Nothing over 200mm.. What to get?

[413x]

Having decided to swap my sigma 120-300mm f2.8 os for a canon 70-200mm is f2.8 ii I'm left lacking reach which is something I often want

Unfortunately the options at this end push the boundaries of cash and weight

Probably I'm thus needing a prime that has option of working with a 1.4tc

Options
Canon 300mm f2.8 is
Canon 400mm f5.6

The 400mm lacks is and I love is and being only 5.6 seems a bit.. Lacking
The 300mm would probably take a 1.4tc well and be better than 400..it is considerably more expensive

400mm f2.8. Too heavy and expensive
500mm +.. Likewise

The option I really want.. But probably will never justify is the
400mm DO mkii

Unfortunately I hear the MK I isn't good at all

It's this everything covered in the up to 2k-3k band covered?

 

[413x]

Just get a 2x TC for the 70-200 f2.8?? Stops the need of carrying around loads of heavy lenses - which is why you ditched the Sigma...

I'm really fussy with TC but I have to (I suppose) think about if the cost of this hobby is too much above this point.

I doubt a 2xtc would be as good as a 400mm f5.6?

 

[413x]

I found the Sigma to heavy to be fun for days at the zoo for example - hence the new Canon 70-200
If I was out after wildlife it would mostly be at 300..so no need of the weight of the zoom

It seemed to be doing the job of two lenses but neither job well.

I can put a 1.4 on the Canon and have virtually what the Sigma achieved with a slight aperture loss but miles better IS

I'd rather not go away from Canon lenses they just seem to be "better" from personal experience at least

I suppose the 300mm f4 is an option but with a TC.

This isn't a rush choice and I may find I can't even justify the cost of anything more

 

[413x]

Is there a need for the 100-400mm mkii?
It's just a shame it covers the same range as the 70-200mm + tc
But it probably is the only one.
I really don't want a non is 400mm f5.6. It's just not going to be worth it especially without is (I love canons IS.)

I really want the DO ii it seems the 300 2.8 is of similar weight? That is a shame!

So it seems it's between 400mm (but I can't see me being able to stomach the cost) or 100-400mm.. Which seems a bit over the top as I'd prefer a prime as anything less can be done with canon 70-200mm is ii

 

[413x]

or you could get a Canon 100mm Macro (L or Non L) and take photographs of Butterflies and Dragonflies from around 30cm away rather than waaaaaay back.

First thing in the morning or early evening rather than in the middle of the day when they've warmed up and will fly away.

It's there any merit in the Canon 180mm macro?

My canon 100mm macro L is my favourite lens and my first ever lens too.

 

[413x]

The 400mm F5.6L lens never really appealed to me because of the lack of zoom and lack of IS but since then I've seen the kind of shots it produces and when you combine that with the size/weight, it does make me want to try one hehe.

The 100-400mm mk2 does cover the same focal lengths that you have but it'll probably be stuck at 400mm when you're using it anyway hehe

That's the thing isn't it
When would I need it lower than 400?
Of I did I'd have the 70-200 with me worth 1.4x and I'd nearly be all the way there with f4
As this would be for flighty wildlife (ie birds) and we live in dreary England I don't think f5.6 is enough.
It's dark in woodland

Does it seem like it's 400mm DO or bust? It seems like it.

Maybe there really isn't anything light and cheap enough in this area when I have a 70-200?

 

[413x]

Get a crop sensor camera and enjoy your 200mm at 320mm

I already have a 70d and 60d

 

[413x]

Yeah the 400mm offerings aren't plenty or cheap. The 100-400mm is mostly going to be used at the long end like my 200-400 but it's nice to have the flexibility.

400mm DO2 is a very nice option but priced accordingly But even then, you'll likely want more range sometimes so you might end up sticking a 1.4x on there and getting F5.6 anyway?

I guess my point is, unless you plan on getting a 400mm F2.8 or the 500/600mm F4 lenses then you better just get used to the idea that you'll be working at F5.6 quite a lot. Those wild animals are rarely considerate enough to let you get close

I do wonder if I should just cross it off my photography list
As it's not a job is it worth it? Probably not.
And yep it's crazy there's nothing at 400 beyond super cheap and super expensive.
I want a 2k ish 400mm prime (with IS)

The 400mm f5.6 is pointless it's what my situation sigma did but worse (on paper)

The 70-200 f2.8 is mkii was a great buy I love it.
Shame there isn't a 400mm f4 without the price tag of DO

 

[413x]

To the OP, if you're not in a rush to get a lens in the 400mm+ bracket, it might be an idea to wait a little.

There are rumours, that Canon might release an EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS Zoom in the Autumn.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-release-super-telephoto-zoom-in-2016-cr2/

http://www.canonrumors.com/more-canon-super-telephoto-zoom-talk-cr1/

It would make sense, since Canon is lacking an affordable zoom in that range and I suspect they might want to mop up the Tamron and Sigma sales.

Yes this won't be a this summer purchase I doubt.
A canon 200-600mm is in that range would be amazing

 

[413x]

I just ordered the sigma 150-600mm Sports. I'm doubting a canon version would be much better TBH. The siggy is very sharp and focuses extremely quickly and reliably. Plenty of people have compared it to 400/500/600mm primes and it stacks up very well.

I will probably be in the position to buy the Canon near when it comes out.
I've so far had bad experience with sigma lenses

From focus issues on 35mm 1.4 to just generally not living up to my expectations for the 120-300mm (I'm so pleased with my 70-200mm Canon f2.8. Is mkii

I'd really like canons potential new offering to sit slightly higher than the quality bracket it is being proposed for.
Particularly weather sealed.

I will probably wait for the Canon as every Canon lens I have has been quite frankly beyond my expectation. I think a lot is the IS in the Canon lenses seems miles Better than in the Sigma 120-300mm
I'll buy both at same time and compare

I must say I was grateful being out I the lakes for 5 hours to have the Canon and not sigma over my shoulder.
This kind of dismisses the Canon f2.8 300mm + TC option!

 

[413x]

It will be interesting

I think weight matters as well as AF speed and effective stabilisation

Main compromise will be weight vs aperture really
Ideally 300-500 up to f5.6 would be nice

I suspect I will naturally be in a position to buy towards end of the year anyway and really I think the 400mm do really is unjustifiable.

I will read more on the sigma.

 

[413x]

Interesting find, love that website. That is one funky zoom mechanism!

I still stand by my assertion that 150-600mm f/5.6 is unlikely purely due to the size, weight and cost with bracket that canon would be aiming for if you believe the rumour. Of course the rumour could be wrong and canon want to push a model that is higher end and more expensive than the sigma sports. I would have happily paid 50% more than the sigma sports for a Nikon lens to 150-600mm f/5.6 with Nikon's best AF and greatest optics. Heck, even a 600mm f5.6 prime for $3000 I would snap up.

Completely agree with you.
I would love a canon f5.6 to 600mm

For me (not sure about nikon) there really isn't anything between cheap and ridiculous in the tele end apart from third party
By cheap I mean 1k, by expensive I mean 4k..as these are tele lenses

Sure, canon have updated the 100-400mm but I see this as a more casual lens.
I really want f5.6 at 600mm or the ability to put a TC on a good 400mm f4

The DO II is just too expensive and the DO I Is awful from what I gather

I'm also willing to pay 50pc more for Canon lens.