Long Lens Conundrum

[Illegally_Alive]

Hello-
I have a question for y'all- I have never had a long lens, but always wanted one. I have the money to get a decent one (<=$1000) but can't justify it yet. I don't do wildlife or nature photography. I just want it to have good coverage, because there have been times where I really wanted a few (or a lot ;) ) more millimeters. So the question is, is it better to buy a cheap one (level of a canon 70-300) and if I like it buy a better one OR buy a good one from the start (bigma or 70-200f4 w/1.4x)?

Thanks All!

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you think the 70-200mm f/4L is long enough,. then you can have "good" and "cheap" ;)

Anothr route might be the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with the Sigma 1.4X T-con (half the cost of the Canon 1.4X and still amazing good quality on good lenses)

Some will argue that the Canon is better than the Sigma for sharpness and contrast,. and it may be,. but that Sigma will be worlds ahead of the "cheap" 75-300mm lenses out there. And it will work well with a T-con.

The "Bigma" brings you into a hole other level just based on size and weight,.. but it is also the only really affordable way to get 500mm, with AF and really nice image quality. For someone with a few "holes" in there focal range,. the 50-500mm certainly goes a long way to filling the gaps as well.. ;)

[Illegally_Alive]

I guess I'm really leaning towards the 50-500 because relatively speaking it's about the same price as a 70 200 w/1.4x. Also I guess it's a good thing I can't find a used one anywhere!

[CyberDyneSystems]

There's a used Canon mount 50-500mm on FredMiranda froum right now ... :rolleyes:

[karusel]

How's bout a 200 2.8L prime?