Advice sought on Canon long lens purchase

[Simon Mairs]

Hi all,

First post, and I suspect this might be a bit lengthy :p. I need some advice from those more experienced than myself.

Here's my situation. Photography is my only hobby, and three years ago I switched to shooting wildlife exclusively because I love it so much. I don't have a specific wildlife subject I "go" for - anything that moves gets my blood racing - big game, small mammals, birds etc.

The last 2 1/2 years I've spent using a Canon 100-400L. It's been a great lense for me that I've learned a lot with it. But I shoot 80% of my shots at 400mm, and because the results are just "good" at f5.6, I'm often stopping down to f7.1 or f8 for maximum quality. Combined with the fact that I shoot with a 50D (great camera, but poorer low ISO performance) and that means I miss a lot of shots because the shutter speed is too low. I either get blurry shots because I can't stop the action, or I shoot at f5.6 and am never quite happy with the sharpness, or the ISO gets too high for the shot to be useful to print. I'm not in the market for a new camera - in my opinion the money is better spent on lenses.

I have two kind of scenarios where I go out with the camera. Sometimes after work I head out to local parks (I live in Calgary) and hunt wildlife there. For these situations 400mm is often enough, but I'm always struggling with the low shutter speed with the 100-400mm. So one of the lenses I am thinking of is the 300 2.8L IS with the teleconverters. I reckon that would give me an excellent 400 f4 and a good 600 f5.6/excellent 600 f8.

The other times I go out, I head out to the mountains or foothills. For this I tend to need more reach to get into "bear zone" or the big predatory birds. Ideal here would be a 500 f4 with the 1.4 teleconverter for the added reach.

In the ideal world, I'd go and buy both right now! But I don't have that kind of money - it will take 4-6 years of saving for just one of those lenses let alone both. So here's my problem. Do I go for the 300 2.8 and teleconverters, and do without the 500 for 4-6 years, or do I save a bit longer and make the first purchase the 500L and then go without the 300 for another 4-5 years? Either way gets me a great lense, I know. But at the same time, once I am committed to one of those two, I miss out on the advantages of the other. Is one route better than the other and why? Does anyone out there have any thoughts about which way would be wisest to go? Anyone been in this situation? What did you choose and why, and what were your experiences?

Thanks in advance for your wisdom! Absolutely love this forum btw, learning a lot here.

Simon

[William Malacarne]

Have you considered getting the 300 f/4 and the 500 mm. The 300 is just under $1300(USA) and works very well with the 1.4 TC.

Bill

[Scott Grant]

i was in the same boat as yourself and went the 500mm route. i don't know if i'll ever get enough reach?

i already have a 300mmf4 that i use mostly for BIF's.

[Simon Mairs]

Have you considered getting the 300 f/4 and the 500 mm. The 300 is just under $1300(USA) and works very well with the 1.4 TC.

Bill

Thanks for the idea. I thought about the 300 F4, but I shoot more often at the 400mm length, and the 300 F4 + 1.4 teleconverter basically gets me a very good 420mm f5.6. That's not enough of an advantage over the 100-400 zoom that I have to warrant the outlay of the new lense. That's why I was looking at the 300 2.8L IS, as with the 1.4 teleconverter I get an excellent 420mm f4 and even have the head-room in sharpness to use the 2x teleconverter for a 600m f5.6 (practically probally an f8 if I go for excellent sharpness).

[Jamie Strickland]

went through the same thing, I got the 500, kept the 100-400 and never regretted it, still use teleconvertors quite often with the 500 and wish I could afford an 800 :D

[Robert Amoruso]

Simon,

Having owned a 300 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and currently the 600 f/4, I would suggest the 500mm f/4. All around this will be your best bet. When I owned a 300mm f/2.8 (wish I still did) I found it to be a good niche lens but rarely picked it over the 500mm f/4. Now I only have the 600mm and sometimes find it would be useful but then again, the 100-400mm fills that void.

The 500mm and the 100-400mm will fill most of your needs. Good luck.

[Jack Faller]

I used the 100-400 for a couple of years and was in the same situation. I think you'll gain only marginally from the 300 + TC combo. I went for the 500 f/4 a year and 1/2 ago and been pleased with it. With a 1.4 TC you'll get the added reach and the potential of handholding [IMO the 600 is too much weight, but some people do it].
I would hang on until I could get the 500.

[Jeff Donald]

Since wildlife is the only thing you shoot, I would probably go for the 300mm f/2.8 and a couple of TC's. I'd sell the 100~400mm and either put the money towards the 500mm or 600mm (depending on how strong your back is vs. your wallet). The 300mm with and without TC is a good BIF lens and is still very sharp wide open with the 2x TC from Canon. You might also need to consider a lens or two to fill the 100mm to 300mm range. The 85mm f/1.8 and the 200mm f/2.8 are both great lenses. The 200mm also works with the 1.4x TC very well indeed. I hope this helps.

The other consideration is a tripod and head either way you go, because you're unlikely to have much success hand holding a 500mm f/4 or 300mm f/2.8 with a TC for very long.

[Chris Sloan]

I used the 100-400 for a couple of years and was in the same situation. I think you'll gain only marginally from the 300 + TC combo.

Just wanted to post a strong disagreement with this statement. I used the 100-400 for a couple of years and switched to the 300 2.8 + TC setup this year. It's like night and day.

[alain vandal]

I was hoping for a 500mm f4, but at 2,000.00 more, I opt for the 300mm f2.8 and TC. As I don't do exclusively bird photography, but also mammal, the 300mm are more versatile (for the price), at the beginning and end of the day it give you more speed use alone.

[Roger Clark]

Simon,
To add to all the ideas, I own the 100-400, 300 f/4 L IS, 300 f/2.8L IS. and 500 f/4 L IS. I bought the 300 f/2.8 after the 500 f/4 (about 6 years after).

I rarely use the 100-400. In fact I pretty much retired the 100-400 and got the 300 f/4 plus a 1.4x TC. I find it gives better image quality, is smaller, lighter and faster AF than the 100-400.

My lens of choice for big mammals to small bird is the 500. I've carried it all over the world. But it is (for me) a much larger production. I can hand hold it but only for a short time. I do much better with a carbon fiber tripod and full wimberly. That adds to the amount of gear to haul around and set up. Carrying the 500 on your shoulder on the tripod is hard on the shoulder and difficult to do very far (at least for me- 5 foot 9 and 175 pounds in reasonable shape--I'll do a 10 mile day hike into 12,000 foot mountains with 40+ pounds of gear). I bought the 300 for more portability. I can hand hold it much longer and can use a much smaller tripod with a sidekick, thus vastly reducing weight and bulk. Both the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4 are superb optically and blows away the 100-400.

Personally, here is what I would do: immediately replace the 100-400 with a 300 f/4 L IS. I bet you'll get better image quality (more detail on subject) with the 300 f/4 (at 300mm) than the 100-400 at 400mm.

Start saving for the 500 f/4. If while you are saving, if you decide the weight and/or cost is too much, go with the 300 f/2.8. Remember, if you are saving for the 500, add to the cost about $1500 for a good carbon fiber tripod and gimbal head. Try and use/borrow/rent a 500 + tripod even for a half hour and see what you are in for.

Roger

[Don Lacy]

I started with the 300 f/4 and 1.4TC as my main lens set up and spent two years saving for the 500 f/4 and have to agree with Roger on the usefulness and quality of the 300 f/4 I think it is Canons most underrated lens.

[Simon Mairs]

Thank you all for helpful advice.

I definitely see a leaning towards the 500L in this thread which is helpful - I can see that "go for the focal length you need" seems to be the main emphasis.

Thanks Roger for your post which I found especially informative. You reminded me to factor in the extra support costs of the 500L (i.e. decent tripod + head), which, tbh makes the saving time even longer for me! I think I will follow your suggestion: save for the 500L now, but if along the way I find a really good deal on 300 2.8L IS, then I will go for that and the teleconverters to cover the gap in the meantime. I would consider selling the 100-400L if I got the 300 to help fund the 500 I think. If I can get the 300 and 500 by whatever means possible, I will be sorted for 90% of my wildlife photography needs!

Thanks all, further comments welcome, but this has already been very helpful.

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

It's interesting to hear folks say this. I've recently been comparing rental Canon lenses before buying and I had a lot more success with the 100-400mm than with the 300 f/4, with and without the 1.4x teleconverter (mostly handheld though. Results might be different for those who like to shoot off tripods.). I've seen some folks do amazing work with the 300 f/4, so maybe I had a dud or maybe I was just doing something wrong; but I definitely got better results with the 100-400. I still have to try the 400 f/5.6 though.

There's also one advantage to the 100-400 you don't have with a prime. Even although I almost always shot full out at 400mm, I often used the short end to find the bird with the wider field of view before zooming in. Perhaps I'll get better with more practice but I found I had quite a bit of difficulty locating the bird at 300 mm and even more at 300 mm times 1.4.

[RichardLaBella]

Yes, acquiring a BIF with a 400 or 500 is a challenge. Prior to getting the 500 I used the acquire & zoom method & was initially frustrated with not being able to home in on a bird with the 500+1/4Tx. However, I found out that with a bit of practice you can instinctively point the lens at the bird once you see it, that is acquire the bird with your eyes & then point & shoot. This is much like the accuracy you can get shooting a gun, arrow, or slingshot with practice - it gets to be instinctive as to where you point & shoot.

The caveat as mentioned earlier is that you must have a good gimballed platform which means a great carbon fiber tripod and either a Mongoose, Wimberly or Ballhead/Sidekick combo to give you the smooth motion needed to shoot.

I went from "L" zooms to primes & was astounded with the difference in IQ. Now I shoot almost exclusively with the 500 & the 1.4Tx. Haven't used the 2.0Tx in about a year as I didn't like the reduction in IQ & speed.

[Jim Neiger]

This topic has been discussed many times. My advice is get the 500mm F4. You will never regret it. I also own the 300mm F2.8 and 100-400mm, but the 500mm is almost always my lens of choice.

[Jay Gould]

No way can I pass on providing my two cents :p

Mate, I went throuh exactly what you are going through less than one year ago.

I sold the 100-400 and bought the 300 f/2.8 which I can use with a 2x and haven't looked back.

With the 300 f/4 you are only going to be able to use the 1.4x and I can tell you that there is absolutely no doubt that you are going to be sorry because the reach simply will not be there.

300 x 2 x .6 = 960mm; 300 x 1.4 x .6 = 672; 500 x 1.4 x .6 = 1120. The is a mile between 672 and 960 and two miles between 672 and 1120!!

Having said that, the other question you need to ask is how much HH are you going to do?

I did a fantastic 3-day workshop with Jim Neiger on how to HH a big lens; I was using the 300 and a specially designed brace - a Neiger special. Then I did a 3-day workshop with Capt. James on using the tripod and also HH.

Frankly, I can't image trying to regularly shoot BIF using a tripod. The Neiger HH methods blows away a tripod. IMHO

Last week I was on the top of a mountain for three hours shooting condors in Bariloche, Argentina with the 300 + 2x. I rarely put the lens down; I am not finding that I have a problem TODAY holding the lens for significant periods of time.

So, while you say you love shooting wildlife, are you going to be using a tripod or HH?

If HH, I would start with the 300 f/2.8 and then graduate to the 500f/4 when and if you are really comfortable HH the 300. That is my plan.

Lets add to the equation: I am 66 going on 67 and not all that muscular - what is your situation - you need to answer this question for yourself?

When I was with Jim and his large muscular arms he handled the 500 as though it was a 300.

I am planning to buy the 500 f/4 when the rumored new Canon 500 f/4 with the improved IS is available.

I am also finding that today it is getting easier to HH the 300 as I am travelling and using the lens for hours at a time - thanks Jim.

When I get the 500 I am guessing that it will see a tripod a lot more than the 300 - thanks James for the tripod lessons - and I will still HH the 500 for shorter periods of time.

I hope this gives you more food for thought - I know it is a big investment.

[Simon Mairs]

Well, this is going to be a necro-post, but it is with a good reason. When I was wrestling with a decision about whether to go with a 300 2.8L or 500L I searched the forums for similar threads. Now that I have resolved my situation, I thought I should come back and update my original post to let everyone know what happened. That way if someone in the future is in the same situation they at least can know what I did and why! If that's not enough reason for the post, then a mod can delete it.

I got really close to buying a 300 2.8L.....I was getting so frustrated with the 400mm limitations and it was stopping me going out with the camera because I knew so much was out of reach (what was the point of finding wildlife when often so much cropping was required that the shots weren't where I wanted them to be?). I nearly bought a 300, then the guy pulled out at the last minute. At the time I was annoyed, but in the end it was a saving grace.

Then lots of stuff changed. We got a little money. We decided to go on a family vacation to Yellowstone (never been before). The wife pointed out that I would go nuts in Yellowstone without a 500.....renting was very expensive for a 3 week vacation.....she suggested I borrow 2 years worth of Christmas and birthday presents and try and get one! What a wife!

So I sold the 100-400L, borrowed 2 years of presents, added it to my savings, and bought a 5 year old (but excellent condition) 500L. Also bought a RRS TVC 33 and Wimberly II.

My conclusions?

The 500L is definitely the right lens. I know now if I had gone for the 300 I would have had more options, but I'd still be waiting for the 500.....and it would have taken a lot longer to boot. Those people who said "wait for the 500" - they were right :D. It's heavy, it's a learning curve, but suddenly a whole new world of photography has been opened up to me. It may be the only wildlife lens I own, but it's going to be all I need for the foreseeable future too. Now I can go out and I've got a good chance to shoot most of what I see, and know that if I get it right the results will be excellent.

One day I might get brave enough to post an image :). Thanks again to all who helped me with my decision making, it was much appreciated.