Hi people, first of all, let me apologize for the delay answering you. I had to travel in a hurry and have been very busy lately. Secondly, thank you very much for all feedbacks! Some replies:
The 70-200/4 is excellent and would travel with the 300/4 PF nicely taking a moderate amount of bag space. I think this pair is a better quality option than the 80-400 AF-S. If you need additional focal length, then the 80-400 gives 400mm and 200-500 gives 500mm which is more substantially different from the 300mm you already have.
Yep, from what I've been learned, I already know that the 70-200/4 is very good and that's why I was thinking about this lens as a replacement for my 70-200/2.8 VRI, but I still think that this added to my 300/4E is not long enough. Then I thought about the 200-500 to complete the tele set up and ended up realizing that could be overkill traveling with these three lenses plus the others that I always travel with. At that such moment I remembered the 80-400, thought that it could be an option too, hence the mess has started
And to complicate a little bit more there's always the fear of missing the versatility of a zoom lens while shooting wild animals, so I'm not sure if only the 300/4 PF (with or without TC) at the longest end will be a good option while in field. I've not yet traveled for any job since I got this lens.
It is a larger and heavier lens than the others. I would think that you need to test it in person to see whether you find its handling and portability acceptable.
Unfortunately where I live there are not local stores where I could try its handling and portability. I'd have to order it online totally blindly, with no previous contact.
Being a wildlifer for long, thought, I never relly on TCs on other lenses other than the 2.8...
So far I've used TCs only with the 70-200/2.8 VRI and for me the results with 14EII are acceptable, but too much soft with the 20EIII, which I tried but then gave up to pair with this lens. When I bought the 300/4E PF I ordered also the 14EIII because from what I've known the latter performs much better with E lenses than its predecessor. And the 300 being a prime I thought it could accept that well. Didn't have the opportunity to test it in field yet.
That said 300 is "always" short.
Exactly! That's why I decided to give the 300/4 PF + 14EIII a try and was OK for now because I don't have the money to go for the longer lens. But the 200-500 showed up in a very affordable price and I started to research. And when I saw I was with a big "?" on my mind among 70-200/4, 80-400, 200-500 precisely because I own the 300/4 PF and the TCs yet…
One thing that I don't see much people refer is the need of wide lenses on a wildlifer kit. Wildlife is not always just portraits, showing the subject on its habitat is very important, and you can make dramatic photos as well.
You're totally right and that's why I wonder whether a versatile zoom wouldn't give me more flexibility for both showing the subject on its habitat and the animal itself. However, for other purposes than telephotos, I always go wild also with the 16-35/4 VR, 24-70/2.8 and macro 105/2.8 VR, plus the fish-eye 16/2.8 when there is underwater environments and dive possibilities.
My option, if weight and budget constraints are present, would be 24-120 and 200-500, and don't forget a speedlight!
I don't like the 24-120 for nature, only use it for cityscapes and others subjects. And yep, my SB-900 is often with me!
Both 80-400 or 200-500 are pretty big lenses and you really need good support for them in order to eke out the maximum performance of each optic. ... The universal truth is that tripod support always increase the chance of getting a sharper shot and frequently also one with a better composition.
No doubts a tripod makes all the difference! I own a Gitzo made of carbon fiber, a serial 5 traveler one, which is light and very sturdy, perfect for my trips. I didn't meant I do not want to use a tripod. Certainly I always use it when I'm on land and have the needed time to set it up. But there are times that it's simply impossible because the animals don't wait for you. When you are walking in a rain forest and see (or hear) some movement in the trees, over its top or among its leaves, you'll want just shoot fasty whit whatever you have on you hand or forget it because before you try to mount your tripod the animals have already gone. Or if you're crossing a river on a very small boat in a wetland, where there are so many animals both aquatics and on its banks, but there's no enough space aboard to the tripod's legs. Same if you're sailing on the sea and wanna shoot whales or even some seabirds in fly, both are impossible to be done from the boat with a tripod… In these cases be able to handhold a lens may mean all the difference between get the pic or not…
My fault, I might not have being much clear when I talked about my worries with too many things to travel with. The problem is that often that I go wild I am going actually to shoot underwater and then I have to carry a lot of stuffs (many dive gear plus underwater photo gear, which means camera housing, strobes, cables etc), so it's necessary to well plan the baggage because every weight counts.
That's in my "light" travel set as well. Put a TC 1.4x III in the bag for the time you want/need more reach and the IQ loss is minimal.
Together with the 18-35G and 24-120/4.0G it gives a nice set and not too much weight.
Sorry, but I didn't get exactly what's your light travel set up? Could you please clarify? And do you really like the 24-120? I own this lens but actually travel with it only when I want to go really light and don't worry much about IQ. It is: only in personal trips when I shoot just for fun. For landscapes works which are supposed to be published I prefer the 24-70/2.8G, which I wonder if someday worth be replaced by the new VR version.
