Long lens recommendation?

[Luvwine]

I am thinking about (tho not for sure) springing for a longer lens than I currently have. Partly, because I just purchased a couple of lenses, I can take advantage of the 3x rebate, but I am trying to decide if I can justify it monetarily. All that aside, my current setup for long zooms is just the 70-200 L 2.8 IS. It is a wonderful lens and I have a 1.4x teleconverter. Still, for shooting birds and such, I can see where more reach would be nice. Also, I view the 2.8 as being ideal for indoor use and low light. For outside on a bright day, I am guessing that 100-400L or 400L 5.6 might be more useful. Any thoughts on what might be the next logical lens to get for outdoor shooting? Any other lenses I should consider? I don't want to get a lens I will later have to replace due to dissatisfaction with image quality. I suspect that the image quality on the prime will be better and that the zoom has the advantages of IS and flexibility of focal lengths. There is some overlap with the 70-200 (esp. with 1.4x) but I am guessing that I won't want to lug both around with me at the same time. If I were traveling or doing a mixture of low light and outside, I would probably stick with the 70-200. Another point is that there is no AF on 100-400 with TC. Of course, I could always wait and just decide that if I really want to shoot wildlife, I could save my pennies for a 500F4 or some other monster.... Decisions, decisions. Any thoughts?

Best,

[robertwgross]

I've recently spent a lot of time with the 100-400mm lens, with either one or two 1.4 teleconverters. That means that I have been going after small birds or any birds that are way out there. Tripod for everything.

---Bob Gross---

[Andy_T]

Steve,

if monster lenses don't intimidate you, the 'Bigma' (Sigma 50-500 / 4,0 -6,3 EX RF ) might also be worth looking at. Good lens with incredible zoom range at acceptable price ($ 1000 at B&H).

Advantage over the 100-400 IS would be the extra 100 mm focal length and lower price, disadvantages would be 'Sigma vs. Canon', the missing IS and the size&weight of the beast.


Best regards,
Andy

[Canuck]

Steve,

if monster lenses don't intimidate you, the 'Bigma' (Sigma 50-500 / 4,0 -6,3 EX RF ) might also be worth looking at. Good lens with incredible zoom range at acceptable price ($ 1000 at B&H).

Advantage over the 100-400 IS would be the extra 100 mm focal length and lower price, disadvantages would be 'Sigma vs. Canon', the missing IS and the size&weight of the beast.


Best regards,
Andy

Good call Andy, I was thinking the exact same thing :)