Wildlife Photography

[Overread]

You might find the articles in this site here: Juza Nature Photography
of interest in helping you with your choices - the author also provides a slightly different view to the use of 2*Teleconverters. Another consideration is weight and travel - 600mm f4 is very nice lens but also a heavy beast to use on a full day shooting. I know several shooters who use a lighter 300mm f2.8 IS plus a 2*TC (including the linked site above) and whilst there is an image quality drop it still delivers very usable images. However I should note that the quality of camera body you use is going to come into play here as well - upper end camera bodies are preferable over lower end camera bodies when using such a combo (its something to do with pixel densities and sizes but I can't recall enough details to give a firm answer myself).

Suffice to say it might be worth considering a good lighter lens if you find yourself spending long days on the move - rather than a heavier (albeit better lens) which might leave you far more strained come the end of a day.

 

[Shockey]

Actuallly most people in your situation get the 500 4.
It is lighter than the 600 and less money easier to handle, use it with the 1.4.
The 400 is heavier than the 500 and more money less reach, if you are going to be using it with the 1.4 you gain nothing over the 500.
If you are going to be doing a lot of low light shooting at not that far or shooting indoor sports the 400 might be the way to go, otherwise take a very close look at the 500.

 

[Overread]

As an additional consideration it might be worth trying to get a test of each of these longer lenses - since they are a considerable investment to make. You might be able to get a shop to get copies in for you to test out instore or you could consider renting the lenses from a lens rental company for a few days. The other option is to see if there is a local photographer or photographic community where you might find people who have the lenses and would be willing to let you have short trial of them.

At the cost of the lenses in question if you can't find a shop or photographer I would say renting would be well worth the investment in making the right choice. I know at least one photographer who got a 500mm f4 and then sent it back, not because it was a bad lens (far far from it) but because it was simply far heavier then he was comfortable shooting with (based on his style of shooting)

 

[icassell]

Actuallly most people in your situation get the 500 4.
It is lighter than the 600 and less money easier to handle, use it with the 1.4.
The 400 is heavier than the 500 and more money less reach, if you are going to be using it with the 1.4 you gain nothing over the 500.
If you are going to be doing a lot of low light shooting at not that far or shooting indoor sports the 400 might be the way to go, otherwise take a very close look at the 500.

Yes and Sigma makes a decent 500 mm f/4.5 (no IS) for about $1.5K less. As I mentioned above, I lean towards a 500 for just your mentioned reasons.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-500mm-T...7?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1262366707&sr=8-7

 

[Antithesis]

If I had the money and I were shooting specifically at wildlife, a 500 f4 seems like the best bet IMO. Still focuses with the 1.4 TC, plus smaller and lighter than the 600, and lighter than the 400. You might also want to look at the 400 f4 DO, as it is significantly smaller and lighter than any of the above lenses but is still usable with the 1.4 TC and pretty much perfect for larger wildlife.

You might also want to consider a 7D body for cropability and ruggedness over the rebel. It would feel pretty dumb to accidentally get your $400 rebel wet or broken in the field and have a useless $6,000 lens.

 

[Antithesis]

Actuallly most people in your situation get the 500 4.
It is lighter than the 600 and less money easier to handle, use it with the 1.4.
The 400 is heavier than the 500 and more money less reach, if you are going to be using it with the 1.4 you gain nothing over the 500.
If you are going to be doing a lot of low light shooting at not that far or shooting indoor sports the 400 might be the way to go, otherwise take a very close look at the 500.

Yes and Sigma makes a decent 500 mm f/4.5 (no IS) for about $1.5K less. As I mentioned above, I lean towards a 500 for just your mentioned reasons.

Amazon.com: Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG IF HSM APO Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

I've actually seen those sigmas used for like $2500. Still, I don't think money is too much of an issue with the OP.

 

[soylentgreen]

I will not lie to you, the large aperature is REALLY nice!!! The EF 400f.2.8L IS is as good as it gets as far as Image Quality is concerned. Heavy lens, but an absolute stunner. Only outdone by the EF 300 f/2.8L IS. With a 1.4 TC, you effectively have a 560 f/4 L IS. I was not too happy with the 2x TC, it really slowed down the focus and was a bit too soft for my taste. Keep in mind your crop zoom also. I now switch between the 5D Mk II and 7D and find that the crop zoom is sometimes too much for my needs. Try renting some of the gear and try them out. That will be your best bet before investing in some serious gear. I was fortunate enough to have friends that have all of the equipment for me to try out, so based my decision on that. Keep in mind you will also need to invest in a really good tripod; Gitzo 3 series at least, and gimbal head mount; Wimberely, 4th Generation Design, Manfrotto, etc.