I think that the 70-200 F4 could be a good starting point: decently priced and very sharp. From there, one can decide: do you want the 100 mm extra range of a 70-300? Do you need faster (indoor sport pictures? theatre?) or would you prefer smaller, or lighter?
Do you really need the highest quality ? (well, need, need....)
A tamron 18-200 goes up to 200 mm too! There is even a tamron 28-300 and a tamron 18-250 or so coming.
The 70-300 do is expensive, but very nice. The 70-200F4 + TC1.4 would bring the same quality at nearly 300mm (280), i suppose, but you would have the length of the lens (20 cm) + the converter , you would loose the instant 70 mm and you would thus have to change more often lenses (dust, dust!).
Today i shot my first bird at 300 mm, not very good. My 15 y old son laughed, and showed me his picture, made with a P&S olympus (that he surely NEEDS), nearly the same picture, bird at the same size (115 mm equvalent...).
I never knew he pictured birds. When asked how he did it, he said he just crept over the ground close to the birds, and while laying on the ground, took them from close distance.
It happened before, when i was trying to shoot a lizard in the Canary islands, with a telescope. Took me 30 minutes for a lousy picture. He explained me that when he tappered slightly on the little roof where the lizard was hiding, it came to see where the vibration comes from, and the lizard actually touched his fingers.....
So, what do we need, a lens ????? LOL
Happy hesitating.
Tim
