The problem with cameras. The LENS!

I hate it. Tring to decide. I know i'm getting the Tamron 28-75, but from there it's a a blur. I want to do wildlife/birds, so I know i'll want something long. Sigma 100-300 f/4 or Canon 300 f/4 IS. Then, there's that middle area. Canon 70-200 F/4, f/2.8 (both non is) or Sigma 70-200. I'm not to worried about cost, nice refund for me next year along with alot of overtime and holiday pay on the way this month and next.

I've looked at pictures, looked at threads but none of that even remotely helped. I've owned a 70-200 f/4 in the past and loved it. I don't do alot of shooting when it's getting dark/dark out. Feel free to blow me off, cause i'm totally clueless.

70-200 and 100-300 has a lot of overlap, I'd think either the 100-300 + an 85mm or go all out on the 120-300 F/2.8, theres some decent deals on these used. you get a 300 2.8 with a zoom.

If you bought the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 and the Tamron 28-75, you wouldn't have much of a "middle area". A 25mm gap isn't all that huge.

Yeah, forgot to say if I got the 100-300 I wouldn't get a 70-200. And going the 28-75/100-300 does make the price alot better, esp with all the other stuff I also need to get. Sold everything when my old DRebel broke.

Now, the only bad thing i see about the 100-300 is it weighs in at like 3.2 pounds, which could be bad for everyday use when i'm not lugging my tripod around. Which could be a good excuse for the Sigma 50-150.

I'm thinking way to hard about this... It's 2am...

I think the 120-300 would eat my whole budget up and not allow for the other items needed.

300mm will probably not be long enough... What about the 100-400mm or 400mm f/5.6L?

You say you'd like to do wildlife but what % of your shooting is that going to be? And, I assume you do much shooting of other things. Tamron 28-75 is a good lens. Adding the Sigma 100-300/4 would not give you much of a gap but...... it is heavy for most people. Almost requires a monopod. Now, is that going to work for what you do? Perhaps you should start with a 70-200. Many good ones available.

There is always the 28-300L or 35-350L

Can't say what % the long lens use would be. I've only rented one before (had the 400 f/5.6L) for 3 weeks. I'm really starting to like the idea of the Tamron 28-75, Canon 70-200 (havnt decided between the 2.8 and 4) and then my long lens (either 300IS or 400 5.6). I've always looked at the 100-400, but that push/pull zoom just seems weird to me.

With my low % of use from a long lens, would it be wiser (and cheaper) to say just get the Canon 70-200 and a 1.4x?

Double Negative wrote in post #4351702
300mm will probably not be long enough... What about the 100-400mm or 400mm f/5.6L?

yea, for birds you are going to want at least 400mm on the long side.

How about getting the 24-105 and the 100-400? A two lens gear set to keep you covered for almost any situation except low light.

The 70-200/4 is not good enough for wildlife - birds. An extender would kill the main feature of the lens: excellent IQ.

You could then fill in certain gaps with primes if you really need something faster.

Buy a Sigma 17-70 2.8 + Canon 70-300mm IS USM.
You'll be set.

If I was to use the 1.4x, i'd be getting the 70-200 f/2.8. I donno. There are quite a bit of choices out there and I have a good 2 months to sit around and look at stuff online.

24-105 is nice, but I think i'd rather have 2.8 over IS.

I can only really get one expensive lens. I think i'd stick with the Tamron 28-75, then possibly get the 100-400.

Drives me crazy!

Another vote for the 100-400. I had a 70-200mm f/2.8 and sold it. It was an in between range and I got very little use from it. It's too heavy for a walk-around lens and not long enough for wildlife/birds. I adjusted to the push/pull design very quickly.

Bob R

Welp, got the Tamron 28-75 few days ago, like the lens but havn't done much shooting with it yet. I think i'm going to rent a 100-400 to see how that push/pull zoom is.