Musing about my long lens situation (comments?)

What would you do?

My long lenses used to be a 70-200 f/4 non-IS and a 200mm f/2.8 Mk II prime (which also doesn't have IS). I made the step to get the 70-200 IS2 and sold the f/4. Wisely I didn't ditch the prime. I have a 5d2 and a 7d.

My plan included using extenders to get 280mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6, but that really doesn't work out, the AF is way too slow with the 2x extender. IS I greatly appreciated but I have overall disappointing results from the only airshow that I had this year compared to 2012 with the prime. The zoom lens is way too big and draws too much attention. Who knows whether we get airshows next year so I better get ready for birds. The 7D also irks me and I want to replace it with a 1d3, losing another 25% reach. So my long lens situation is overall ridiculous.

Short of getting a supertele, what are my options? Supertele I don't know about. Before I wised up about extenders I was kinda ready to get a 300 f/2.8 IS1 and use it as a 600 f/5.6 but I don't think I'll like the AF speed in there either.

So I would ditch the 70-200 IS2 and the 2x Mk III.

What are the options:

• Bigma? I've got to be honest, I never liked any of the Sigmas I touched so far. And what do I know, is it focusing faster than the Canon 200 with the 2x extender?
  
• 100-400 so that I have IS and fast AF and the picture quality I'd have to live with. Maybe ditch it for a 400mm f/5.6 prime later is IQ is too bad.
  
• Put rest of the money aside for supertele later.
  

uOpt wrote in post #16378476
What would you do?

What are the options:

• Bigma? I've got to be honest, I never liked any of the Sigmas I touched so far. And what do I know, is it focusing faster than the Canon 200 with the 2x extender?
  
• 100-400 so that I have IS and fast AF and the picture quality I'd have to live with. Maybe ditch it for a 400mm f/5.6 prime later is IQ is too bad.
  
• Put rest of the money aside for supertele later.
  

Random thoughts?

Bigma is so good I went out and got the SigMonster. I strongly recommend the Bigma-auto focus is as fast if not faster as any Canon and image quality is A-ok. You can buy as low as $817 or $969 at Amazon.

The extenders do not focus fast if at all and f stops are either 1 or 2 up depending on the one you buy. Image quality is poor.

If you are not into that I strongly recommend the Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime. It runs about $1100, focuses fast and has fantastic images-far better than the 100-400mm.

100-400 if you need the zoom (I believe you do need it for airshows).

The 400mm prime is great for situations where you still need to crop to get close enough. But I'm not sure it's flexible for your uses.

jefzor wrote in post #16378741
100-400 if you need the zoom (I believe you do need it for airshows).

The 400mm prime is great for situations where you still need to crop to get close enough. But I'm not sure it's flexible for your uses.

Well given all this I'll probably never sell the 200mm f/2.8 Mk II prime. So I would have that for airshows and I'd keep the 1.3x expander.

When it comes to deciding between the 100-400 and the 400 I am more concerned about IS.

I might want to rent a Bigma, or all of the above for that matter. Sounds like a good project for the holiday weekend.

If I had your gear I'd probably keep the 70-200 and the 1.4 extender, combined with the 400mm prime. And I'd keep the 7D too. But then again, I don't shoot air shows.

Is the 200mm prime that good that you'd keep it over the 70-200?

Oh, and I wouldn't worry too much about the (lack of) IS.

jefzor wrote in post #16378775
If I had your gear I'd probably keep the 70-200 and the 1.4 extender, combined with the 400mm prime. And I'd keep the 7D too. But then again, I don't shoot air shows.

Is the 200mm prime that good that you'd keep it over the 70-200?

Oh, and I wouldn't worry too much about the (lack of) IS.

Yeah as I said, IS is kinda overrated for my uses.

The 200mm prime isn't better than the 70-200 IS2 but they have about the same picture quality @200mm and the prime is small and light and black and the zoom is a bag pig. Not to mention the zoom (used) is worth 2.5-3 times as much as the prime so if I don't need IS then the prime is the keeper.

I had the Canon 100-400 IS and sold it after I got the Sigma 150-500 OS. Then I read the reviews on the 50-500 OS and tried it out. My grandson got the 150-500. Not that the Sigmas are so superior, they all do good work, but the versatility is great, from macro to telephoto, from general scenes to wildlife.

A lot of people don't like the weight or bulk--there's a lot of lens sticking out when fully extended. I carried three and four cameras as a working photographer, just one camera and this lens covers almost everything.

Two samples--the croc at 500mm, the flamingo at 302mm

Try the 100-400L and see if you can get use to the push/pull.

Other option for long end: 400/5.6L. It's light enough to handle without IS.

Everything everyone has said about the 400 5.6 is correct. I just sold my 300 f4 IS because i was using it with a teleconverter all the time. Once I bought the 400 and used it as it should be, I was amazed. The 300 is an amazing lens but with a tc on it all the time, AF and IQ suffer too much. I did get some great shots with this combo though.

So get a 400 if you think youll need it. Dont rely on a teleconverter. If you end up using it all the time youll wish you just bought a longer lens.

I think I should get the 400 5.6 and see how that works out. I can't find myself brave enough for the Sigma.

Can as well rid myself of all the IS stuff first, and then all the zoom nonsense.

AF is next

Ive never been to an airshow so i dont know how close of a focal range you might need with a zoom telephoto, but if youre going to be shooting birds youll mostly likely need more reach if anything. In that case the 400 5.6 prime would be a better choice. Very fast focusing and sharp as with many primes versus zoom lenses, and no IS to deal with, which i havent found to be a problem with faster shutter speeds and this relatively light weight lens.

uOpt wrote in post #16379294
I think I should get the 400 5.6 and see how that works out. I can't find myself brave enough for the Sigma.

Can as well rid myself of all the IS stuff first, and then all the zoom nonsense.

AF is next

That is a very good choice. I have used the Bigma, the 100-400 extensively, and the 400 5.6. The Bigma's AF is not nearly as fast as the 400/5.6 like stated a few posts above. The 100-400 is nice, but I liked the IQ coming from the prime. I have used the prime going on three years now and couldn't be happier within its price range. Only step up from the 400/5.6 are the f/4 primes. I do not miss IS with this lens.

Samples of the 400/5.6 can be viewed on my flickr.

Depends on how you shoot, I suppose. If you are at 400mm all the time, then of course the 400/5.6 is the best choice. But remember that the 100-400 does 100-399mm far better than the 400/5.6!

You loose more than 25% reach going from 7d to 1d3. you are not counting the pixel density, which is really what reach is all about, not the crop factor. but I digress.
your best options are the two canon you mentioned. the 100-400L, which is better for airshow b/c of zoom. More versatile. 400L is better for BIF b/c of faster AF and slightly sharper on a high pixel density camera. you wont be able to tell on a 1d3, but on 7d, you may be able to.

The 100-400 is a great lens and virtually the standard at airshows. I've found it to be sharper and more contrasty than the Sigma equivalents.