Best 400mm+ lens for ~ $1000

I am looking to GET LONG, and spend about $ 1000 doing so. I intend to use the lens for mostly wildlife shots, then secondarily sports (outdoor soccer), then lastly just to mess around in concerts from far away, or do closeups of faces.

Here's what I value in terms of importance in the lens (I have a 7D body, and a 1.4x T-con if that makes a difference)

1. AF speed / Accuracy
2. Sharpness
3. Other IQ traits (contrast, color rendition, CA, etc)
4. Reach (more than 400?)
5. IS capabilities
6. Versitility (Zoom vs prime)

As far as I can tell, my options in this price range (if I go used) are

1. Canon 400 5.6
2. Canon 300 f4 IS (with the T-con I have)
3. Canon 100-400 IS
5. Biga 50-500
6. Bigma OS 150-500

Based on the reading I have done, it would seem the Canon 400 5.6 would be my best bet considering what I value in a lens. Closely followed would be the 100-400 or the 150-500.

If anyone can give me some further insight, it would be very helpful!

Because you mentioned sports and concerts, I would lean toward the 300/4 IS. That extra stop plus IS could be invaluable. Plus you still get stabilization when you go out to 420 f5.6 with the TC.

tkbslc wrote in post #10696094
Because you mentioned sports and concerts, I would lean toward the 300/4 IS. That extra stop plus IS could be invaluable. Plus you still get stabilization when you go out to 420 f5.6 with the TC.

Well for indoor sports...The 7D was a good choice(due to the USABLE high ISO)! If you want the best 400mm then the 400L doesnt get any better. It will edge out everything you get up there. You dont need IS since your going to need the SS to be up there anyways.

So the 400L with a mono pod and your good.

You'd need at least 1/600 on a 400mm non-stabilized lens on a 7D, and maybe 1/800. IS will be very handy and monopods suck! Just my opinion, though.

Are you ok buying a used lens? If not, then none of the Canon options are about $1000 new. I think they all sell for $1200+ new.

If wildlife is the primary use, I'd probably go with the 100-400L or the Sigma 150-500mm OS option. I'm assuming wildlife doesn't mean birds.

To the OP.....400 5.6L Amazing lens. Lightweight, sharp, quick focusing. Drawbacks: slow at 5.6 so it's really a 'daytime outdoor lens'.

And then our colleague from Utah made the above quoted comment. I guess, with all due respect, I'll take the contrarian view. I love using a monopod....use one a lot of the time with both the 400 5.6 and the 300 2.8.
Also.....attached photo: 400 5.6, handheld, 1/60th second.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

george m w wrote in post #10696290
To the OP.....400 5.6L Amazing lens. Lightweight, sharp, quick focusing. Drawbacks: slow at 5.6 so it's really a 'daytime outdoor lens'.

And then our colleague from Utah made the above quoted comment. I guess, with all due respect, I'll take the contrarian view. I love using a monopod....use one a lot of the time with both the 400 5.6 and the 300 2.8.
Also.....attached photo: 400 5.6, handheld, 1/60th second.

WOW. That is some amazing technique. I would not be able to get a still subject sharp, let alone panning something going that fast.

Well, thanks for the kind words Wayne. But....I posted it also to make a point.....that proper technique, coupled with practice.....can yield good results even when we stray outside the bounds of accepted rules. I have the idea that often creativity lies somewhere outside the normal rules of "how to do stuff".

george m w wrote in post #10696433
Well, thanks for the kind words Wayne. But....I posted it also to make a point.....that proper technique, coupled with practice.....can yield good results even when we stray outside the bounds of accepted rules. I have the idea that often creativity lies somewhere outside the normal rules of "how to do stuff".

You can use proper technique with an IS lens too, can't you?

First off....just so all who are subbed to thread knows, I'm NOT trying to pick a argument with tkbslc ! He and I have traded comments various times on this forum, sometimes agreeing, sometimes not. Certainly, honest men can disagree.
As to the use of IS lenses, I'm not a very good person to comment about them. I've had several, and all of them have been sold off. I don't own any IS lens now at all. Having said that, I am not saying that IS does not work. That would be silly to say, and it would also not be true. But....it is a feature that just does not mean much to me. It is, so to speak, the answer to a question I did not ask. I am old...as in, I have been doing this for 45 years.....so maybe I'm just entrenched in my old fashioned ways.

However, I am about to buy another lens, and it does have IS, so I may change my thinking when I get it and shoot with it for a while ( 200 f/2.0 ).

Yeah I was thinking used primarily. Wildlife would include birds, and concerts is really an after thought.

I bought the 400mm 5.6 used for $950. An amazing lens.

well if you are really strict about IS, and the $1,000 budget...you're left with two options...the 300mm f4IS, and the sigma 150-500mm OS...

you won't be able to get a 100-400mm unless you add a couple hundred to your budget...i'd forget the 50-500mm sigma really, just because you can get the 150-500mm OS for probably about the same price($880 new)

all of the lenses will require good light for the most part...except you'll be able to get a couple shots handheld that you wouldn't have a shot with if you got the 400L

i went with the 150-500mm...i like the versatility of the zoom, and 500mm is really nice to have

As far as I'm concerned your different uses call for a different lens. Which use do you want to primarily target?

For birds, the 400. For wildlife generally, a zoom. For sports I'd be torn between the zooms and the 300.

I use the 300 for concerts and have only tested it with a 1.4x and was pleased, not ecstatic with the results. It does take a small IQ hit, which is understandable. On a 5DII.