the 600. The downside having to put up two tripods to have both available in the high action times like the Elk Rut. I would consider putting on the 200-400 strap on the lens and when I shot putting it over the 600 on the wimberly to handhold.
So that being the case, and money not really being a huge issue what would you do on both cases? (I'm young and self employed so looking for big biz purchases to cut taxes isn't too hard to justify a $12,000 purchase.)