For me I think it's a toss-up between my 70-200/2.8 II IS and my 500/4 IS - both exceptional lenses IMO...
...although, if we're really splitting hairs, my former 300/2.8 IS may have been even a wee bit better than the other two...I could see trading the 500 for another one if I lose interest in shooting wildlife some day.
Too bad the new super teles are priced through the roof...would have loved to own a new version of the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 but I just can't justify it at the current prices.
I have own many lenses over 46 years shooting with Canon. My first awe inspiring lens purchased new, right after its release, was the 200 f/1.8L. I kept it until I sold it three years ago.
Second would be the 300 f/2.8L IS. It was my first long tele with IS.
Third would be the 500 f/4L IS which has been my workhorse for 9 years now.
There are many other fast primes in shorter focal lengths that have been impressive but those three are the most memorable.
Tom Dix wrote:
Thanks Peter; thought you would like my 'artistic magic' comment.
Hope to own the 400; one day.
I did like the phrase which I've never heard before used like that.
As far as 400 f/2.8 IS goes, there will be many Mk I copies available on the used market in due course, and many probably priced very favourably for the quality they offer.
Sooner or later you'll come accross the right one.
500 f4 is an amazing lens. Fast focus, high iq, light enough to handhold for 15 minutes and gets me pictures of wolves/bears/moose from a safe distance. It is my favorite by far.
I have the original 70-200 IS 2.8 but its either too short or too long in most instances for me.
My most used lens are 17-40 and 24-105, and 500f4.
