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

70-200 f/4
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.

limbik

Red Bull wrote:

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.

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

luckydog wrote:

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 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 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 )
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

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).

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

luckydog wrote:

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

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

ginger_55 wrote:

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

Chase

Michiel de Brieder wrote:

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

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?

gus

Michiel de Brieder wrote:

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

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

Humungus wrote:

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 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 I have it on order right now, my sealion shots were just too sharp

gus

Michiel de Brieder wrote:

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

Good to see i have passed the 'andy virus' on