J3ffro

So it's dawned on me I need more reach. My longest lens is a 70-200 F4L and its great, but I want more. I decided the other day I'm gonna move back to Hawaii this November, and I'm going to shoot a few golf tournaments while I'm there as well as all kinds of random things. Anyway, I need more.

I was set on the 100-400, but the dust issue has sufficiently scared me away. I'm kinda eyeballing the 400 F5.6 because unlike some of you, my baller status is definitely lacking. Also, pretty much everything I shoot is outdoors and well lit, so a few F-stops for a few thousand is hard for me to rationalize. Does anyone have any experience with it? There doesn't seem to be much written about it in the different places I've checked online. Any thoughts?

Also, if anyone else has any suggestions I'm open to them. Thinking below $2k, at least 300mm (Ideally more like 400+) and I'm not set on must be a prime or must be a zoom. I'm not stuck on just using Canon lenses either, if there's a Sigma or Tamron equivalent that's a great performer, I'm happy to play that game.

Poindexter

I just sold my copy about 10 minutes ago on POTN. It is a great lens, but after picking up my 300mm f2.8L IS and throwing the 1.4xTC on that the 400mm was heading for the dust collection shelf.

For the money, the Canon 400mm f5.6L is incredible! It does need a lot of light, so you're going to need to pack it up when the sun gets about midway through setting. I love it for birding - easy to move around with.

Another option is the 300mm f4L IS.....or pick up both. I wouldn't rule the 100-400mm out over some people saying there are dust issues. It is still a contender on my list, but I think I would rather have the 400mm f5.6L over that zoom. There is also the Bigma.


Here are some galleries with images from my copy of the 400mm f5.6L:
http://poindexter.smugmug.com/gallery/2483081#130274146
http://poindexter.smugmug.com/gallery/2565427#135004246
http://poindexter.smugmug.com/gallery/2568924#135334503
http://poindexter.smugmug.com/gallery/2542180#133616611

Penforhire

I've seen a lot of good-looking photos, for the price, using that Bigma. If I ever get around to a super-long zoom I'd have a hard choice between that and the Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6 VR.

I've got a much older Sigma 400 f5.6 APO that I've never been happy with. But all reports are that they got much better a few years later.

pepperoni

I love the 300 f/4 IS. All the lens comparisons rank it very close to the 300 f/2.8 to the point that it's hard to tell the difference. Put a 1.4x TC on it and it's a very good 420mm.

I've also seen some great motorsports shots from the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. That might be an option for a 1.4x TC.

However, I get the feeling that you'll want IS. Shooting people at 300mm might require it, especially if it gets a little overcast and you loose some light. The 300 f/2.8 would be ideal.

bkw

So wait, the 70-200 with a 2.4x isnt long enough for you? I'll agree that the 200 feels a bit short, but hmm..

I just picked up the 70-200 2.8 and in the process of scouring the net looking for a decently priced 2.4x. But now you've got me thinking that I may have been better off the with the 300f4 IS, which I almost picked up that day instead.

NFRs2000NYC

People are going to think I work for Sigma, but I borrowed a Sigma APO 300mm F2.8 EX DG/HSM, and was REALLY impressed. Sharp, fast, L quality, etc.



9.6 on Fredmiranda is quite impressive as well...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showpro...7&cat=38&page=1
Its pricy, but it's $1200 less than the Canon.

Poindexter

Dave - you're going down the same road I went down. Wait till you start trying Canon's equivalents of those Sigma lenses you have......you think you've dropped some money already

NFRs2000NYC

I know the Canon's are tip top, but from what I read, when it comes to big bucks (3K +) the Sigmas are VERY good lenses, and are comparable with Ls. Im talking about the Bigma, Sigmasaurus, etc.

Funny thing is, I held a 70-200 2.8 L today, and honestly, and I swear this isnt because I dont have one, since I will anyway....I wasnt impressed with the build quality of L glass when put against the same lens from the Sigma EX line. I had a Sigma 70-200 and a Canon, and it *felt* like the Sigma was better quality. Also, I didnt realize the lenses arent actually white. They are a weird kind of not so attractive shade of tan. I know it's the glass that counts, just an observation.

Ubetit

My 70-200 F/2.8 IS and 1.4 and 2.0 teleconvertors are sitting at UPS. They tried to deliver it today while my wife stepped out. Man i hate that woman..........just kidding.

jtpassat