IPT
Active member
So as some of you may have gathered from my other thread I am seriously considering a MAJOR upgrade to my glass arsenal. Living in Alaska there is really a lot of opportunity for wildlife photography. I go to Denali annually, and also make trips locally near Anchorage where moose are around, and many birds too.
My current line up is a 7D and and a 1Ds Mark 3 (which I'm half considering selling to get a 5D mark 3-the 1Ds as nice as it was may have been one of my biggest purchase mistakes).
Anyway, my go to travel wildlife lens is a 300mm F4 IS lens often with a 1.4 MII teleconverter. If feasible and reasonable (working the wildlife from the road, or doing a dedicated hike/bike to a specific location for wildlife photography) I have and will haul in an old original model non-IS 300mm F2.8 lens in lew of the F4.
That system has worked quite well, except I find myself nearly always cropping my images. So, if I can get myself to part with the ridiculous amount of cash it's going to take I'm looking for a longer focal length in my glass arsenal.
I'm currently leaning toward the 500mm F4 IS MII. Rational, it's longer than 300/ 1.4 tele combo but not by too much. If I look at most of my images some are almost framed well. This focal length gives me the ability to shot without the tele but gets me a little tighter composition. Without the tele I should see a tiny image quality gain as well. It'll also give me IS for those windy days or just to help with dealing with the tremendous focal lenght on crop body. I'll also still have the option to throw on the tele to get me much tighter when I need it. The lens is also only about 1 lbs more than my current non IS 300 F2.8.
Option 2: 600mm F4. Rapidly falling out of favor. It's considerably heavier, more expensive, and may actually be too much lens for a fair portion of my shooting. There would be times it'd be killer to have but in the grand scheme of things I think it might be a little too much except in a minority of scenarios.
Option 3: A 400mm F 2.8. Would give me about the same range I have now but at F2.8 without the Tele. Images might be a little sharper, could shoot in low light. Thing is I know I want a little more focal length so I would likely be using the tele. Doesn't seem to make sense to me to buy a Super telephoto lens knowing I'll be putting a tele converter on it often. The pro is I would have a 400mm for those times I don't need to super tele. However, I figure the 300 F4 is not that heavy so I'd take it with the 500mm to cover that shorter range anyway (or my 70-200 F 2.8 with a 1.4). I've read some mixed thoughts about the 400mm staying sharp with the Teleconverter too. Most of what I've read is pretty unanimous about the 500mm and 600mm taking a 1.4 with very little IQ loss but not so with the 400mm F2.8.
So, what have you guys experienced or heard regarding this topic? A quick internet search reveals it's a common question. For the most part what I've read seems to put the nod toward the 500mm as the sweet spot. Especially the MII version that is sharper and lighter than the original model. Jeeze, to think my lens will be worth more than the SUV I drive to get to the shooting spot - yikes.
My current line up is a 7D and and a 1Ds Mark 3 (which I'm half considering selling to get a 5D mark 3-the 1Ds as nice as it was may have been one of my biggest purchase mistakes).
Anyway, my go to travel wildlife lens is a 300mm F4 IS lens often with a 1.4 MII teleconverter. If feasible and reasonable (working the wildlife from the road, or doing a dedicated hike/bike to a specific location for wildlife photography) I have and will haul in an old original model non-IS 300mm F2.8 lens in lew of the F4.
That system has worked quite well, except I find myself nearly always cropping my images. So, if I can get myself to part with the ridiculous amount of cash it's going to take I'm looking for a longer focal length in my glass arsenal.
I'm currently leaning toward the 500mm F4 IS MII. Rational, it's longer than 300/ 1.4 tele combo but not by too much. If I look at most of my images some are almost framed well. This focal length gives me the ability to shot without the tele but gets me a little tighter composition. Without the tele I should see a tiny image quality gain as well. It'll also give me IS for those windy days or just to help with dealing with the tremendous focal lenght on crop body. I'll also still have the option to throw on the tele to get me much tighter when I need it. The lens is also only about 1 lbs more than my current non IS 300 F2.8.
Option 2: 600mm F4. Rapidly falling out of favor. It's considerably heavier, more expensive, and may actually be too much lens for a fair portion of my shooting. There would be times it'd be killer to have but in the grand scheme of things I think it might be a little too much except in a minority of scenarios.
Option 3: A 400mm F 2.8. Would give me about the same range I have now but at F2.8 without the Tele. Images might be a little sharper, could shoot in low light. Thing is I know I want a little more focal length so I would likely be using the tele. Doesn't seem to make sense to me to buy a Super telephoto lens knowing I'll be putting a tele converter on it often. The pro is I would have a 400mm for those times I don't need to super tele. However, I figure the 300 F4 is not that heavy so I'd take it with the 500mm to cover that shorter range anyway (or my 70-200 F 2.8 with a 1.4). I've read some mixed thoughts about the 400mm staying sharp with the Teleconverter too. Most of what I've read is pretty unanimous about the 500mm and 600mm taking a 1.4 with very little IQ loss but not so with the 400mm F2.8.
So, what have you guys experienced or heard regarding this topic? A quick internet search reveals it's a common question. For the most part what I've read seems to put the nod toward the 500mm as the sweet spot. Especially the MII version that is sharper and lighter than the original model. Jeeze, to think my lens will be worth more than the SUV I drive to get to the shooting spot - yikes.
Last edited:
