Yet another lens question

[martook]

[ There is a slightly shorter version after this post... :]


Hi everyone!

Just signed up, but have spent some time reading a lot of posts in this great forum. I got the feeling there wasn't enough questions about lenses here though, so I thought I'd help you out with that! (erh.... :)


Background story:

I recently switched from a P&S (Minolta S414) to the 350D SLR. After a trip around the world where I often was annoyed over the limited zoom-range and quality of the pictures, I decided I'd had enough. Since my economy is now getting better again, I needed something to waste my money on (yeah, you probably got the point, I'm single and I plan on staying single. ;). I've never had an SLR before, so I'm very much in a learning process, but when I do something, I do it seriously, otherwise I would probably not have sold most of my stuff for a nine month trip around Asia/Oceania :P


Anyway...

Like I said, I have the 350D. I did not get the kit lens, instead I got the Tamron 28-75/2.8. This is what I'll use as my walk around lens. Now I need your help with expanding my list of lenses a bit. My plan is to start with a 3-lens setup, one for wideangle, one in the mid-range, and one tele-zoom.

Having spent a lot of time reading about different lenses, I've narrowed it down to a few choices. The prices quoted are in Euros and the price of new Canons are with rebate.


Wideangle:

Canon EF 17-40/4L - 592 Euro
Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 - 625 Euro
Tokina 12-24/4 - 489 euro

Comment: Since the Tamron starts at 28mm, the 17-40 is overlapping quite a bit. I don't really care about the 10-22 being an EF-S, I'll never get a 1D anyway :)
I have seen some reviews of the 10-22 saying that it's not so great, and I have seen pictures posted that was absolutely stunning. It's very very wide, which is nice, caus' then I cover a bigger range, but would the 17-40 be a better choice for me as a start? With the prices being pretty much the same, at least that's something I can take out of the equation :)
I was really close to order the Tokina, and then I realised that the 10-22 wasn't that much more expensive, and it would be nice to have at least one Canon-lens in my bag ;)


Tele-Zoom:

Canon 70-200/2.8 - Second hand, 900-1000 Euro
Canon 70-200/4 - 546 Euro
Sigma 100-300/4 - 787 Euro


Comment: This is really a bigger issue than the wide side. Although I love the Tamron, I'd really like some more range to it, so a tele-zoom is necessary. Today I just missed a second hand 70-200/2.8 in excellent condition, which did not make me happy. Bloody customers calling me with their stupid problems when I'm about to buy me a great lens! =)

Good things about the 70-200/4 is that it's cheap (well, relatively), light and white. Negative is that the range is not that long and that it's white.

Good things about the Sigma 100-300 is that it's capable of brilliant pictures even at 420mm (1.4x TC) and that it doesn't scream "expensive" in the same obvious way as the L-telezooms. Bad thing is that it's big and heavy.
http://www.treknature.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=18
Some great pictures there by a fellow Swede.


I would of course love to have the 100-400 IS, but that's just way to expensive for me now, and I can't wait, I want to shop now!
A second hand 70-200/2.8 is a bit more expensive than the Sigma, and I might have to wait for quite some time before I find one, and who knows what condition that will be in when I get it? And is it really worth that much more money?


Now, I know the first thing you are going to ask is what kind of photography I'll use the lenses for and so on, but I can't really answer that, since I just started ;)
I don't really think there will be that much shooting indoors though, so the 2.8 might not be necessary...
So, what I'm looking for here is a decent mid-range setup, that is good enough for you and work in most situations. Please help me spend my money wisely! ;)



Other things on my shoppinglist are:
Canon BG-E3 battery grip
* Canon EOS 350D
Canon 50mm/1.8 - Well, everyone says you need one of these, so why not?
Canon Speedlite 550EX or 420EX
* Crumpler bag
* Manfrotto monopod
* Manfrotto tripod
* Sandisk 1GB Ultra II
One more Sandisk 1GB Ultra II
Sigma 1.4X TC
* Tamron 28-75/28
Extension Tubes

( * is stuff I've got )

Cheers! And thanks!

./martin

[martook]

Sorry! I can't help it, but I always write really really long explanations. Here is the really really short version instead:

Hi! I'm a total newbie.
Looking for wideangle lens, should I get the 10-22 or the 17-40 ?
Also looking for tele-zoom, I think one of these: 70-200/4 or 100-300/4
Please help!

:D

[flyfishnj]

Glad you did the abridged version - 10-22 and 70-200 f4

[condyk]

Great ... someone who asks a good question :lol: twice :lol:

Canon 17-40L if only because it has great resale, minimal/no depreciation if you buy SH, and you may not have to take it off to replace it with the Tamron all the time. The range overlap is actually halpful. wide-ish and walkaround-ish ... nice. Was my first choice until I found my Tokina at a great SH price. Very happy with it.

100-300mm F4 ... I had the 70-200 f4 and a Sigma f2.8 version. Both good, but the 100-300 has the range and the quality, even with a 1.4x. It's one of Sigma's best and very popular with people who own it.

The weight is an issue, but it's not too bad at all. Get a good bag like a computrekker. No problem. Get a hand strap too and a battery grip for that ladies camera :lol: :p The 100-300 with the hood on is long tho' fella, but is fast and clean.

I just wouldn't get a f4 70-200 again ... what do people do with that? I never did a thing, nor with the f2.8 Sigma (which I prefered BTW) but my thing is really wildlife and longer counts for sure.

[martook]

Yeah, I knew a lensquestion or two would cheer you up!

The next person to answer is probably going to recommend the tokina and the 70-200/2.8, which means you've been no help whatsoever... ;D


Seriously though, good points with the 17-40... my plan was to stick to the tamron as much as possible and pop on the other ones on special occasions, like when I'm walking around in cities or so. Hmm... I'll have to think about that for a while.
I really do want that 10-22 though!

Ladies camera? You really do know how to make friends, huh? ;)
Yeah, a batterygrip is necessary, the 350 is too small to put a big lens on otherwise... thanks for the hand strap idea, hadn't thought of that. That oughta help as well.


Well, I wouldn't mind more opinions, anyone else managed to get past the extra long, directors cut version and feel like commenting? :)

./martin

[gasrocks]

No, I didn't read all of the loing version.....But - do get the 10-22 efs, and the 70-200/4 L Canon - then fill in the gap with the Tamron 28-75. Then buy even more prime lenses!

[martook]

I spend an hour writing a brilliant but long post, and then noone reads it *sniff*

I'm really leaning towards the 10-22 and the 100-300 right now, I've got a really bad 80-200 right now, and that's a bit to short I think.


By the way, is the 550EX flash worth the extra cash compared to the 420EX for someone like me? I'm trying to find a second hand 550 for a good price, but I don't really want to pay an extar $100 for a used 550 if I won't use the extra features.

[JK]

I spend an hour writing a brilliant but long post, and then noone reads it *sniff*

I'm really leaning towards the 10-22 and the 100-300 right now, I've got a really bad 80-200 right now, and that's a bit to short I think.
Don't worry - your post has had 81 views already (and counting), so people are reading it. :)
Sometimes large posts can put people off from reading the whole thing, but don't let that stop you, especially if you have a good story to tell!

As for your lenses, well the 10-22 should serve you very well as a wideangle lens. The 17-40 may be a bit more useful though for general photography, so I'd definitely still consider that one.

I can recommend the 70-200 f4 - it produces very sharp contrasty images and is built very well. However 200mm is not really that much zoom, so depending on your needs the 100-300 would fit the bill a bit better.

You may also want to consider renting a few lenses for a day to try them out to see whether they suit your needs.

Either way, enjoy your new gadgets, take lots of photos and share them on the board!:D

[condyk]

I think you have a good set of options ... I'd head over to fredmiranda.com review section and see what other users say about your options. I've always found it a very useful place to add to, confirm or refute any ideas I have. I wonder if you're spending too much on your wide? If you really think it will be core to your shooting then fair enough, otherwise the 17mm Tokina is well thought of and much cheaper. Would free up cash. Good to throw on when you have the need ... not as flexible as a zoom, but dunno how important that is for you. I posted a whole list of possible wides just a few days back, based on the FM review section scores.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Haha, I read your entire post. Sertainly is long, but not too long. :) Anyway, I don't know what to say man. I've made it a rule for myself to only purchase canon L glass from now on because of it's incredibly high resale value! For me, upgrading is a way of life. So, I know I'll be selling my 70-200 f/4 months from now for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it's nice to get as much cash back as possible. I've seen used f/4's sell for 700 bucks USD to peeps in the UK and 500-550 USD to peeps in the US. USED. It's crazy! Sigma's, Tonkina's, Tamrons, none of them hold their value like that. If your like me, then I wouldn't advise buying anything but the Canon L.

Now, your Tamron 28-75 has a great walk around range, and would be complimented nicely by a 10-22, but then again overlapping mm's can be very useful. Reduces how often you have to swap lenses. 17-40mm has a 23mm range, the 10-22 has a 12mm range. So, that makes the 17-40 more versatile. It also has a fixed f/4 apeture. The 10-22 has a f/3.5-4.5 (Personally I'm not a big fan of that). The 10-22 costs about 150 USD more, and at that price it's nice to be able to say (Woah, I just dropped $$$ on L glass today!) It's a good feeling that you'll miss out on for a price tag of $800.00 USD..... To me, everything points towards the 17-40L. Although, I would suggest you get to some shop, and hold them both in your hands. Put them on your camera, take some pictures, get a feel for the lenses. That's how you should make your choice.

As for the tele zoom..... this is a tough one! For now though I'd suggest the 70-200mm f/4. Yes, it doesn't really have enough reach. I find it lacking very often myself, but it is a fantastic lens at a fantastic price. It's great for wild life, portrait, sports, and so much more. Plus, once again, when you decide to upgrade to the 100-400L, your 70-200 f/4 will get you a good chunk of change back!
When I bought mine I looked at it this way;

100-400L = $1400.00 USD. 70-200 f/4 will resell for minimum of around $500.00 USD. $1400.00 - $500.00 = only $900.00 that I'll have to pay off for my 100-400L.

Don't bother with the sigma.... from the sounds of it you'll wanna upgrade pretty soon, and you'll regret having bought that sigma. You can live with a 200mm range for now can't ya? -_o

My vote: Canon 17-40mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L combo.

[condyk]

Tonkina's, Tamrons, none of them hold their value like that. If your like me, then I wouldn't advise buying anything but the Canon L.

As for the tele zoom..... this is a tough one! For now though I'd suggest the 70-200mm f/4. Yes, it doesn't really have enough reach. I find it lacking very often myself, but it is a fantastic lens at a fantastic price. It's great for wild life, portrait, sports, and so much more!

Don't bother with the sigma.... from the sounds of it you'll wanna upgrade pretty soon, and you'll regret having bought that sigma. You can live with a 200mm range for now can't ya? -_o

Hmmm ... I've owned one Canon L and sold it because the 70-200 range PLUS the F4 was useless for me. I was given BAD advice. The Sigma 100-300 F4 is a better lens for what the OP needs and, based on my experience, a better lens full stop. I've owned both and happy to keep the 100-300 long term. I have no issue with L and non L: I buy what I think is best for the job at the very best price. I factor in depreciation and still come out smelling of Roses :lol:

The 70-200 is a zoo and garden or park lens it is NOT a wild-wildlife lens. For that you need 400mm plus to even get close including the crop factor. Sure, you can take some great shots BUT you will miss many more because of the length. The Sigma 100-300 and TCon is the minimum I would recommend. AND I wouldn't recommend that in woodland or shady areas. You need faster and it costs money. My next will be a fast and long prime .. and it'll be a SIgma I guess as better value.

As to resale ... I am currently around US $600 in PROFIT through upgrading mainly 3rd party lenses: in other words, on a conservative estimate my photography ASSETS, all now 3rd party, are worth $600 more than I paid for them should I sell them all tomorrow. I total all my buys and sales on a spreadsheet, even including CF cards, so I'm not talking off the top of my head.

So, the point that Canon L is better from that POV is a generalisation, pure and simple. Depends how low you buy and how high you sell. If you buy NEW L glass you will lose. If you buy SH non L carefully you may profit, as I have done. If you buy new 3rd party glass you will also lose ... and probably more. That's true. SH non L is one way to build a quality collection that gets great results for the least money. The problem with SH L glass is you buy high and sell later for the same. That's fine, but where does the money come from to upgrade ... your own pocket. Where does mine come from, through the small profit I make each time and FAR less from my own pocket :lol:

It's a no brainer ...

[lordjim]

It depens on what you want to do with the lens. The 70-200 F4L is a fantastic lens for outdoor portraits and for zoo and safari parcs wildlife (relatively affordable compared to the F2.8 IS). The 70-200 F4L will be too short for wild wildlife (as well as a 100-300 unless you have an extender). You will need at least a 400mm for wild wildlife. I do not know the Sigma 100-300 but I found the Canon 100-400 great but very expensive.

[Rob612]

I have at least one of the lenses you have in your list, the EF-S 10-22. Sure, its and EF-S but unless you are not planning to buy a full frame DSLR shortly, who cares ? I can tell you that I really love mine especially at the shorter lenghts (basically I've found myself using it almost always @10-12 mm). Its tack sharp, uses the same filter size (77mm) of some of the more common lenses (including several L's) and the price you've got is astounding compared to what it costed me here (625 EU for you, 820 for me... that's quite a saving, and I suppose that If I need another expensive piece of equipment I will ask you to check the prices over there, being EU it can be shipped without taxes and that's nice ! BTW, How much is a D20 around you ?? Here is about 1400 EU body only). In a few words, highly recommended.

For what concerns the 70-200, I just got (used) the 2.8, its a lens that really has a long story, I got it together with a 35-350 from a Ferrari photographer that switched to primes, but he is paid by Ferrari and I guess is even sponsored by Canon...). These particular lenses really show the signs of heavy work, lot of scratches on the body and similar, but the glasses, the mechanics and the electronics work flawlessy, so who cares. Tell ya, somehow I like the "workhorse look" they have !

I have no hands on experience with the 70-200/4 but I suppose that, except for the wider aperture, is performs very similar to the 2.8. Having had the chance to test my 2.8 in low light conditions, I will suggest you go with an used 2.8 instead of a new 4, but that is only if you do need to shoot long lenses in low light.

Hope this helps (and remember to let me knwo how much is a D20 in Sweden...)

[Cadwell]

I'd get the Sigma APO 100-300mm f/4 EX over the Canon 70-200f/4L or the Canon 100-400L in a heartbeat.

Note, I own both the Canons and I've used the Sigma. Sorry L fans.

[martook]

First of all I'd like to thank all of you for trying to help me, and an extra point for those that actually read the whole thing! ;)


Another thing that I forgot to mention is that I really want to do another trip around the world and then I can't bring 10kg of camerastuff with me. One option would be to bring a 17-40, a 50mm and the 70-300 DO IS. The L-glass telezooms is just something you can't bring with you when you're living in a backpack. Maybe I should have stayed out of that DO IS lens thread though, it's really expensive *sigh*


I wish I could follow everyones advice, and get a 10-22, a 17-40, a 70-200 and a 100-300... but that's not really an option... or is it... hmm... and here I thought travelling was expensive :D


I do think the 100-300 is right for me though, the 200mm I've got now just isn't long enough. The biggest problem I have with the Sigma is the weight, but if I get the DO lens as well, I should have that problem covered.

More thinking is required though... my paycheck arrives on friday, so must have made up my mind before the weekend! ;)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Well, I guess that would solve your problems.... the DO and the 17-40 since it's cheaper.... or you could go for a Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 to balance out the cost of the DO lens. That'd be around $1500.00 to $1600.00 depending on filters, cases, and other stuff you might buy for the lenses.

[martook]

JK:
The problem is that I live in a rather small town, don't think there is a place where you can rent lenses here unfortunatly. And I'm pretty sure none of the shops has the Sigma either, so I can't even touch it before I order it, that kinda sucks :/


Condyk:
I suppose a wide angle prime could work as well, the problem with being a beginner at this is that you don't really know what you need/want, and then a zoom is a better option.
Gonna have a look at that post of yours...

RbrtPtikLeoSeny:
I'm not sure I'm going to sell my lenses to buy new ones, I'll probably keep the old ones as well, so I should really get optics that is good for a specific thing, so I can justify keeping it... hehehe


Rob612:
Yeah, I really do want that lens, so I'll probably have to get that and the damn 17-40 lens... ;)
The prices quoted aren't from swedish suppliers, they are a lot more expensive, they are from www.technikdirekt.de, a big reseller in Germany. And the prices are with a Canon refund rebate (see http://www.canonextrapromotion.com/) which doesn't seem to cover Italy unfortunatly :(

Do you want to know how seriously pissed off I was yesterday when some guy got the 70-200 2.8 two seconds before I called? The words coming out of my mouth were rather harsh, and the desk at my job has a nice big cut in it now :D
I also "lost" an online auction with a 70-200 2.8 a few days back, so I don't think it's meant to happen. Someone up there wants me to get the Sigma instead!

[martook]

Well, the 17-40 is only 33 euros cheaper (whats that, 40 bucks or something) so the difference there is not an issue really.

Don't think I'll get the DO IS now though, that's going to have to wait a bit longer, not planning on travelling for another year or two...

Yeah, that Tamron is supposed to be really good as well... hmm... I think I'm getting more confused, not less :D

[martook]

A friend of mine is getting his 20D today i think, so I can try the 18-50 kit lens and see if I think it's wide enough, if it is, the 17-40 will get higher priority than the 10-22.

My plan as it looks right now:

Canon 10-22
Tamron 28-75
Sigma 100-300


And then as travel lenses:

Canon 17-40
Canon 50
Canon 70-300 DO


How does those combinations look? It'll take me a few months of living on bread and water to be able to afford all the lenses, but I can live with that... Six lenses is about as much as I can fit into my camerabag as well, so that'll have to be enough :P

Finally recieved my manfrotto tripod yesterday, so as soon as the bloody rain stops pouring down I'll test out my Tamron a bit more... need to see how it performs wide open. I've got some nice handheld shots, but I have quite a few that is really soft as well, so I have to see what it's capable of...

[condyk]

My plan as it looks right now:

Canon 10-22
Tamron 28-75
Sigma 100-300

And then as travel lenses:

Canon 17-40
Canon 50
Canon 70-300 DO

How does those combinations look?

Not sure why you're buying two sets ... is it weight? Seems to make no sense. Why not get your travel set NOW and then get what's best for you again at the time of your return. You can sell your travel stuff at that time.

I'd probably put my best quality options for each range on a spreadsheet, add in a column for cost and one for weight and then see what the cheapest and lightest combo is ... or just scribble on a piece of paper while you're looking out the window at work :lol:

Another option is to just take a Panasonic FZ5 with its 10x Leica optical zoom - awesome P&S!

BTW ... check out:

http://www.auctionsniper.com

Would have helped you win the ebay aution :lol: :lol: Just put in your highest bid in advance and it bids up to that amount for you. I set the bid time for 8 seconds before close of auction. ALSO, prevents you getting dragged into a bidding war. NEVER bid untiol the last seconds or you just help increase the price. Good luck!

BTW the Lowepro Computrekker is an ideal second travel bag as you can remove partitions and use it as you carry on with camera stuff, toiletries, papers, book, etc and very comfy to walkaround with all day. Great build and design.

[kenyc]

Great ... someone who asks a good question :lol: twice :lol:

.....

100-300mm F4 ... I had the 70-200 f4 and a Sigma f2.8 version. Both good, but the 100-300 has the range and the quality, even with a 1.4x. It's one of Sigma's best and very popular with people who own it.

......

I just wouldn't get a f4 70-200 again ... what do people do with that? I never did a thing, nor with the f2.8 Sigma (which I prefered BTW) but my thing is really wildlife and longer counts for sure.

What kind of photos do you shoot? Curious because I'm focusing in on exactly the lens you don't want. :)

KAC

[condyk]

Kenny ... my interest is mainly wildlife, particularly in Southern Africa where I have travelled all over. From previous experience even 400mm is too short to get many shots, unless the images are heavily cropped later. I prefer as full a frame shot as I can get because then you get the real sharp dynamic contrasted and colourful results we all like. I like to see the 'whites of their eyes' if I can, as much of the emotional response to an image is derived from there, even with wildlife!!

Grainy cropped shots do nothing for me, particularly when the subject seems dead and lifeless as well. Sure, with a 200mm I see that Elephant in the distance but the resulting image quality usually sucks and it's portrayed as just a walking lump of grey blubber, not a living and feeling creature. Most images taken with below 300-400mm that are any good are either the exceptional close shot or of captive animals.

The 70-200 f4 is a GREAT lens if you shoot in its range. A problem here is a number of people advocate it as suitable for wildlife and I wonder what they mean by that and if they've travelled beyond their city limits :confused: The Canon is Ok if they are close by, as in pets :lol: or the zoo, for some garden feeder shots, parks, or for other captive environments. In such places it's great most of the time, no doubt. It's no good for woodland and birds (unless in cages :lol: ) or for much of the wild-wildlife in wilderness environments. It's a joke to even think it is!

It is good for portraits if you get lighting right indoors, or outdoors. It is fairly light, well built and with a fast AF. For walkaround it is too long and 'beige' :lol:

I then got the Sigma f2.8 as my intention was still to use that with my ex Bigma for when light was reduced and wildlife was a bit closer, particularly at dawn and dusk or for waterhole type shots, but the combined weight was too much to be practical ... tho' it is a very nice lens and I prefered it to the Canon personally. The extra stop is valuable and worth the extra cash. But it is bigger and heavier than the Canon. That's an issue.

So, the Canon is good ... you just to ask yourself if you're getting it because you KNOW the range and f4 is just what you need, or because you can say you have an L lens. Even if the range is right well I think the f2.8 Sigma will be a better choice if you can accept the extra size and weight. I didn't mind at all.

In some ways I'd like all L lenses myself: in theory it's a cool idea to have a 'system' from just one brand, but I struggle to find any at the right price that are ALSO sufficiently better quality than 3rd party options. it's my cash after all, and its a value for money issue primarily. My intention is to keep the 100-300mm f4 for the zoom flexibility and quality but then also get a longer prime for distance, both with my TCon when required. I've then pretty much got the best compromise value/quality set of glass there is :p

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Condyk, I agree with you that the 70-200mm f/4 is too short for wild life shots, but it does work for birds if you are sneaky enough. With that lens I have slowly snuck up on birds step by step, and taken some decent shots. Sure you have to get pretty darn close, but it can be done. haha, it's just a major pain! Canon needs to make some sweet 500-600mm zoom L lenses! At reasonable prices....

[condyk]

I take it all back ... I see where I've been going wrong and that I just need to buy a 70-200 f4 and learn to sneak around better :lol:

[martook]

Condyk:
Well, the thing is that I'm not planning on going on another long trip for a couple of years or so, and the quality of the DO IS doesn't seem to be so high compared to that of the Sigma.

It's weight and also size... I really want the 10-22, but that's not something I'd bring with me on a trip, way to unpractical lens for that. Then the 17-40 would be a good walk around lens, switching to the DO IS when I need some length. But I'd prefer the Sigma today I think. Also, I need a bunch of lenses to fill out my crumpler bag, otherwise I'll look like an idiot, so that's a good reason to spend some money as well... ;)

The auction was on a Swedish site unfortunatly, so that page wont help for that, but the 550EX I might be able to get. Thanks!
I don't really want to buy a SH lens from another country, too much trouble if it's not working right.

I'll have a look at that bag, might be a good investment, although I love the Crumpler designs... very expensive though.

[condyk]

Condyk:
Well, the thing is that I'm not planning on going on another long trip for a couple of years or so, and the quality of the DO IS doesn't seem to be so high compared to that of the Sigma.

I don't really want to buy a SH lens from another country, too much trouble if it's not working right.

Ok, I thought you were heading off travelling soon. The SIgma is cool and just does a great job with minimum fuss ... you'll enjoy it if you can find a Crumpler big enough :lol: I fancy one of the new series but not in the Uk yet. Hard to justify when I have the perfect functional bag already ... but cool design certainly doesn't suck in my house :lol:

The Auction Sniper works with ebay in any country as far as I understand. Currency is irrelevant. I didn't mean bid outside your own country.

[martook]

I wish I could, but it's expensive. Very expensive. So that will have to wait unfortunatly...
Haven't event been home a year yet since my last (and first really :) trip, but that's basically the only thing in life I know for certain... that I will travel through Asia again, I loved it!

Well, the Swedish Ebay is totally worthless, nothing to buy there at all, but there is a decent swedish auction site, and a really good photocommunity with quite a lot of people selling lenses and so on. The worst thing is that if I buy something SH in Sweden, I know I can get it cheaper new from Germany, and even more annoying is to check out the US sites and realise that the prices on the German sites (in euro) is similiar to those on US sites (in dollars), and I can't understand why it's sooooo much cheaper there. Unfair it is :(

[martook]

Condyk:
Just one more question. How is the 100-300 when you don't use a *-pod? Without the IS I mean.
Handheld is rather important as well, a lot of natural subjects refuses to stay in the spot long enough for me to grab the monopod and extending the lens I think ;)

I was starting to lean towards the 100-400 today because it has IS and weighs less... and it seems it's about as necessary to have one of those as the 50mm prime to be accepted around here... ;)
When I added the TC and filter to the Sigma the price suddenly got closer to that of a Canon 100-400, but I really don't want that pushnpull design. So I wont buy. I wont... I think... :P

"fredmiranda.com is offline for maintenance."
bah!

[condyk]

Well ... it's a long zoom and so handheld not ideal. I think it's about the same as my Bigma used to be in terms of handling. You can get a good shot for sure, but you really need to be careful and well balanced and take 3-4 shots of the same subject so you can select the best later.

I will use mine mainly in a vehicle with a beanbag or otherwise supported. I haven't had chance to use it 'in the field' yet but hope to get a chance over the next ten days while I'm away. The TC will contribute to handheld issues. It's a fact of life for long zooms.

The 100-400 IS is very nice but for me it would be useful, but not essential, due to cost. You may want to consider the SIgma 80-400 OS too ... I liked mine in usability terms but it was faulty and I got a refund. My first lens problem ever! People who own it like it and I had some verynice shots mailed to me by people here and at FM when I was considering it. Superb value against the Canon IS which, as you know, is crazy expensive in EEC compared to US and HK.

If you're someone who neeeds to be accepted then maybe you should go for the 100-400 IS :lol: but people who are adventurous enough to travel far and wide are often a bit more independent minded and don't normally worry too much about 'looking good'!! If you can afford the 100-400 IS and really feel quality and handling is better than the OS or 100-300 F4 then you will be happy. I have considered it but it loses out in value for me compared to the competition. If I was in the US I may feel differently.

Of course, if you travel to Asia then you can buy one there and sell when you return home for big profits :D

[martook]

Yeah, I suppose that's true... I guess that makes it a question of IS or not IS, and if I need it, IS or OS... :)
I think I will use mine handheld a lot, so some sort of IS is probably a good idea... Too bad, because really like the quality of the 100-300 pictures, looks better than those I've seen from the 100-400.

Haha :)
One thing about the 80-400 that I prefer over the 100-400 is that it isn't white and yells "steal me"... also, I have to say that there are a lot of "L-people" out there and some of them almost makes me wish I'd baught another brand...
A lot of people (of which a big number of L-people haven't even tried the lens...) are complaining about the lack of a HSM, and most people that actually have and use the lens say it's not that big of a deal if you know how to handle it. Sure, it would be nice, but I don't think USM is worth over 400 euros to me personally (999 vs. 1435 € pricetags).

Also, there seems to be some sort of quality problem with the 100-400, have seen quite a lot of reports of IS breaking down, and that better happen within the first year, or it'll be really expensive... and I've read several reports where people say that when the IS is fixed, the lens that came back is really soft... that doesn't sound very appealing to me =)

So for me personally I think Sigma 80-400 is the way to go, but still considering the 100-300 as well... I just wish I could try them out first, but that's not an option around here.

I think I'll get both 17-40 and 10-22, but I'll start with the 17-40, that way I have a lens hood that fits the 10-22 when I get it... ;)


A big thanks to all of you that have answered, and especially you condyk!!!

./martin