Can't afford an L 400mm f2.8, so whats left....

I'd do a 200 2.8L with a 2X. That way you've got 200 at 2.8, and 400 at 5.6. Get a 1.4 too if you want, and you've got basically a 200,300, and 400, at f/2.8, 4, and 5.6, respectively.

Sigma 120-300 is nice...expensive, though. An incredibly heavy lens comparatively, though. Don't know if you mind weight. It's really a tripod/monopod lens after the first few shots.

The 2x starts to push the IQ envelope, though. Good for lightweight setups or the occasional shoots but not as a primary solution. I'd go for the 400mm f/5.6 prime over that combo (granted, losing the 200mm option).

Eh..yeah. I don't know.

Perhaps, but IMO it will be tough to go longer than 300mm and faster than f5.6 for less than the price target. But I could be wrong. . .

Have Fun,

£1000
thats his budget wich would be JUST shy of the price of the 120-300 I am sure he can pull another 100bucks together for that lens

Remember...things are more expensive over there.

how about getting a used 20D + 1.4TC, you'll effectively have a 448mm f/4 with the 70-200 and a backup/hazardous duty body to boot. Just a thought.

Just checked...warehouse express has the 120-300 for £1669.99, so that's way out of budget. That's $3133.

300 f/4L + 1.4TC would be my vote. I love mine, it's barely off the camera. I don't use the TC very often as the length is great on the 20D as it is, but I think image quality stands up well with it attached. It's light enough to hand hold as well (although I prefer the monopod). Should be able to get both for around £1k, and I think the Canon cash back offer is still running so you can get £105 back.

300 + 1.4TC:

It can't be done for $1000.00

Not at 400mm faster than 5.6
(at least not EF Mount AF)


Getting faster than f/5.6 @ 400mm or faster than f/4 @ 300mm is a distinctly cash oriented barrier. A very hard barrier with no grey area.


So some compromise has to be made.
either shorter, slower or more expensive.

It's up to the OP which direction to go, but he has to go one way or the other..

I'd agree with what others have said, that budget wise the most bang for your buck for your specific needs is the 120-300mm f/2.8

But if budget is the more important concern you are either shooting @ f/5.6 or you are shooting @ 300mm. The barrier here is not a hazy one in sand, it is a very clear concrete one.

As soon as the decision is made that budget is the primary concern and life @ 400mm f/5.6 is the only solution, then there are several ways to get there, most allready mentioned in this thread.

400mm f/4 costs about $3,500.00 - $4,000.00 with the only exceptions being the Sigma, tokina, and tamron 300mm f/2.8's and t-cons

Ummm... Mr. CDS...sir, it is 1000 pounds, not dollars.

I'd say the 100-400L is your best bet, a little more than you want to spend, but worth it

How about a plain old EF 300 f/4L IS?

With the 5D's ample megapixels and IQ you should be able to get away with a fair amount of cropping without hurting your end results.

cheers for all the info guys, good stuff and thanks for the pics PSwillies. Some awesome shots. Were they with the tc on? So much choice it is difficult to know what to do. How does the IQ of a 300mm f4 with 1.4x compare to a 400 f5.6 or even a f2.8 for that matter?

The 2.8 is in a whole other class, along with the 300, 500, and 600. I think each of them have quite the signature IQ, and you could almost pick out what was taken with which.

The 400 5.6 is a great lens. Light, super fast AF, and sharp sharp sharp. The 300 f/4 is the same (though not quite as sharp, I don't think). Coupled with the 1.4x, the 300 is still a very competent tool. Not quite the sharpness of the 400, but close. Not the AF speed, but you have to make some sacrifice for the convenience.