Canon 70-200 f4 L question

[luckydog]

Hi gurus,
I'm sorting my self out in preparation for my first SLR camera and trying to pick my glass. Still not 100% if i'll go 350D or D70s as I have no prior allegiance. :)
I enjoy wildlife and action type shots, but basically if anything gets in front of me i'll photograph it (see my gallery).
I am keen for the sigma 50-500mm but getting one may be tough when it comes time to purchase.
My limit for a zoom is about 1500 dollars (aust) roughly $1125 USD.
I was also looking at the Canon 70-200 f4 L and was wondering if I got this with an 2x extender would this be useless for wildlife because of the F4 of this lense.
Any guidance is muchly appreciated even a poke in the right direction for another decent lens will be fine.

[schmoe]

The 70-200 is a great lens but a little short for wildlife. The one thing to consider if you want to go with a 2x TC is that you will be limited to manual focus only. If you are O.K. with the manual focus then the 70-200 f/4 with a 2X TC would be fast enough if you are shooting outdoors in decent light.

You mentioned you were thinking the Sigma 50-500 (a.k.a. Bigma) was outside of your budget of approximately $1100 USD. If you do your homework and shop around you can find it below $1000 USD. Try sigma4less.com they have an excellent reputation and are quite a bit cheaper. Also try deltainternational.com I have never used them but have seen several people give them high praise. I bought mine from an e-bay retailer and got it for less than a $1000 USD.

Given the choice between the two I would go with the Bigma over the 70-200 with a TC.

Hope that helps.

[Red Bull]

Have you looked at and considered the 400 f/5.6L? It's just at about your budget. Although the 5.6 may be too slow for wildlife.http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/ne_nau.gif

[limbik]

Have you looked at and considered the 400 f/5.6L? It's just at about your budget. Although the 5.6 may be too slow for wildlife.http://dgrin.com/images/smilies/ne_nau.gif
The sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG with their 2x DG TC would be in your ballpark, and its a mighty nice combo that will keep the auto focus and f5.6.

[ginger_55]

Hi gurus,
I'm sorting my self out in preparation for my first SLR camera and trying to pick my glass. Still not 100% if i'll go 350D or D70s as I have no prior allegiance. :)
I enjoy wildlife and action type shots, but basically if anything gets in front of me i'll photograph it (see my gallery).
I am keen for the sigma 50-500mm but getting one may be tough when it comes time to purchase.
My limit for a zoom is about 1500 dollars (aust) roughly $1125 USD.
I was also looking at the Canon 70-200 f4 L and was wondering if I got this with an 2x extender would this be useless for wildlife because of the F4 of this lense.
Any guidance is muchly appreciated even a poke in the right direction for another decent lens will be fine.
I would not get that for wildlife.

not long enough, and with the 2 Xs, well, I just would not get it for wildlife. People get it and love it. I have it, but it is not my wildlife lens. It is my misc lens. I had a Canon 300L f4 and traded for a 400L f5.6. one of those would be better, together with the 70-200.

One thing that really annoys me about the 70-200, since it is my misc lens, is how far away I have to be from the subject for it to focus. Of course mine is the f4. As I say, others love it. most of those others are not birding, that I know of, or not with that lens, except for unusual situations.

I also have the 17-40 CanonL zoom, I love that lens, not for wildlife, but in general. The one I like the least, in general, too short for some things and too long for others, is the 70-200L. I would not buy it for wildlife. And I was on heavy budget, too.

ginger (I have heard better things from a few people re the push/pull 100-400. And some people hate that one.)

[Michiel de Brieder]

hey 'Dog!!!

The 70-200 is a groovy lens :D BUT for wildlife a tad short. I think it is a great lens to have though, I've been working my collection towards a set that suits me fine:
17-40 wide angle shots
24-70 walkaround lens
50 F/1.4 ultra low light prime :D it kicks @ss
70-200 F/4 the best budget lens Canon as has far as I'm concerned!!! for daily use alongside the 24-70
400 F/5.6 for wildlife alongside a 1.4 TC (on order :D)
Perhaps you should consider that you might be buying more lenses in the future.... I've considered and discarded the Bigma and the Sigma 80-400 and Canon 100-400 and the 400mm comes on top :D

The bigma is a fine lens though and I've seen many a great photo from it!!!

[luckydog]

Thanks for the imput. :):

The 100-400L is like $2500+ down here. Rediculously overpriced compared to what it goes for in the US (What's the point of having exchange rates when people are more happy to rip you off). :wxwax

The Bigma is what I crave, but apparently it's just gone into reproduction and is expected in Aust. early Sept. My problem is that I'm trying to change careers and the only time I will have the funds is when I leave the military and get my payout. So I am basically hoping that they are still available when that day comes.

If it does not eventuate is there a decently priced 300mm zoom that would do the trick with an 1.4x or 2x ???

I saw a 650-1300mm canon lens on Ebay last night for $1300 but that's a lot of zoom and I would guess a huge light craver! Also would require a few lenses just to bridge the ranges under this monster.

[MPD]

I'm sure i've seen the Bigma for <$1500 in Melbourne, and I've definately seen the new (DG) version, so you should be able to get it within your budget.

[Michiel de Brieder]

The Bigma is what I crave, but apparently it's just gone into reproduction and is expected in Aust. early Sept. My problem is that I'm trying to change careers and the only time I will have the funds is when I leave the military and get my payout. So I am basically hoping that they are still available when that day comes. The old bigma still works well, I suggest getting a used one to save costs AND at the same time get you a great lens. You may want to consider a 50mm F/1.8 alongside the bigma for low light work, that lens is *dirt* cheap so you'll have no problem getting one :D

[ginger_55]

My Canon 400 f5.6 came last week, have been out w it, not serious stuff, just "out" looking for birds, about three times. Yesterday that lens, and the tide, it brought home the bacon, or whatever one would call a bird.

That is one super lens!

ginger (That is what I would get.)

[Michiel de Brieder]

Canon 400 f5.6
ginger (That is what I would get.) I disagree somewhat as it would almost consume the entire budget. As a first and only lens for a while I think the 400 is very unsuitable. As an addition for tele to an existing collection it is a marvel of course :D

[Chase]

I disagree somewhat as it would almost consume the entire budget. As a first and only lens for a while I think the 400 is very unsuitable. As an addition for tele to an existing collection it is a marvel of course :D
Sigma 100-300 f4

Constant f4, HSM, works well with a 1.4 TC, and costs about 760 US from sigma4less.com . What more could ya want?
:dunno

[gus]

I disagree somewhat as it would almost consume the entire budget. As a first and only lens for a while I think the 400 is very unsuitable. As an addition for tele to an existing collection it is a marvel of course :D
I could not part with my 400. Fast focus & laser sharp. Worry about the shorter stuff later.

My 2 bobs worth.

[Harryb]

Before I got my 500mm my two main wildlife lenses were the 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC and the 80-400 zoom. The Sigma 80-400 with OS goes for under $1000US and the Cannon 300mm F4 should also be in your price range.

[davev]

Hi Darryl.

Lets crack a few myths first. A 70-200L F4 will AF, but it won't do it well.
On my D Reb 300, it would not AF on the center focus point, but it would
on the one just to the left of it. This is what is called a work around. This
was with a Quantaray 2X TC, about $80 US. Looking at your gallery, most of
your wildlife shots are of stationary animals. For that kind of shooting, the
Sigma 50-500 or the 80-400os would probably work well for you.

I have the 80-400os. Is it a fast lens? No. Would I buy it again? Yes.
I have heard others say that their 80-400 are sharp wide open. Well mine isn't.
I have to shoot at F8 for the pic to be sharp. With os, you can hand hold some
pretty low shutter speeds. I have very steady hands, I can hand hold it down
to 125 of a second with good results. With that said, I did buy a monopod to
help me. The lens is heavy, but not unmanageable.

After I got the Sigma, my 70-200L F4, and my 75-300is never came out
of the camera bag. So I sold them and bought a Canon 200L F2.8.
This is one of the sharpest lenses around. I use it with a 2X TC and it
becomes a 400 F5.6. But it doesn't have image stab. I wouldn't buy a long
lens without it.

Well I dragged that out long enough. For me, I would get the Sigma
80-400os, the Canon 100-400is, or the Canon 300L F4is and a good 1.4 TC.
If you buy the Nikon, the Sigma is still there, and Harry gets great shots
with his Nikon 80-400.

My final word, don't get the XT, move up to the 20D right away and save
for the lens. I got a great deal on the 300D when Canon had their triple
rebaits. Now I'm looking at getting a 20D. Don't go cheap, you'll just end up
buying it twice.

My gallery with the Sigma is here: http://www.pbase.com/davev/sigma

Good luck.

[Michiel de Brieder]

I could not part with my 400. Fast focus & laser sharp. Worry about the shorter stuff later.

My 2 bobs worth. easy enough to say when you get the 10-22 at the same time :D I know I wouldn't be happy with only 400mm...... I *need* to get closer/wider

On a sidenote, you are the one that has brought me this 400mm disease :D I have it on order right now, my sealion shots were just too sharp :wink

[gus]

On a sidenote, you are the one that has brought me this 400mm disease :D I have it on order right now, my sealion shots were just too sharp :wink
Good to see i have passed the 'andy virus' on :thumb