Went Lens shopping and was able to use...

50 1.4 ...... On Order
85 1.8
17-40 f4 L
300 f4 IS L
300 2.8 IS L
100-400 IS L


Now it will be decision time. I was only able to shoot from inside the stored but I cranked up the ISO and took some shots.
I liked them all which does not help matters at all...

Here is an unprocessed shot with the 30 f2.8 IS L (Shot handhelp at 1/100 @ f2.8 ISO 800)

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

I looked at 100-400 in the shop last week and was dismayed by the dim viewfinder image (which is to be expected with the apertures on this lens). I guess I'm just spoiled by the f2.8 apertures on my 28-70 L and my 70-200 L. It will still probably be my next purchase though, since I really want to get into wildlife and birding photography. Maybe someone will convince me that the Bigma is the lens I really want.

Mark

Ive been looking at the BIgma for a while... But i love the use of an image stabalizer... Its a feature that i think is very important.

How important is image stabilisation if you have to use a tripod anyway with such long focal lengths? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I'm relatively new to this stuff. I love the power of the IS on my 17-85mm but I can't imagine I could ever handhold at 400mm (equivalent to 640mm on my 1.6 crop).

The 100-400 is really great handheld:

Wow! Handheld? No Kidding?
The 5D is full frame, right? So was this taken at 400 or less?
That's enough ?s for one post (though I'd love to know the aperure, ISO and shutter speed too).

That's always been one of my fave 100-400 thread shots Tom W.

Here is my offering. Also (of course) hand-held:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Actually, that particular shot was taken with the 1D Mk II at 400 mm. (1/1250s f/7.1 at 400.0mm iso400)

This one is with the 5D at 400 mm handheld (1/500s f/8.0 at 400.0mm iso200):

Jim, that shot is incredible. Very nice.

Even when I have my 100-400 on a tripod, I still keep the IS turned on because whenever I'm shooting on a tripod there's still a little bit of vibration and camera shakes (I use a gimbal type head which I don't really lock tightly like I do a ball head).

Thanks for the settings, Tom.
The shutter speeds are fast which must help but nevertheless these are awesome results. Great lens (and great skill of course ).
If only I had the cash!

just got mine last week and used it for the first time all shots handheld.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=126208

One of the main factors i chose this over the Bigma and the canon 400mm f5.6 Prime was the IS. So far it's been worth it. I'm not much of a tripod person as i like to hike alot with little gear, so this gem of a lens is perfect for me.

Leo - I'm sure you have much more experience than me but Canon advise turning off IS on the 100-400 when on a tripod. See the Canon Knowledge Base article at http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/kb/detail.j​sp?faqId=1130

If I was mainly tripod or beanbag based I would go Bigma first, if handholding I would go 100-400 IS L based on having owned both. Personally, the IQ gain on the IS L is so small and the length loss so significant in practice that the price premium in the UK is not worth it unless you want IS. I'm talking about birding and wildlife shooting. Your choice may be different if you shoot other stuff. The 300mm 2.8 looks excellent if you need it.

But Dave, IQ gain and loss is only relative to how and what the lens is being used for.

Like you said, if you hand hold, 100-400 is the better choice. The IS will give you more slow shutter keeper shots than hand holding the Bigma.

The 100-400 gives more mobility, but then anything over that really should be on tripod or monopod anyway.

And then there are many execellent 300's out there , like that Sigma 120-300 2.8.