I tested the 400mm II in May and was very impressed with it. I have the 800mm f/5.6 lens and am thinking about getting a middle lens (also have the 70-200mm f/2.8 II). I am sorta stuck between the new 500mm and the 400mm.
500mm II - longer reach, less weight, longer body, less expensive than the 400mm II.
I would have thought the 500mm II would cost more than the 400mm II - anyone have thoughts about the pricing?
The shorter length of the 400mm II is appealing when trying to pack for flying with a 800 & 70-200 and two camera bodies.
If your main use is night sports, you need the f2.8 aperture of the 400. This larger aperture explains the higher cost of the 400. If you shoot wildlife, you need the lighter weight and longer focal length of the 500.
Don is correct. The big differece between the lenses is not 400vs: 500, it is 2.8 vs: F4.
You really need to consider how you plan to use the lens.
For my use, I have the 600 which is slightly longer and 1.5 lbs heavier and as a companion use the 300 2.8 or the 400 5.6.
The 400 2.8 is extremely sharp as are the 300,500, 600 and 800, so you will have a very good lens no matter what you choose. It will take a 1.4 magnifier very well and do well with a 2x. So will the others, but the f4's will suffer more with auto focus and IQ.
Um, good points, I did not consider the lens speed. I do mostly wildlife and birds. If I need a big reach, the 800 jumps in. I used the 400 II in May (rental) in St. Augustine and other FL locations and found the f/2.8 speed to be useful. Although the 1D4 has nice ISO abilities, sometimes 2.8 is very useful at daybreak. I use tripod with gimbal (Mongoose 3.6) pretty much all the time.
I am trying to get organized for a trip to Africa in January. I envision the 800 on a gimbal on top of the vehicle with another lens on a different body ready to shoot quickly either handheld on top or from a bean bag through a window.
I did do a few handheld shots with the 400, but would not want to do a lot. Besides, I am nowhere near steady enough anymore to do much handheld with anything. So, I am not sure that is a factor for me with the 400/500.
I had thought about the 300mm II, but found it in my testing to be too close to the 70-200.
So, it is f/2.8, 13.5" & 8.5 lbs. versus f/4.0, 15.1", & 7 lbs.
Mike have you considered the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM (f/2.8, 5.18 lbs & 9.8") + EXTENDER EF 2x III (0.72 lbs & 2.1") for a 600/5.6 (11.9")? This may be to your liking. The combined 5.9 lbs is very easy to shoot with handheld
Here are some example BiFs with the that combination.
It depends on what part of Africa you will be shooting. In Tanzania and Kenya, you have to stay pretty much on the designated "road" and most of the time the action is pretty far away from the location of your safari vehicle. A few years ago, I took my 500mm Mark I with an APS-H body and even with a 1.4X TC, I needed more reach. In that case, a longer lens, like your 800mm will come in handy and yes, it will be better if you want to do some birding, too. I don't know about you but I would not consider taking two long lenses to Africa at my age now regardless that they are not that heavy as their previous version . A 400mm and 800mm lenses be an awesome combo and yes, a 70-200mm is a must take, too. If you have to take just one, then I would recommend the 500mm Mark II.
Thanks for the comments. I will be using two 1D4s (1.3 crop factor) in Tanzania. Maybe the 800 & 70-200 f/2.8 will be the easiest to pack for flying and offer the best combination for the trip. Seems like the consensus is that I will be using the 800 about 99% of the time from the vehicle. The 70-200 will be all I need in Rwanda.
. A 400mm and 800mm lenses be an awesome combo and yes, a 70-200mm is a must take, too. If you have to take just one, then I would recommend the 500mm Mark II.