70-200 with a 1.4, 400 5.6L or Bigma

[MitchellB]

Hello

Can you post your thoughts comments sample pics on these lens options please.
I have the 70-200 2.8L and am considering either
adding a 1.4
getting a bigma
getting the Canon 400 5.6

decisions decisions decisions

[foxbat]

That depends on what you want to photograph and in what lighting conditions. Can you tell us?

[condyk]

There are several Bigma shots on this page, or the 2nd page. I would go for a Bigma again ... very useful range and superb quality, but then I prefer zooms rather than primes. Have you done a search for those lenses?

[Medic1]

Are you planning on using a tripod/monopod or handholding most of your shots? Neither of these lenses have IS.....

[Rob612]

I have been going trought the same pain. At the end I decided for the Bigma. Due to the fact that I am still saving for it (close to, perhaps) I may change my mind but as of today the bigma will be my choice.

[cfcRebel]

I have been going trought the same pain. At the end I decided for the Bigma. Due to the fact that I am still saving for it (close to, perhaps) I may change my mind but as of today the bigma will be my choice.
Same here. I'm saving for either Bigma or Sigma 80-400 OS since they are same price at B&H. ;)

[Mac]

Man this is becoming a hot topic...I posted a question a few weeks back looking for telephoto opinions. Right now, I have still not decided, but that is okay, I am still saving too. But at the moment, the Bigma is the front runner...

[cfcRebel]

Man this is becoming a hot topic...I posted a question a few weeks back looking for telephoto opinions. Right now, I have still not decided, but that is okay, I am still saving too. But at the moment, the Bigma is the front runner...
Hi Mac,
Have you thought about Sigma 80-400 OS? The reason i also consider this lens is because of its OS. I know it's 100mm shorter than Bigma at the long end but IMHO the OS is more important than the extra 130mm(both ends). I don't know. I'm still deciding. ;)

[foxbat]

I've never yet seen a Bigma photo that I really liked. IMHO the colours are flat and it's definitely soft at the long end. The Canon is sharper, and I mean **really** sharp, it focus's faster, is lighter, smaller, has better colour and better contrast. So in the image quality stakes the Canon floors the Sigma. Of course it's a prime and if you must have a zoom then it's not for you.

[musthavemuzk]

Mac and I have talked about that 80-400. as i have the canon 1-4 on my list of potentials.
i have not investigated it yet but he said something about slow AF and he does shoot wildlife so slow is not a good thing.
but will let him speak for himself.

there is a article at luminous about the 2.8IS vs the 1-4.

Monty

[cfcRebel]

Thanks for the heads up Monty. I'm just torn between 50-500 non-OS and 80-400 OS. But if the 80-400 has slower AF, that helps me make my decision easier.:) Or unless Dell's coupons can bring the 100-400L price down to $1000. :p

[AJ Montgomery]

I can weigh in on the 400/5.6 as I own one. I can tell you that in order to shoot this handheld, you had better get >1/640th. On a tripod, anything below 1/320 or 1/250 and remote release and even MLU is warranted. I try to keep my shutter speed >1/800th.

It is sharp at 5.6 and well worth the money for the reach. Also, it is an L lens, which carries benefits. I considered the 300/4 +1.4 TC, the Bigma, Sigma 80-400 and the 400/5.6, obviously favoring the 400/5.6 and do not regret making the decision.

[musthavemuzk]

and thanks to AJ for his insight. Mac should find that useful.
i will also file it for ref.

Monty

[Persian-Rice]

If I had the the chance to do it all again, I would get the 300mm f/4 IS + tc or even stay with my 70-200 f/2.8 + tc. I love the performance of the 70-200, even though I find it a tad short at times, but the quality is good enough where I can do a bit of cropping, though I rarely need to.


The 400 f/5.6 is also a great choice, but after doing my research, I personally feel the above two are better, at least for me.