More advice required: This time it's telephoto lenses

[stavroshamster]

Right, after all your kind advice about filters and tripods (neither of which I have actually bought yet - I'm still feeling a bit poor and can't decide where my priorities are), I'm after some advice on telephoto lenses (fixed aperture unless I can be persuaded otherwise) to complement my other lenses (in my sig below), and for use for motorsport and wildlife.

Specifically, I'd like something which extends at least 200mm. I was looking at the Canon 70-200 F4L which I had a chance to try out recently (my dad bought one) and it seemed pretty good, and quite good VFM, but I've not had a chance to try anything else really.

I'm not bothered about image stabilisation really - I don't do a lot of shooting inside, and severe problems with noise of my 7D don't really kick in until ISO3200 or higher, so I can crank it up a bit if necessary to compensate.

Having said that, I was quite tempted by the look of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - which would give me the extra flexibility of a wider aperture. However, this lacks the weather-sealing I'd get from the Canon F4, and I've seen variable reviews about the image quality. And it's more expensive (and would be a bit of a budget stretcher!)

I'm not that keen on getting another Tamron - my 17-50 has dust issues, has really loud AF, and after Bobster's experience with Intro2020 I'd prefer to avoid I think.

So - what are people's experiences with these, and potentially similar, lenses? Any recommendations?

[redddraggon]

From what I've heard the 70-200mm F/4 is one of the sharpest lenses you can get. I'd go for an L lens over a Sigma any day of the week. Unless you need the extra stop of the F/2.8 go for the Canon.

[Bobster]

I'd go for an L lens over a Sigma any day of the week.

ive had my Sigma 70-200 2.8 compared with a canon 70-200 2.8L IS and found my lens was sharper, i've shot in rain and not experienced any problems with water.. if i wanted to take it out in a down poor, i'd get a weather jacket for my kit anyway.. but its survived rainy wedding days without a hickup

stick a x2 tele on it and you've got yourself a 140-400mm 5.6

[rox0r]

I couldn't be happier with the f4 IS L, it's my 'go-to' lens. Lovely rich colours and sharp as a pin, gives me the giggles when I use it because I know so long as I frame the shot right, it'll take care of the rest every time.

I went for the IS because I just don't take my tripod anywhere unless I know I need it. Being able to spin off shots P&S style is important to me, that and I don't have the steadiest hands in the world anyway. Of course on a nice sunny day it's of no use, but I didn't want to have a lens that was limited by availability of light. (Note, I said 'limited', not crippled...before any f4 owners commence bombardment)

The f2.8 L wasn't a consideration because it's like carrying a cast iron drainpipe around and the cost is prohibitive. If you need f2.8, go for the Sigma and save a truckload of cash.

[htid]

200mm is pretty short when it comes to wildlife, especially if you're going to be taking birds. I have a Nikon 300mm with 1.4tc on a cropped body which makes it 630mm and that's about as short as I'd be happy with unless you're getting really close (which is unlikely!)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I agree with htid,200MM will not have enough reach for taking pictures of birds.

Even on my APS-C dSLR body 300MM is about the minimum you can get away with unless you are quite close to the subject. However,I find that the Sigma 135-400MM I have is better suited for wildlife photography as the extra reach is noticeable.

[Funkstar]

I've been looking at the new Sigma 120-300 f2.8 recently (not that I can afford it) with a 2x TC it will still autofocus on Canon bodies. 600mm at f5.6 on a 40D (1.6x crop) should be pretty good for wildlife including birds and dolphins off the coast near me. Would also be good for taking shots of my kids surfing

[Bobster]

how about the new Canon 100-400 IS f4? comes with a built in x1.4 tele

[Bobster]

Would also be good for taking shots of my kids surfing

but all the cool shots of surfing are taken in the water with a UWA and under water housing

[rox0r]

how about the new Canon 100-400 IS f4? comes with a built in x1.4 tele

You mean the new 200-400 with built in selectable tele. I'd hazard a wild guess that that puppy will come with an immense pricetag

[htid]

A mere 9k on launch is the estimate I've been hearing thrown about!

[Tim S]

I reluctantly sold a 70-200 F4L, which I regretted almost as soon as I'd sold it. It's about 1kg lighter than my 70-200 F2.8L, which makes a telling difference when climbing hills in Scotland.

Beautiful, beautiful lens. Supremely sharp, nice colour contrast and almost no distortion. I sold it because I felt it was surplus to requirements (I need the F2.8 lens for some of the events work I do), but I now wish I'd kept it because it wasn't until I got to Scotland that I remembered why I held onto it after getting the 70-200 F2.8 lens.

[Tim S]

A mere 9k on launch is the estimate I've been hearing thrown about!

I wouldn't be surprised at that price tag, but I reckon it'll be available for about £5,500 to £6,000 after a while - street prices tend to be much lower than Canon's RRP. Look at the price of the Nikon 200-400, add a 1.4x teleconverter and a bit more and you'll be close to the price of the Canon 200-400 1.4x

[Funkstar]

how about the new Canon 100-400 IS f4? comes with a built in x1.4 tele

But doesn't give me f2.8 at any point

[Bobster]

oh just be done with it and get Sigzilla then!