70-200 variant, 100-400, or other suggestions

Wow there are some truly fantastic images in the lens archive galleries for all the 70-200's and the 100-400. I've been contemplating going with a 70-200 variant or the 100-400, I just can't make up my mind. While I don't currently do alot of wildlife photography I'd like to get into a bit more.

I'd mainly be using the lens from the get-go for events coverage and general zooming use. Does anyone have any experience using the 100-400 to cover events?

For example I recently shot a busker festival (images can be seen here http://www.pbase.com/b​dorman/buskers ). I used my 100 macro almost exclusively and ended up having to crop my images to where I wanted them since I didn't have the versatility of the zoom. I had originally thought about adding the 200 F/2.8L prime and some TC's but I think the flexibility of a zoom is important. I am worried that 200mm may not be long enough but again the ability to add a TC would be there. I guess my thinking is that a 100-400 from 100-200 would be like having the new 70-200 F/4 IS (minus the wide end) plus some generous reach...

So in the running right now would be:
Some more "affordable" options...
70-200 F/4L
70-200 Sigma F/2.8
50-150 Sigma (possibly too short)

To really stretch my budget and force me to save longer...
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L
Canon 100-400 IS L

Size/weight are a consideration, I'd prefer to travel with as little gear and weight as possible. I do primarilly landscapes/macro/abstr​acts but want to move into people, events, maybe weddings, and wildlife.

I know there's alot of threads about telephotos on the go currently and that only I can truly answer my own questions, but I'd love to hear some advice and recommendations more geared towards my situation.

Thanks for looking and feel free to browse my gallery if it helps you make a suggestion, I'm all ears.

"To really stretch my budget and force me to save longer...
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L
Canon 100-400 IS L"

Seems the best course of action. I bought the 100-400, then when the credit card recovered the 70-200

You'll need f2.8, you won't always have enough light for f4.

70-200 Sigma F/2.8 + 1.4 tc

It will do the job nicely, the black lens won't stand out so much and not much more than the 70-200 f4 L and comes with a tripod ring.

Have you considered the Sigma 100-300?

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=206888

If you plan to do more and more wildlife, if you want very good range, and IS, then the 1-4IS has to be one of your top candidates, if not the top candidate. Maybe get the 1-4IS now, and save up for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 as that won't kill the bank as quickly as the 7-2IS will. The 7-2EX and 1-4IS is a superb combo.

Thanks for the input guys. Immediately the lens would be used for event photography and general use. I don't really do much sports but I want to get more into portraits/weddings/can​dids/concerts. I realize that F/2.8 would be handy and almost necessary for indoor stuff.

Is the 100-400 too physically large to tote around and use at events? It seems it's solely used for wildlife (which as I mentioned I would like to explore more).

In my case would I be better off buying a 70-200 F/2.8 (sigma) and getting a 2x TC to get the 400mm reach? I know I'd be losing the IS, would I be losing much IQ?

The canon or sigma 70-200 2.8 is going to be your ticket especially for portraits, events, weddings. Don't put a 2X TC on there just stick with the 1.4TC if you really need it. Image quality im my opinion suffers too much with 2X TC.

The 70-200 is not a ideal wildlife lens and the 100-400 is not a ideal event/wedding lens. Pick which you are goin to use most.

I suppose you are 100% correct on that one. I wish there was something that would do both reasonably well.haha I guess I'll need to sit down and really decide what I want to pursue first.

I suppose events/wedding/portrai​ts from the 70-200 really supercedes wildlife photography as it has more potential to bring in some revenue to pay for future gear.

I keep thinking that I could do that F/4 70-200 but I keep reminding myself that I'll realistically need a faster lens.

I'd love to be able to afford both, that would really round out my collection. It'd be a LONG time before I could afford to have both or justify laying out that much cash for both. If I'm able to get more work and make some coin the 70-200 F/2.8 would pay for itself. The 100-400 would more or less be a fun lens for what I WANT to shoot. Tough decision.

I love my 70-200/4L but I never pull it out when light is questionable.

If you need the speed, the 70-200/2.8 from sigma is a good deal... with a 1.4x teleconverter it might get the length you need =)

Kev, I think you're right, I'd pick up the 70-200 F/4 as it's within my budget today but the F/4 might be limiting for work I want to do. I may not NEED 2.8 today but I might tomorrow and I only want to buy once.

The Sigma 70-200 w/ a TC could get me into wildlife-ish territory until I can afford a dedicated lens for that type of shooting. Ah rationale and common sense aren't any fun are they!?!

I'd agree that if you want to major in events and the like, a 7-2f2.8 is your ticket. You can add a 1.4x to any of the 7-2 lenses and have very good IQ still.

Does 2x degrade the IQ greatly?

Yes, IMO it does, especially with regards to contrast. I posted this test at my site about 10 days ago: http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/15lbsd

See especially Test 1 and at the bottom of the test image.

Thanks for the test JoJo, 1.4x seems fine but the 2x seems to take away to much IQ, I'd rather retain IQ and crop to get closer if need be.

I won't be going with the IS version so it's hard to justify the price difference between the Canon non-IS and the Sigma, looks like it's the Sigma all the way unless I cave in to the lightweight and IQ of the 70-200 F/4. eeek