My turn to ask about Telephoto Lenses :)))))))

Ok I only have 1 lense so far, the Sigma 17-70. Its time for me to get a Telephoto. I would like to get a "L" series lense, possibly the 70-200, or the Sigma if its comparable to a "L".... Not sure...thats where you come in.

I plan on shooting a safari in Africa this year, but after that alot of sports including indoor hockey, and possible night baseball games.

So my budget is anything under $1000 USD.
Thanks for any suggestions.

indoor sports? 70-200 f/2.8L IMHO. There is no comparison.

For a safari how about something longer? Buy something 2nd hand, then when you get back trade it in on a 70-200 F2.8 IS.

For a 70-200 f/2.8L, I would have to go used, I see Amazon has it for $1140. B&H has it "imported" for $1099...whatever that means.

Angry Dad wrote in post #3435235
For a 70-200 f/2.8L, I would have to go used, I see Amazon has it for $1140. B&H has it "imported" for $1099...whatever that means.

This is whithout IS. You must realise that shooting at 200mm you must have a very sturdy arm to keep the image steady when shooting. Unless you high shuttertimes. But on low it can be very frustrating.

Imported means it comes from asia instead of the USA. has to do something with warranty

Yes a Tripod is Understood.

Twin-X wrote in post #3435258
Imported means it comes from asia instead of the USA. has to do something with warranty

I got my 70-200 from a seller that imports, as opposed to buying it off Canon Australia. It has an international warranty and canon australia will still fix it. I'll put a vote in for the 70-200 f/2.8L, but of course I'm biased.

Any other lenses I dont have to spend over $1000 to get??

The whole 'low light' thing makes it very difficult without spending a large amount of money. Remember, larger aperture = larger price.

You could go 70-200 f/4 IS for just under 1k, or 70-200 f/2.8 NO IS for 1.2k or so. I'd be inclined to think that the IS on the f/4 will compensate you down past what the f/2.8 would offer without it.

In conclusion, 70-200 f/4 IS. It even has a 75$ rebate right now at B&H.

Well, you do have a couple of options. You could get a 70-200/2.8L used, or look at the sigma equivalent. I love my L, and I got it as a refurb for $899. If you do get the 70-200, you are going to need to get a 1.4TC to get more length on safari.

You could also try the 2 lens route - the 70-300IS for the safari and 85/1.8 for indoor sports. The 85 is the de facto basketball lens, as well as performances when you are within the first 10 to 15 rows. The 70-300 has excellent optics and IS to help you with long lens technique (you probably won't have time to fool with a tripod in the back of a jeep). It doesn't have "L" build, but it is rugged enough.

Or, you could go with the "buy now for safari, sell, and get an indoor sports lens later" strategy. I've not used the sigma 50-500 (aka BIGMA), but it might be worth looking at for the safari and getting something else for the indoor sports.

For sports, on a 400D, I'd suggest either an 85 1.8 or a 135L, actually. Real speed, and prime image quality. Maybe even both, if you're willing to buy used. I just missed getting a 135 f/2L the other day for $650. I still feel sick about that.

I dont know of any single lens that can do indoor sports and a safari for under $1000. The 300 f/2.8 IS would but costs four times the budget. A two lens solution that has been mentioned is the 85 f/1.8 and the new 70-300IS. That is the best Canon option,imo. There are probably good Sigma or Tamron choices too.

I got both my 100-400 and 70-200 used

100-400 : $1K
70-200 : $850

Very doable for either one if you buy used.

I agree that it is impossible to meet those conditions at under $1K. If you are going to be shooting indoor sports, IS probably won't help because it won't stop subject movement in low light. If you want a premium optics lens for outdoors use, you might want to get the 70-200 f/4 non-IS version, although I agree that it will probably not be long enough for a safari. If you are willing to give a little on IQ, then as others have said, the 70-300 IS sounds like it would be a great companion to the lens you have. Don't go buying L glass unless you are absolutely sure you need the extra IQ. Indoor sports requires very expensive lenses (wide aperture telephoto zooms) that cost many thousands of dollars to get up close shots. If you can get close to the action, or don't mind not getting close-ups, the 85 mm 1.8 would be a good lens to go with it (again as others have mentioned.) You could also go with the 100mm F2 for extra range at almost the same price.

Wow....the suggestions here are very insightful. I never considered 2 lenses (trying not to misspell anything). I deeply appreciate the effort and time everyone took to help me. I will look into the 70-200 with a teleconverter, and also the 85 1.8. The only problem that crosses my mind right now is I now need to sit close to the glass for hockey games if I get the 85. I need to go play around with one here.
Like I said, Thank you for the suggestions. I appreciate them all!

A.D.