Which telephoto?

I am debating on what I should save up for next to add to my 50D.

I currently have a 50 1.8, 28-135 and my sigma 10-20 should be here Monday. The kit lens isn't half bad for a kit lens but I am looking for a bit more reach and something of better quality so I have been looking at 70-200's.

So my plan is to sell my 28-135 (and the Pixma Pro9000 I got ) and put that money toward a 70-200 but I am not sure what I should get.

Get a new Sigma 70-200 2.8 or buy a used canon 70-200 f4L or maybe even a used f4LIS (but most likely not)

I want something with fast autofocus mainly. I would obviously prefer the larger aperture but maybe I could make due with the f/4 I just don't want to kick myself later on down the road

My 70-200f/4L focuses fast and speedy, not to forget the wonderful sharpness and bokkeh!
But sometimes I really wish I had just saved the money and waited untill I could afford the 70-200f/2.8 IS.
I am constantly finding myself in situations where f/4 can cut it, but 2.8 would be so much nicer.
(Getting 1/500 exactly during football season, iso 1600. thank goodness our stadium is so nice!)
But 2.8 would be icing on the cake and fantastic to have.

Viva-photography wrote in post #10699004
My 70-200f/4L focuses fast and speedy, not to forget the wonderful sharpness and bokkeh!
But sometimes I really wish I had just saved the money and waited untill I could afford the 70-200f/2.8 IS.
I am constantly finding myself in situations where f/4 can cut it, but 2.8 would be so much nicer.
(Getting 1/500 exactly during football season, iso 1600. thank goodness our stadium is so nice!)
But 2.8 would be icing on the cake and fantastic to have.

lol thats a great stadium! i can only get 1/320 at iso 2500-4000 @2.8 with my 7d and 70-200 at our field. i need one of those 200mm 1.8 lenses, or if there exists a 300 1.8!

theelectrician wrote in post #10698954
I am debating on what I should save up for next to add to my 50D.

I currently have a 50 1.8, 28-135 and my sigma 10-20 should be here Monday. The kit lens isn't half bad for a kit lens but I am looking for a bit more reach and something of better quality so I have been looking at 70-200's.

So my plan is to sell my 28-135 (and the Pixma Pro9000 I got ) and put that money toward a 70-200 but I am not sure what I should get.

Get a new Sigma 70-200 2.8 or buy a used canon 70-200 f4L or maybe even a used f4LIS (but most likely not)

I want something with fast autofocus mainly. I would obviously prefer the larger aperture but maybe I could make due with the f/4 I just don't want to kick myself later on down the road

it depends what u shoot, if its sports then the 2.8 non-is, is a much better investment, but the f4 IS (similar price) might be better if you shoot other things. i personally like aperture over IS, as well i never in my life photographing used an IS lens before, never thought it was worth the extra cash, and found it slowed up things and makes an annoying whhrr sound. but thats for what i shoot, mostly sports, so speed is more important than IS.

20-70mm is a big range to have no coverage at...i'd probably keep saving instead of selling your lens off

DreDaze wrote in post #10699145
20-70mm is a big range to have no coverage at...i'd probably keep saving instead of selling your lens off

Well I have the 50 which is pretty much right in the middle of that range so I don't think I would be missing out on anything and would probably get much more use out of the 70-200 than the kit lens

Camera Nerd wrote in post #10699081
it depends what u shoot, if its sports then the 2.8 non-is, is a much better investment, but the f4 IS (similar price) might be better if you shoot other things. i personally like aperture over IS, as well i never in my life photographing used an IS lens before, never thought it was worth the extra cash, and found it slowed up things and makes an annoying whhrr sound. but thats for what i shoot, mostly sports, so speed is more important than IS.

I would probably be shooting a lot more sports with the 70-200. I am looking to get a good telephoto for mostly automotive/racing events

theelectrician wrote in post #10705389
I would probably be shooting a lot more sports with the 70-200. I am looking to get a good telephoto for mostly automotive/racing events

i would say the 100-400 would be better because of its longer reach. the 70-200 is quite useable with a teleconverter making it a 100-280ish f4 lens. also the sigma 100-300 f4 gets alot of praise. all of these choices are roughly the same price. the most flexible is the 70-200 2.8 imo.

I think the 100-400 and 100-300 are a bit out of my price range

theelectrician wrote in post #10705619
I think the 100-400 and 100-300 are a bit out of my price range

i would say the sigma 70-200 2.8 is much more versatile then the f4 and would def get it. Also when you are in the store check the lens and bring a computer to check the sharpness and focus. This isn't just because its a sigma, but with all lenses, whenever you have the opportunity you should check them out in a store and cross check 1 or 2 other copies. The sigma is still a very good lens, got some nice images when i used it on a nikon mount.

theelectrician wrote in post #10705619
I think the 100-400 and 100-300 are a bit out of my price range

Whatever you do then, do NOT try the 100-400mm lens. I thought it was out of my price range too until I actually tried it... paying my CC bill that month was not fun.

I agree. I just ordered a 70-200 2.8 Mark II and am offloading my 70-200 f/4 Non IS. I'm excited and nervous. My f/4 is tack sharp...like insane! Look at this and see for yourself.

http://www.jamesbernat​chezphoto.com …125_nWbKb#66272​5896_fSdb2

I pray I get a good copy of the new 2.8 model. I'm posting the f/4 up tonight for sale.

I am lusting for a 100-400L right now, but it isn't in the budget at all yet.

I think a 70-200 will do you well.

jamesb wrote in post #10708391
I agree. I just ordered a 70-200 2.8 Mark II and am offloading my 70-200 f/4 Non IS. I'm excited and nervous. My f/4 is tack sharp...like insane! Look at this and see for yourself.

http://www.jamesbernat​chezphoto.com …125_nWbKb#66272​5896_fSdb2

I pray I get a good copy of the new 2.8 model. I'm posting the f/4 up tonight for sale.

I am lusting for a 100-400L right now, but it isn't in the budget at all yet.

I think a 70-200 will do you well.

the thing about the new mark II i heard is that it take teleconverters very very well. Even the 2x teleconverter looks great. I have the non IS version of the 2.8 and it is super super sharp like your f4 non is wide open. I actually had the 70-200 f4 but sold it quickly (for bout the same price i bought) it to get the 2.8. it was a great lens just not fast enough for sports.

Thanks for the replies. I will probably rent each lens to see which I like better but I am definitely leaning toward the sigma

theelectrician wrote in post #10708553
Thanks for the replies. I will probably rent each lens to see which I like better but I am definitely leaning toward the sigma

im not saying renting isn't worth it but rental centers really charge alot, i mean just to rent the 70-200 f4, and sigma 70-200 2.8 rentlens.com (i think thats the url) costs you 150-200 bucks. Whats really annoying is that even though their 4 day rent rate for the 70-200 f4 is reasonable (i think 50 bucks for 4 days) they charge 70-80 dollars on shipping! those fkers. so if you can find a local dealer that will rent a lens for cheap, or let you try it out in the store (or even go outside and test it out) you would save yourself some cash.