Wow, thanks for all of your responses. This forum rocks! []


Ok, I'll try to reply to all of your suggestions in order here...


neuroanatomist,
I do believe that if I got the 300mm f/4L IS, I'd use it mostly with the 1.4x teleconverter except for sports and nature uses. Though it may be a better choice in the long run if I decide going with the 500mm f/4L IS (200mm difference instead of just upgrading from a 400mm lens). I'm leaning towards either the 100-400 or the 300 with extender right now as they are lenses that will give me a feel for which focal lengths I want for the subjects I shoot. The 100-400, as has been said already in this thread, would be an excellent lens to put on a 2nd body when shooting with a super-telephoto prime.


My other thought was that if I got the 400mm f/5.6L first (or immediately after the 70-200mm f/4L), it would teach me long-lens techniques and better wildlife photography skills. Even though it doesn't have IS, it might be worth the effort of learning how to shoot these subjects better. It might also be more rewarding (once I learn how to properly photograph wildlife subjects) since the 400 prime is superior in IQ and focusing.


bburns223,
I wasn't comparing the 300 f/4 to the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4, I'm just wondering if the 300 f/4 or any of my other considerations would be a good starter choice when I know I'll eventually purchase at least one of the super-telephoto lenses.


Fast Glass,
I think the 500mm f/4 would better suit me for most purposes since it is hand-holdable, much easier to lug around and travel with, and better performance with TCs. But the 600mm can go into the considerations when I eventually need one of these lenses. Thanks for the suggestion.


neuroanatomist,
I agree that renting would be an excellent idea. It's definitely something that I'm keeping in mind.


I think right now my decision for my starter kit is down to these options:


1) 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
2) 70-200mm f/4L + 400mm f/5.6L + maybe 1.4x TC
3) 70-200mm f/4L + 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC


For the 70-200mm f/4L lens, I may be able to get a very good deal. My father is thinking of upgrading to the f/2.8, so he might give me a good price on the f/4. So this lens in addition to one of the primes would be very similar in price to the 100-400L.


I would like some thoughts on the 400mm f/5.6L versus the 500mm f/4L IS. Is the 500 really that superior and worth the upgrade from the 400 for shooting birds & distant wildlife (for strictly handheld use)? Or should, as Fast Glass suggested, the 600mm f/4 be a better upgrade? I think it may be a better way to go for birds by getting the 400 f/5.6 and eventually the 600 f/4. Then for sports & some wildlife & nature & pretty much everything I could get the 300mm f/2.8L IS. Anyways, all of these are distant dreams at this point, so back to the starter kit.


I think that if my father gives me a good deal on the 70-200 f/4L, then the 100-400 is out of the running. I'd rather have one of the primes. Will the 300mm be that big of a difference over the 200mm? I think maybe the 400 would be a better combo with the 70-200.


Ok, that's all for now. Thank you all very much for your thoughts. []


Derrick