I've once changed my mind again

What do you all think of this package?

Hoya 67mm (Moose) Warm Circular Polarizer Glass Filter
Canon Tripod Mount Ring A (W) for 70-200/300/400
Lowepro Mini Trekker AW Camera Backpack
Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens
General Brand Lens Cleaning Kit
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens

I'm basically stuck between the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L and the sigma 135-400

This is a chance for me to own a L glass. But not sure if the 200mm will be big enough. I can always down the road get the 1.4x extender if I need to I guess.

Refresh our memories - this is for wildlife, is it? Elk, as I recall? 200 will not be enough. You really want to go out to 400. The 1.4x extender won't get you out there - just 280 at f/5.6.

If you're only getting the 70-200 f/4 the concensus around here seems to be that you don't need to spend $100+ on the tripod mounting ring. It's not heavy enough to cause problems hanging off the tripod-mounted camera.

Yea, I don't know if I mentioned it or not but the elk where we take out pictures get fairly close, within 20-25 yards from us. There are ones that are a good distance off, but most of them get really close.

The reason for the L lens is the image quality. I don't think the sigma can get near the L for that purpose.

Wildlife will be one of many things I plan on shooting. Sports will be another one. Will be doing some indoor shots also

Sports & indoor, if you go with the 70-200, you're probably going to find yourself wishing it was the f/2.8 version (IS or not). You might look at IS lenses anyway. They'll really help in marginal lighting conditions, and slow lenses attract marginal lighting. Get an f/1.8 200 and you'll never see another cloud in the sky. With a 500 f/8, it'll do nothing but pour!

I have a Canon 70-200/2.8 L and a Sigma 50-500. In the 70-200 range the L lens is slightly sharper than the 50-500, but not so much so that it makes a very significant difference in a print. Add a 1.4x teleconvert and the two lenses are about equal. Add a 2x teleconverter and the Sigma is visibly better.

Don't get so hung up on "L" lenses that you loose your judgement. "L" is just a trade mark.

Personally, I find the 50-500 useful for many more situations than the 70-200. If I had to choose just one it would be the 50-500.

If you want a tripod ring (some do, some don't) look at the one that is specified for the 200mm f2.8L. It is exactly the same ring as the white one for the 70-200 f4L except it is black, and it is almost $30 cheaper. I have it on my 70-200 f4L, and it works just fine.

Have Fun,

Thanks guys, I just don't have the money for the Bigma at this point. Wish I did, its a nice lens that I've read great reviews about.

There again the other L lens in the section start about $1100 which I don't have. Would like to get the 200mm f2.8L but money is a issue

if you are going to do indoor sports, then you are really going to want to look at the 200 2.8 L (shouldn't be much more than 70-200 4.0)or the 70-200 2.8 L (IS or not). you'll be able to get your elk and be fast enough for indoor action. imho the 4.0 plus 1.4x will be too slow in anything other than bright sunny light (the only time i ever saw elk, it was in a foresty environment which would have been hard to take without fast iso).

i have the bigma and i *love* it for outdoor sports. it's pretty darn sharp but completely useless for anything indoor. on the otherhand, i tested the 135-400 and i was not happy with it at all (i tried 2 which err99'd on me and the third was painfully soft and the colours looked a bit washy)