70-200/3002.8?

[Chrisc]

With my 100-400 broken, I'm looking to invest in a second large lens, I have the option of a 70-200 2.8 and a 2x EF (already have a 1.4) or a Sigma 300 2.8 (Can't justify a Canon 2.8).

I could buy the Sigma 2.8, repair and sell the 100-400, then buy a 70-200? I'd have most range covered with the 70-200/300 and a 1.4X? - I may be able to stretch to a 2xEF as well?

Any ideas on the best option quality v pounds wise?

[Belmondo]

Chrisc:
I'm sorry you're having such a problem with your lens. I haven't heard of a problem quite like your before. I recall the first time I realized there was an adjustment on the zoom resistance; for a few brief, horrifying moments I thought there was something wrong with the lens.

Anyway, all my problems with the 100-400 have been self-induced (dropping it), and the Canon repair people have come through quite well for me, albeit $300US later.

I have the 100-400 now (actually two of them), the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and the 300 f/4L IS prime. I can tell you that the 70-200 with 1.4X and 2X TC will give good results, especially the 1.4X TC, but not as good as the equivalent focal length on you 100-400. The 300 prime will be the best of the bunch at that focal length, but is clearly limited in versatility.

If 300mm is a useful focal length, it's a great lens and I encourage you to buy it. I would be reluctant to recommend the 70-200 w/TC if the bulk of your shooting is at greater than 200mm. Even with the 1.4X TC, the quality will be slightly inferior to the 100-400 zoom.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Sigma makes a damn fine big prime.. I hae the 500mm f/4.5 and love it.. and have heard good things about the Sigma 300mm as well.. however.. I have also been told by a number of owners that the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sigma Zoom is actually sharper and faster AF than the prime!

You may want to consider this as an alternative as well.

[aeroshots2003]

Hi Chris,

I have the similar set but from Canon, so 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) and 300 2.8 all with 1.4 and 2 x Tcon.

I have this combination since I tend most of the time to shoot at - 200mm or max to 300mm. The set gives me
* 2.8 over a wide range
* using the 1.4x it gives me 4.0 coverage 100 to 420mm in super quality
* 2x I only use when range matters or when I desperately need a zoom up to 400mm (in those cases I sometimes wish for the 100-400 although I don't like the push-pull).

Going for a similar set of course makes your bag considerably heavier, and if you have to cover some ground on foot...

That said, I can only state that I love the 70-200 and 300mm and their results make me forget all about gravitation :wink:

[Chrisc]

Cheers Guys,

I tried a 70-200 2.8 yesterday with a 1.4X and was quite happy with the results. Having never had a 2.8 lens before, the first thing i noticed was the incredibly bright viewfinder....Wow.

My 100-400 is normally used at 300 or 400mm, mostly the former so it seems to make more sense to buy the 300 prime, knowing I can also whack on a 2x and have a 600 5.6 is another big draw for those really sunny days.

Chris