Quote Originally Posted by Trowski
How was traveling with the 500mm? You mentioned going to Yellowstone with the lens. Part of the reason I was looking at the 300mm f/2.8 is that I thought paired with a 7D and maybe a 1.4x (300mm * 1.4 * 1.6 = 672mm) it would be perfect for traveling and hiking, grabbing wildlife shots when I got a chance while 300mm might actually still be useful for some far-off landscapes.

Its a chore to travel with the 500mm. In yellowstone it seems like everyone toured by the road. If you wanted to find wildlife just look for people pulled over. While it would have been nice if the 500mm had more reach on occasions it seemed the 500mm with the 1.4x when needed was enough. The only time I would have liked to have more reach was in the restricted area where the baby eagle was nesting. The problem with traveling is the size of the lens. Where are you going to lay it down as you drive? It was a problem, and I could see how the 800mm would have even been harder to handle in the van.


Of course at yellowstone, the animals are not to scared of people. My brother called them "posers". The would be right next to the road and it seemed like they were coming out to pose and get their pictures taken.


I think the 300mm would be a good way to go if hiking in. I have a swing pack that I carry mine in and its not really to bad, its not a walk around lens by any means, but not bad. With the 1.4x its a good compromise if you don't want to spend all the money on a 500mm or you don't want to carry the extra weight around.


The 500mm I have a tamrac expedition 8x pack and it completely fills the back pack up with lens, camera and related gear. We packed the 500mm in with us on our overnight wilderness camp, several miles in. And unless you have a couple of mules (17 and 18 year old sons in my case) you wouldn't want to carry it in alone.