100-400 or 200-500

Here is my quandry. I fly to South Africa a week tomorrow. I bought an 80-400 which didn't work. I sent for repair and got it back yesterday. I still doesn't work (3m is the farthest focus at 400mm). So do I:

By 100-400 from Kerso (providing he could get it to me middle of next week), claim cash back then sell on ebay after hols if I don't want to keep it , without losing money.

Or do I buy the Tamron 200-500 and keep it as I have no tele zoom at the moment? Again Kerso's price is good on this lens? Plus I have extra reach....doesn't look like I will be taking the 350D for the extra crop factor since the images are crap comapred to the 5D.

Arghh...panik.

You've tasted L glass....actually, you own a setup that mirrors mine in so many ways.

I took the journey.. evaluated and shot the Tamron 200-500 against the Sigma 50-500 while telling myself "the 100-400 is out of your budget and you won't use it enough"

bull's extra_dangly_bits.... look at me now, I beat around the bush when I should have just gone for broke from the get go because it would come to this ANYWAY!!

The Tamron is sooomeeeeeewhatmaybeok optically but build and AF are questionable. If there was EVER a time that "plastic" was objectionable THIS IS IT. And the DC motor.. sorry but Tamron really needs to get with the ultrasonic program. I know they did it to make it light, but the build quality is really objectionable.

The Sigma 50-500 was also in a similar category. Somewhatmaybeok but did not deliver the stunning images that my 300/4 floors me with. Sigma went all out with the full metal jacket and the problem is the thing became a real Cannon (double N). HSM is fast and accurate. Lack of IS plus REAL heavy weight (700gm more than my 300/4) killed it for me.

300/4 IS - magnificent gem of a lens. Lightweight, FAST, awesome build, awesome USM, awesome IS, only drawback: fixed focal length. Wildlife does not pose for you while you dig in your camera bag.

My 100-400 is coming at Christmas.

If you had a good price (relative to US, I understand UK shooters are at a disadvantage), I would even be happy to buy it off you if it was sharp and in flawless condition.

Well, buying at Kerso's price and claiming cash back i could sell it on Ebay (many go for over £700) after wards. My worry is that I will want to keep it... ...but I so often tell myself I will never buy cheap again cos I only end up replacing...

Neilyb wrote in post #2204548
Well, buying at Kerso's price and claiming cash back i could sell it on Ebay (many go for over £700) after wards. My worry is that I will want to keep it... ...but I so often tell myself I will never buy cheap again cos I only end up replacing...

yessir.... you are so right.

Sold my Bigma at a loss. Was nearly going to sell my 300 but decided to keep it since I love that lens anyway. We are already corrupted; we have already been down that route, we can never be content with less - go for it and never look back.

My 5D, 17-40 and 24-105 say hi too

The 80-400 would have been tremendous bang for the buck in my earlier shooting days, but not since the arrival of the 5D. Read my other thread entitled "spoiled rotten"... a lens I loved so much is now a doorstop and it is now retiring thanks to all the Ls....

Yes you are so right. Started with 17-85, then got 12-24 then thought 'hey, get a 5D'....ooops. Then I got the 24-105 with it....arghh....so I needed the 17-40.....now I need the 100-400..........I need help. So, looks like I willnow be selling the 80-400 (once working) and the 350D after Africa to help feed me

Funny you should mention the 17-85!

This has always been my EF-S workhorse zoom, go anywhere, do anything, real gem of a lens. Then along came my 24-105 and showed me what premium optics are really capable of. Yesterday I took an environmental portrait with the 17-85 at 17mm (where it is weakest, because I wanted to get the subject in their environment), got smacked by softness even at f/8, and lots of CA even in an INDOOR situation where I control the lighting. The 24-105 RULES in such situations, I've used it in that role before and it is amazing. At f/4, too.

Out of recognition for what it has done for me I would like to keep it though, so it is not for sale. It'll always be my first SLR and first workhorse zoom.

Maybe 20 years from now we will all look back and say "look at the CA and the damned viewfinder on the thing"

Good idea to pop off all the other hardware if you have no particular attachment to it, too.

Well, at 17-30mm I was never totally impressed, CA's from hell and edge softness. BUT, at 50-75 it actually beat a 70-200 f4 L I had for a while....plus it was light and had IS. 12Months ago I thought £500 was alot for a camera. 8 months ago I thought £300 was alot for a lens. Now I think of the money I wasted on 18-200, 17-85, 12-24(still have this, gave it to GF as she is starting to think of me as a mad man) and the £2500 recently spent.... OMG!

Yes, essentially this was a 24-85 f/5.6 IS USM lens to me. VERY weak 17-24mm and even a devoted follower acknowledges that. However, in the past I have always been able to cure deficiencies at the wide end by stopping down. Maybe my eyes are now sharp enough that the cure is no longer good enough. Bah

I wouldn't say wasted. We have made the journey and we are wiser for what it is; we know the limitations of less pricey glass and are not just "L for the sake of L". I NEVER expected to come so far so fast though, things have been better than expected in the last two years. When I bought my DSLR I planned on shooting the kit lens because there simply wasn't any money for anything else!

Don't make another Tamron mistake though... knowing what you do now it WOULD be a mistake

I need help!

OK!! *pushes Neil as hard as possible towards the BUY button*

Buy the 100-400 and love it.
I did and I use it for all kinds of things from the kids to sports etc etc. Practice before you go, as technique is important with longer glass.
Just do it

I think you'll be happier with the 100-400.
the 200-500 is not abad lens, but not as good as the l in the reviews I've read, it is extremely long out at 500mm, and it isn't that cheap either. and it doesn't have IS.
Many Africa hands recommend the 100-400 as a great walk about for a safari, but you'll also want a wide zoom like the 17-40, and perhaps a medium tele like 70-200m range for candiods and outdoor portraits.

This is my other quandry. In Botswana we will have a 12KG wieghlimit on baggage, the tripod, cam, 17-40, 24-105, filters, monopod, betteries, chargers..etc...will wiegh about 8KG, if I take a 100-400 instead of the 80-400 then I gain a few hundrend grams. Do I leave behind the 17-40 or the 24-105....or clothes? I don't want to miss ashot you see....the 24-105 is quite wide on a 5D, do I need 17-23? all that weight for 7mm?

Now THAT sounds primitive indeed I am usually limited by what I can physically run around with....

However sticking to weight limits especially on small charter planes may prove useful in getting to the location shoot with glass and operators in one piece..

It depends what is your objective. I am a big ultrawide nut, but have recently learned that yes, 24mm is generously wide. I do not use my ultrawide as much as I did in the days of the 10-22 and 17-85 (16mm vs 28mm equiv, big diff!), however when I need it, I REALLY NEED IT. So...

Assuming wildlife was a priority, which is possible given the Africa thing, I would pitch the 17-40 and work with my standard zoom which is still the 'go everywhere do anything' lens and that means covering both wide and tele when necessary. Again, only if push came to shove, which in your case it might. Leave the 17, painful as it is.

Alternatively, 70-300 IS USM is a spectacular travel lens, which is why I am keeping mine though I suspect the 100-400 will ensure it finds a new home.

Ah yes, the 70-300 IS, is this available again? I was wondering if this would suffice, zoom wise, I have 1.4 and 2x TC's, bearing in mind I have the 5D is 300 far reaching enough?
I am also a wide angle freak (see any of my posts in the landscape section) but will i need it....arghh...so hard.