choices of tele lens at 200mm or more

[genewch]

I'm thinking of getting a tele lens for longer reach at 200mm or more. My 135mm can take a 1.4x TC to give 189mm. My candidates are Sigma 100-300mm f4, Canon 100-400mm, Canon 70-200mm f2.8, and Canon 300mm f4 IS. Though I'm a fan of primes, I sometimes love zooms for its convenience in situations that swapping lenses will miss shots. Could anyone who use these lenses give your comments and tips for me to choose among them? My criteria would be sharpness, autofocusing speed, contrast, and handling.

Also, for an IS lens, is a monopod redundant or complementary?

[EOSAddict]

Depends what you want to shoot but my Sig 100-300 is a beauty. Dont rule out the Sig 70-200 2.8 either. You have identified a fair selection,, but it depends what your main interest is.. and how much you are bothered by size/weight vs Speed

[GSH]

Also, for an IS lens, is a monopod redundant or complementary?


They tend to be heavy beasts so definitely complementary unless it's one of the shorter IS lenses.

[CyberDyneSystems]

My criteria would be sharpness, autofocusing speed, contrast, and handling.

For your above criterea the top lens would be;
70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 100-400mm (handling though is so subject to personal taste.)

Also, for an IS lens, is a monopod redundant or complementary?

Complimentary.

The 70-200mm Zooms are canon's most "prime like" zooms re: Image quality. Few zooms can match them. And the AF on the f/2.8 IS is without peer in the zoom world. Certainly much faster than the 100-400mm

For overall flexiblity and handling the 100-400mm is my favorite,. though you sacrifice so much aperture.

The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is an awesome lens,. but it is not "best" at any of the things you mention when compared to the others,. (although some could feel it is best handling of course)

*EDIT**
Beg pardon.. some how I read the first time around that only zooms were being considered. ???

My mistake,. my above answer only applies if we are limiting the field to zooms.

[genewch]

I dislike the design of Canon 100-400mm because it's a big vacuum cleaner which sucks dust. The varying length makes balance tricky. The too much loss in aperture and price also put me off the 100-400mm. The almighty 70-200mm f2.8 IS is out of my budget, so I'll consider at most the non-IS. For zooms the 70-200mm f2.8 and Sigma 100-300mm f4 are left. If I can stay with a prime, I may consider a 300mm f4, or 200mm f2.8 plus 1.4x TC.

[rklepper]

The 200 f2.8L and the 1.4 will get you to 280 at f4. Pretty flexible and I see absolutely no image degredation with this lens and the TC.

[Jon]

I dislike the design of Canon 100-400mm because it's a big vacuum cleaner which sucks dust. The varying length makes balance tricky. The too much loss in aperture and price also put me off the 100-400mm. The almighty 70-200mm f2.8 IS is out of my budget, so I'll consider at most the non-IS. For zooms the 70-200mm f2.8 and Sigma 100-300mm f4 are left. If I can stay with a prime, I may consider a 300mm f4, or 200mm f2.8 plus 1.4x TC.
That "vacuum cleaner"argument's never been demonstrated to be true. It's just one of those things that "seems like" it ought to be so. Actually, any zoom has internal moving components that, in operation, will blow air in and around the interior of the lens. For that matter, so do primes (they need to focus). Same thing with any lens undergoing a change in atmospheric pressure. And I don't think you'll find many people who use the 100-400 much who say that the varying length is awkward. I actually love it, and I'm not alone. Can't do anything about the price, I'm afraid, but you really owe it to yourself to see whether IS will make a difference in your shooting (try renting, if you can find a source).