Which lens to buy?

[RikWriter]

Okay, here is the situation. Currently, I have a 10D with the following lenses: Sigma 12-24, Canon 28-105 USM, Canon 50mm 1.8 and Canon 70-200 f4. I have a grand coming in that I can kick up a couple hundred more if need be and I want to use it for a lens, but I am being pulled in two directions...okay, three. No wait, four. (This is starting to sound like a Monty Python skit.)
The big choice I have is whether to go with the 24-70 L lens, which I can get for like $1100, to replace the 28-105; or go for a longer telescopic zoom and buy either the Canon 100-400 (which is right at the edge of what I can swing), the Bigma (which would leave me with some extra cash) or even go with the Canon 400mm f5.6 prime, which runs just over a grand.
I do a lot of family snapshots, for which the 24-70 would come in handy but most of what I like to photograph for my hobby is sunsets (particularly around the local lakes), wildlife (mostly birds and gators locally) and landscapes (on those occasions when I find myself in a state that has any...).
The longer tele lenses would certainly help with wildlife, while I could use the 24-70 for the lake shots.
I dunno, I guess this is like asking you guys who I should marry, but I am really in a quandry. Which would you get if the money were in your hands?

[defordphoto]

All of them. ;)

You actually state your case. Get the 24-70 (that's where you shoot most) and put the 100-400 on the wishlist.

[Tom W]

Tough choice - my take is that it depends on your shooting style. I have both the 24-70 and the 100-400L. Both have their place, and both are excellent (IMHO - there is a standing argument on another web site where the prime-only guys seem to hate the 24-70 for some reason - I like it). Think about what you shoot most now, and what you wish you could shoot. Also think about how well you like the images that you get with your various lenses.

How satisfied are you with the 28-105? If you're pretty happy with it, go long and save the 24-70 for another day. OTOH, if you are less than happy with the 28-105 for some reason or another, get the 24-70. You can also get hold of a Sigma 1.4X teleconverter for the 70-200. That'll get you to 280, albeit a little slow and with no IS, but its a cheap way to go a little longer while you save up for the inevitable 100-400L. :)

[RikWriter]

I really don't know how happy I am with the 28-105 because I haven't really challenged it yet. The most difficult thing I've done with it so far is sunsets, which I guess it did okay. I don't know if I know what I am missing though...
I do know there have been several times when I wish I'd had the 100-400 though (or some other long tele).
Say I do choose the long tele, is it worth it to go whole hog for the 100-400 or would I be happy with the 400mm 5.6L or the Bigma?

[Jon]

The 100-400L will fill a big gap (200-400 mm. range) in one end of your preferred work. I'd choose that over the 400 prime just because there is that gap between the 70-200 and a 400 prime. You don't get a speed advantage with the 400 to help offset, either. No particular opinion on the Sigma except that they zoom backwards. It's not that much cheaper (relatively) than the Canon, either. When I was deciding, I went with the Canon, partly because I didn't consider the cost difference big enough (after the rebate) and partly because of the backwards zooming.
You've got the wide-moderate range of the 24-70 mostly covered with your 28-105, albeit with less fine glass. Do you bump against the wide end of the lens stop very often doing your lakescapes? If not, I'd definitely go with the 100-400L and rely on Photostitch for the sunsets when needed.

[RikWriter]

The 100-400L will fill a big gap (200-400 mm. range) in one end of your preferred work. I'd choose that over the 400 prime just because there is that gap between the 70-200 and a 400 prime. You don't get a speed advantage with the 400 to help offset, either. No particular opinion on the Sigma except that they zoom backwards. It's not that much cheaper (relatively) than the Canon, either. When I was deciding, I went with the Canon, partly because I didn't consider the cost difference big enough (after the rebate) and partly because of the backwards zooming.
You've got the wide-moderate range of the 24-70 mostly covered with your 28-105, albeit with less fine glass. Do you bump against the wide end of the lens stop very often doing your lakescapes? If not, I'd definitely go with the 100-400L and rely on Photostitch for the sunsets when needed.


If I need wider, I usually go with my Sigma 12-24, so that end is covered. I think you're right about going with the Sigma 50-500 or the Canon 100-400. I just have to make sure I can come up with the extra fundage to get the 100-400 before I make my decision.

[Jon]

Dunno how I missed the 12-24. Yeah, that makes it easier - go long!

[RikWriter]

Okay, I have decided on a long lens (once my DRebel is delivered by UPS to the guy I sold it to and I can spend the $1000).
I am down to three lenses I am considering:
1)Canon 100-400L
2)Canon 400 f5.6L
3)Sigma 50-500

Now, the 100-400 is ideal, but it's also significantly more expensive. The Canon 400 5.6 has the advantages of being smaller and cheaper, but will I be limited by a fixed lens in the conditions in which I want to use it (wildlife photography)?
The Sigma is cheapest and has the longest reach, but people tell me they think it is not as sharp as the 100-400. Is the 100-400 SIGNIFICANTLY sharper? Will I notice?

I need advice here.

[Olegis]

The 100-400 also has IS, which Sigma lacks ... This alone should make your decision a lot easier ... :)

[RikWriter]

The 100-400 also has IS, which Sigma lacks ... This alone should make your decision a lot easier ... :)

I guess it should, but really it doesn't, as I have never had a lens with IS and don't know what I am missing. Also, I've read some great reviews of the 400 f5.6L.

[Olegis]

In my opinion the 400mm prime would be too limiting in wildlife photography. I have seen some pretty amazing photos from the 100-400 zoom, I would go for it without hesitation ...
The IS is quite useful with such a long focal lengths. Imagine that in order to keep the picture sharp, you'll have to shoot at 1/400s with 400mm lens ... The IS will allow you much lower speeds, about 1/125s or even less, handheld.

[Mooneyes]

I bought the Bigma used it 3 times and sold it. Bought the 100-400IS and now I,m sleeping with it :lol:
Its like driving a Rolls Royce compared to the Bigma, well worth the extra cost,and you do get what you pay for in this game.

[drisley]

Sell Canon 28-105...
Buy Tamron 28-75 F2.8...
Buy Canon 100-400 IS...

Be happy :D

[Belmondo]

-----and you do get what you pay for in this game.

This is a game? :oops: :oops:

Could've fooled me. Can I just declare myself the winner and stop spending money now? :lol:

[Jon]

100-400 IS. Like you said, you don't know what you're missing . . .

[RikWriter]

Sell Canon 28-105...
Buy Tamron 28-75 F2.8...
Buy Canon 100-400 IS...

Be happy :D

More like "be divorced." I can POSSIBLY get away with buying the 100-400 by adding a couple hundred to the $1000 I got for my Rebel. No way I can get the Tamron, not for the little bit I would get for the 28-105.

[Jon]

-----and you do get what you pay for in this game.

This is a game? :oops: :oops:

Could've fooled me. Can I just declare myself the winner and stop spending money now? :lol:

That'll only work if you stop hanging around here, and resign your hard-won new status . . .

[RikWriter]

Well, I TRIED, but I couldn't scrape together the extra money to get the 100-400, so I found a good deal on a barely used Bigma for $750. It should be here by Monday!

[RCJ]

Does anyone have experience with the Sigma APO 100-300/f4 EX IF HSM? I've seen a couple good reviews of this one. This plus the 1.4x TC would still be quite a bit less than the Canon 100-400IS.