dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Comment. Experience using longer lenses is important. I have a 150-600 that I hardly ever use now. I was not getting good results over 400mm and I know it was not a problem with the lens. It was me. I now use a 2x extender with my 70-200 2.8. It is easier to pack than the 150-600 as well as being more versatile. I am not suggesting the 70-200 for you. I agree that the 100-400 will meet your needs better. For the indoor low light stuff, you are getting the EOS R!!!! Get the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. The stabilization gives you 5 stops!!! Or the 28-70 F/2!!! The thing is a f***ing beast!!!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4 are beasts and heavy, superior quality to any of your other options, but you need to plan on using a tripod with those and it is a lot to lug around in if you are hiking. The 70-200 in my opinion is more of a portrait or close action lens, I certainly think that the 100-400 II is much better suited to the photography you suggest you are interested in. Personally if I could afford the 600 f/4 it would be in my stable of lenses but I would be using it on a tripod with a gimble because I do shoot BIF. I really like the idea of the 400 f/2.8 with both of the third iteration of the tele-extenders.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Even if you are not shooting BIF, a gimbal is vital for a big lens. If you do not have one, one of your hands is always engaged keeping the lens steady. And that can get tiring. The gimbal allows you much more control.

Mike Little Loc: Ozark, Missouri

If a person know what he’s doing he can hold the long lens steady for picture taking an if it was me I’d get the 600mm lens. I have held and shot with an 800 mm mirror reflex lens f 8 an yes it can be done

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

For how many hours? Wildlife can involve a lot of waiting. Also a 800mm mirror lens usually weighs under 2lbs. A 600mm L lens is closer to 7lbs.

And do not try to compare the quality of image between the two lenses. Just do not go there.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

All great options and a tough decision. Although I have not shot with the 400mm 2.8, I do have the 400mm DOII as well as the 600mm II. They are great glass hooked up to either a 1DX or 5DIV. I traveled both to the Galapagos (sans 600) and Quebec (with 600). I'm telling you, the weight of all that gear, plus personal luggage was an actual pain and I refuse to check my camera gear, eventhough I was forced to gate check my Airporter on smaller flights. I was scared to death. I'm getting older, will be 70 next year, and am planning on taking numerous wildlife trips over the next few years. Do I want to carry all that gear along, and I can't afford a caddy and my wife won't carry it all for me. Seriously considering making the change to Sony. An A9 with 100-400 gm plus perhaps the 400mm 2.8 gm with extenders should be all that I need. And for wildlife and fast moving subjects, from what I have read, the AF system on the A9 cannot be equaled. I don't care how big of a sensor you have, if your subject is not in focus, you don't have an image. Also, that this into consideration. For moving subjects, hand holding is by far the most versatile option. Try managing a 400mm f/2.8 for several hours. I don't care how strong you are, the lactic acid will eventually catch up with your, perhaps at a critical moment. Just wandering here, but if you are planning on spending all that money, consider the option of lighter equipment. Good luck.

BradJP Loc: Omaha, NE

I recently purchased the Canon Extender EF 1.4x III, and it works very well with the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II and the Canon 5D Mark IV. Brought this combo to Alaska in August.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

For super long telephoto work like you want to do, f/2.8 is generally not necessary and makes for a bigger, heavier lens. f/2.8 is more for sports shooters who need it for night games and to keep their shutter speed fast for action.

This is the shallow depth of field effect you can expect from f/4 (in this case, the Canon EF 500mm):



In fact, with several f/2 and f/2.8 lenses that I use, I've found myself stopping down more often than not.... f/2.8 can be just too shallow DoF.... and f/4 or f/5.6 is just a bit more forgiving if I miss focus slightly.

For max versatility and convenience when traveling... and since you appear to have the budget for it... you might want to look at the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L Teleconverter. That has a built-in, matched 1.4X teleconverter that can be added with the simple flip of a lever, to make it a 280-560mm f/5.6 lens. In addition, you could use another 1.4X teleconverter with it to make for a nearly 400mm to almost 800mm f/8 effective combo. It's said to work very well with the Canon EF 1.4X III.

Something else you might consider is getting a third camera.... an 80D would give you 24MP with crop that's like using a 1.6X teleconverter, but without the loss of 1+ stops of light the way there is with an actual teleconverter. A lot of "big, long lens" users deliverately use APS-C crop cameras for just this reason. (If 80D is not to your liking, the M5 mirrorless with an EF to EF-M adapter can serve the same purpose).

The 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 and 200-400/4 Teleconverter lenses are all pretty big and heavy. The lightest of them are close to twice the size and weight of your 100-400 II. They use drop-in filters because their front elements are 120mm to 150mm in diameter! And they are 14 to 18" long without lens hood... Not to mention, the lens hoods they use are the size of coffee cans!

Are you prepared to deal with lenses this large and heavy while traveling? You're likely to need special cases and may want to ship the gear ahead, instead of trying to schlep it through airports yourself. I'd hate to put them in checked baggage, too! Air travel with large lenses like these is a real commitment! You basically need to leave other stuff at home, in order to take the big glass.

Have you tried your 100-400mm II with 1.4X and 2X teleconverters? By all reports, it holds up really well to use with a quality teleconverter and with 1.4X is able to autofocus on 5DIV... or on EOS R with 2X (you'll need EF to RF adapter for this latter). I have to admit, I haven't used my 100-400 II with my teleconverters.... In fact, in two years shooting with it I haven't needed it. But I use it almost exclusively on APS-C cameras with the 1.6X multiplier effect I mentioned above.

Rentals are an option, but check to be sure... many rental companies don't allow their gear to travel out of the country. You may need to rent from someone at your destination.

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

The 200-400 is an amazing lens but weighs more and costs more than the 500 F4 (3.62 kg as opposed to 3.19 kg) so the 100-400 ii is a much lighter option at 1.64 kg

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Let me add my 2¢.

RENT! Nothing beats experience.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Actually, you should be able to get along quite well with the 100-400 II. But for the ultimate quality at a distance in all lights and remaining relatively mobile - I would be looking at the 400 f4 DO II with both extenders and I would supplement this with the 70-300 L lens. The DO II is so much easier to manage than the other super teles !

Nalu makes very good points for Sony A9 system also !
..

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

If I go with the Sony option, I may have a 400 DOII for sale before the end of the year.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For all practical purposes, the 200-400 is as big/heavy and costs MORE than the 600 f4 !

..

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Actually, it isn't and it doesn't.

The $10,999 EF 200-400L 1.4X Extender is actually smaller and lighter than either the current 600/4 "II" ($11,499) or the current 400/2.8 "II" ($9999).

The 600/4 "III" and 400/2.8 "III" (both expected to be available in December) are each claimed to be about 1 lb. lighter than the 200-400L TC. But according to the stats, those two primes are each going to still be a little bigger than the zoom.

Yes, the zoom is $1000 more than the current 400/2.8... though that wasn't the lens the OP was considering. And it's a little cheaper than the current 600/4.

In fact... the lenses the OP was asking about.... at $11,999 the 400/2.8 III is going to be $1000 more expensive... and at $12,999 the 600/4 III is going to be $2000 more expensive!

IMO, anyone seriously considering any of these super tele primes, really should at least take a look at the 200-400L 1.4X Extender for the versatility a zoom can offer. Nothing worse than hauling a big lens out to a shoot and finding it's too long!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Then the prices have recently changed - at release the zoom was 12K - probably since the size/weight of the zoom precludes anyone from actually wanting to carry/buy one ! - IF - it is lighter, it is not by much - and I did say for all practical purposes !

You would have to be a masochist to haul the zoom around ! I have been around people using the zoom - it is ridiculous.

..