70-200 with a 1.4, 400 5.6L or Bigma

Hello

Can you post your thoughts comments sample pics on these lens options please.
I have the 70-200 2.8L and am considering either
adding a 1.4
getting a bigma
getting the Canon 400 5.6

decisions decisions decisions

That depends on what you want to photograph and in what lighting conditions. Can you tell us?

There are several Bigma shots on this page, or the 2nd page. I would go for a Bigma again ... very useful range and superb quality, but then I prefer zooms rather than primes. Have you done a search for those lenses?

Are you planning on using a tripod/monopod or handholding most of your shots? Neither of these lenses have IS.....

I have been going trought the same pain. At the end I decided for the Bigma. Due to the fact that I am still saving for it (close to, perhaps) I may change my mind but as of today the bigma will be my choice.

Same here. I'm saving for either Bigma or Sigma 80-400 OS since they are same price at B&H.

Man this is becoming a hot topic...I posted a question a few weeks back looking for telephoto opinions. Right now, I have still not decided, but that is okay, I am still saving too. But at the moment, the Bigma is the front runner...

Hi Mac,
Have you thought about Sigma 80-400 OS? The reason i also consider this lens is because of its OS. I know it's 100mm shorter than Bigma at the long end but IMHO the OS is more important than the extra 130mm(both ends). I don't know. I'm still deciding.

I've never yet seen a Bigma photo that I really liked. IMHO the colours are flat and it's definitely soft at the long end. The Canon is sharper, and I mean **really** sharp, it focus's faster, is lighter, smaller, has better colour and better contrast. So in the image quality stakes the Canon floors the Sigma. Of course it's a prime and if you must have a zoom then it's not for you.

Mac and I have talked about that 80-400. as i have the canon 1-4 on my list of potentials.
i have not investigated it yet but he said something about slow AF and he does shoot wildlife so slow is not a good thing.
but will let him speak for himself.

there is a article at luminous about the 2.8IS vs the 1-4.

Monty

Thanks for the heads up Monty. I'm just torn between 50-500 non-OS and 80-400 OS. But if the 80-400 has slower AF, that helps me make my decision easier. Or unless Dell's coupons can bring the 100-400L price down to $1000.

I can weigh in on the 400/5.6 as I own one. I can tell you that in order to shoot this handheld, you had better get >1/640th. On a tripod, anything below 1/320 or 1/250 and remote release and even MLU is warranted. I try to keep my shutter speed >1/800th.

It is sharp at 5.6 and well worth the money for the reach. Also, it is an L lens, which carries benefits. I considered the 300/4 +1.4 TC, the Bigma, Sigma 80-400 and the 400/5.6, obviously favoring the 400/5.6 and do not regret making the decision.

and thanks to AJ for his insight. Mac should find that useful.
i will also file it for ref.

Monty

If I had the the chance to do it all again, I would get the 300mm f/4 IS + tc or even stay with my 70-200 f/2.8 + tc. I love the performance of the 70-200, even though I find it a tad short at times, but the quality is good enough where I can do a bit of cropping, though I rarely need to.


The 400 f/5.6 is also a great choice, but after doing my research, I personally feel the above two are better, at least for me.