Need help deciding

I want a longer lens but can't seem to decide with way to go.

There's 3 options available to me

Keep my canon 70-200 f4 is and buy the sigma 150-600. Cost £900.00
Sell canon 70-200 and buy new canon 100-400mk 2. Cost £1100.00
Keep 70-200 and buy secondhand 100-400 mk1. Cost £700.00

Not sure how much I would use a long lens because I've never owned one before.

tongard wrote in post #17606683
I want a longer lens but can't seem to decide with way to go.

There's 3 options available to me

Keep my canon 70-200 f4 is and buy the sigma 150-600. Cost £900.00
Sell canon 70-200 and buy new canon 100-400mk 2. Cost £1100.00
Keep 70-200 and buy secondhand 100-400 mk1. Cost £700.00

Not sure how much I would use a long lens because I've never owned one before.

I did option 2. I really liked the 70-200 f4 is, but I love the 100-400 ii. The 100-400 ii is heavier, but that doesn't bother me.

I'll start by saying I have the Sigma 150-500mm. When I was looking it was a little cheaper than the Canon 100-400MKI, with close IQ and better stabilization.

If I could go back, I'd probably get the Canon. The only reason is size. The Canon will fit any of my bags that will take my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. The 100-400MKI is shorter and slightly thicker than the 70-200 (the 100-400 is a little heavier too). If I had the Canon, I would almost definitely take it with me more frequently than the Sigma.

What you need to decide is portability or length your main concern. I doesn't make a difference what lens you have, if you are shooting wildlife (especially birds), there will be times (many) that you wish you had more length. The Sigma's 200mm more compared to the Canon (that's a lot).

For me now it is the portability. (Too late though unless I decide to sell, but I have other priorities before I worry about that switch.) Also keep in mind when I say portability I'm not talking weight, which I seldom care that much about. (6'2" 230 lift five days a week!) Portability is bags that are easy to carry the equipment around in - zooms that go to 500mm or 600mm are long.

If I had to do it from scratch now, I probably would get the Canon MKII. (I say probably because as I said 200mm more FL is a lot.)

I don't know how you feel about weight though. The 100-400MKII (or I) is significantly heavier than the 70-200mm f/4 IS. You might miss that.

Hard choice. I boils down to the budget and needs. The 70-200 is a great lens but it is not good enough for wildlife. The 100-400 II is one of the best Canon lenses, but expensive. The 150-600 is great for wildlife, but it is huge, etc. I doubt anybody can give you a 100 percent "correct" answer!

tongard wrote in post #17606683
I want a longer lens but can't seem to decide with way to go.

Not sure how much I would use a long lens because I've never owned one before.

This is very confusing.

You want a long lens. But you're not sure how much you would even use it.

So what do you even want the long lens for? What are you going to shoot? Why do you think you won't use it very much?

A lot goes into using a seriously long lens. Some are more friendly to be hand held than others. This is a common thing when someone gets a serious reaching lens (600mm) and never use it because it's just too big for them to take around the way they imagined they would, or it's cumbersome to use for the situation they wanted it for (like low light wildlife or birds in flight and they just don't have the patience to learn to shoot extremely high ISO or to use stabilizing mounts like gimbals, which just adds to the complexity and adds to the weight and cumbersome nature of carrying it all). Weight. Size. Will you actually take it places. Are you willing to learn to use a long focal length (it's not the same, at all, as using shorter focal lengths). For what you want to shoot, is the lens you're choosing actually going to be good for what you want to do, based on the camera body that you have?

Think long and hard about those questions. Try and be specific if you care to reply and get more feedback that will help guide you. And try and be honest with yourself.

Very best,

I have option 3 and I love it. I like having a long lens but cant justify the 100-400 II. But he 100-400 isnt a suitable replacement for the 70-200 which is a much easier lens to use for non sports/wildlife activities.

If you don't know just what you'd be using it for, I would suggest throwing option 2 directly out of the window; assuming you use the 70-200 now. No point in ditching a used lens for one for which use is undefined.

Otherwise, I'd really read through the questions Malveaux poses and answer them truthfully for yourself.

I do use the 70-200 quite a lot but since I have sold my 40d and replaced it with the 6d it's just too short.

I know if I sold it and got the 100-400 mk2 it would get used more.

I have just thought of option 4. Sell 70-200 Buy canon 70d and 70-300l . That would be cheaper than getting the 100-400 mk2 and give me a little more reach

I like to shoot a couple of air shows each year nothing too serious and a couple of horse eventing events

if it's just a couple times a year, you could consider renting...