Which would you choose?? Given your choice between the Canon 200-400mm f/4 L with a build in 1.4x teleconverter priced at $11,299.00...

Willy Loc: Alaska

Given your choice between the Canon 200-400mm f/4 L with a build in 1.4x teleconverter priced at $11,299.00
(www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html)

Or:

The Canon 500mm f/4L Priced at $10,399.00
(www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754507-USA/Canon_5124B002_500mm_f_4L_EF_IS.html)

Which would you choose???
I'm leaning towards the 200-400.
I like the versatility of the zoom. Unless I'm mistaken the 200-400 has a greater reach.
When using the internal 1.4x converter plus an external 2x converter you'd have a 1120mm lens as opposed to a 1000mm
with the 500 and a 2x converter.
I believe the addition of the 2x on the 200-400 reduces this to a manual focus only lens.
I like the price of the 500mm better and when coupled with a 2x converter the auto focus still works.

I'm curious how other hoggers would choose.

Now I need to get my resume in order and go get a second job to finance one or the other....

djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now

Simple. I prefer to stay MARRIED.

olcoach Loc: Oregon

djtravels wrote:

Simple. I prefer to stay MARRIED.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Selkii Loc: Oakland, CA & Vancouver Island

I'm with you for versatility. No matter what lenses I've owned, I always end up carrying the best ones with the most range.

In reality, however, if I had that kind of discretionary income, I'd take the equipment I have, maybe figure in a new, affordable zoom, and take a photographic holiday through one (or more) of the countries on my bucket list.

It's lovely to dream.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

I would be hard pressed to decide, because in my estimation, paying that much money for a lens is ridiculous unless you're a professional and can get a sponsor or client to pay for it. There are so many other worthwhile things to spend the excess $8000 on, get a $2000 lens that is 95% as good, and then not stay awake nights worrying that you'll lose it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Willy wrote:

Given your choice between the Canon 200-400mm f/4 ... (show quote)

I'd go for the 200-400mm.

halman Loc: Foothills of Colorado

djtravels wrote:

Simple. I prefer to stay MARRIED.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

djtravels wrote:

Simple. I prefer to stay MARRIED.

DJ, you really need to get your priorities STRAIGHT!! :lol:
SS

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

Willy wrote:

Given your choice between the Canon 200-400mm f/4 ... (show quote)

You didn't mention what you shoot and why you need all that reach.

In general I always prefer a prime over a zoom and the 500 is an outstanding lens.
If I had that 500 though I would more likely put the 1.4 on it over the 2x unless I *really* needed the reach.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Swamp Gator wrote:

You didn't mention what you shoot and why you need all that reach.

In general I always prefer a prime over a zoom and the 500 is an outstanding lens.
If I had that 500 though I would more likely put the 1.4 on it over the 2x unless I *really* needed the reach.

I agree with Swamp Gator if you would tell us what you're shooting we could give you better answers.

Willy Loc: Alaska

Swamp Gator wrote:

You didn't mention what you shoot and why you need all that reach.

In general I always prefer a prime over a zoom and the 500 is an outstanding lens.
If I had that 500 though I would more likely put the 1.4 on it over the 2x unless I *really* needed the reach.

Mostly wildlife and Birds in flight.
My dream trip is to go to Bosque Del Apache NWR.

I looked into renting the 500.
It'll cost about $800.00 for two weeks.
The 200-400 is even more...

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

For wildlife I'd prefer the flexibility of the 200-400

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Willy wrote:

Given your choice between the Canon 200-400mm f/4 L with a build in 1.4x teleconverte/500L.
Which would you choose???
I'm curious how other hoggers would choose.

Willy, are you serious?!
If so, good for you!!

Willy, a few considerations. Once over 10k, one needs to leave cost out of it.
Are you a CPS member at gold+ ?
I used to have a 500, and it was to heavy to effectively use handheld. The new 500 is much lighter and can be used for BIF's handheld. If not, it wouldn't take long in a gym to be able to do so.
The 200-400 is even heavier than the old 500. But, it's slightly shorter, making it feel slightly less heavy. Not sure it can be handheld, but again, maybe something that can be cured in the gym.
If it was me, I would probably go with the 200-400 for the tremendous versatality. We know the IQ is pretty much that of a prime. And you can still put a 1.4x behind it and AF with a 5lll and 1d.
If you plan to ONLY tripod it, the weight is a non issue. If you're gonna pack it, make sure it fits into your pack. Good luck.
Willy, is that the Freemont Troll? :lol:
SS

Willy Loc: Alaska

SharpShooter wrote:

Willy, are you serious?! br If so, good for you!! ... (show quote)

Well, its just a dream at this point...I'd almost rather bite the bullet and purchase rather than rent one. Renting seems to expensive for something I can't keep. If I purchase one it would certainly be a lifetime investment.
Yes, that is the Freemont Troll.
For those that are unfamiliar with it...
http://fremont.com/about/fremonttroll-html/

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

When using the internal 1.4x converter plus an external 2x converter you'd have a 1120mm lens as opposed to a 1000mm
with the 500 and a 2x converter.
I believe the addition of the 2x on the 200-400 reduces this to a manual focus only lens.

Double check the 200~400 with the 2x telextender. I have the comparable NIKON setup and Nikon says AF may not work - it does. Also, If you're going to spend LARGE bucks, I would check the prices at Cameta Camera. I have no financial connection but I do buy most of my stuff there and I always root for the smaller guy. Good luck with which ever you choose.