Buying a new lens, please help.

Hi all,
first let me tell you what I have at the moment:
eos 10D
300mm f/4 IS
24-85 USM
50mm f/1.8
tamron 90mm f/2.8

I shoot nature and macro mostly. Dragonflies, butterflies, occasional birds, landscapes... etc.

what I want:
more reach towards tele (a never ending story I suppose)
something between 90mm and 300mm, it is a large gap.
something with IS

Options,
100-400 IS
70-200 f/2.8 IS + 1.4x tele

Both options will give me 400mm (I understand that the 100-400 is a tad sharper then the 300 + 1.4x). Both options fill the 90 to 300mm gap. However the 70-200 is optically superior. Also it is more than a full stop faster. I am leaning towards the 70-200 and 1.4x although it is more expensive. The 300mm is not for sale, I love it!

Thank you for any advice.
Paul.

--
macro pictures and some 'fireworks' can be found at: http://www.dse.nl/~luap

Looks like the Sigma 100-300EX F4 was almost made for you - it's fast aperture, internal zooming, sharp wide open, has Ring USM (HSM) and doesn't cost the earth..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

EOS-1D & Sigma SD9 - Sharper than a Savile Row Suit!

Almost indeed, I thought about that one too but I does not have IS/OS. And although I do have a tripod I am often to lazy to carry it, especially when I am with my bike. Also I live in the Netherlands, the weather is often cloudy so I really like/need IS. And about price, I rather spend more and know I bought the right thing than reading reviews about better lenses after half a year.

Adam-T said:

Looks like the Sigma 100-300EX F4 was almost made for you - it's
fast aperture, internal zooming, sharp wide open, has Ring USM
(HSM) and doesn't cost the earth..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

EOS-1D & Sigma SD9 - Sharper than a Savile Row Suit!

Click to expand...

--
macro pictures and some 'fireworks' can be found at: http://www.dse.nl/~luap

Well it looks like there is only one real choice unless you want to spend a fortune and mess about with a heavy 70-200L IS F2.8 and TCs (which you may want if you have use for an F2.8 lens) - I guess the 100-400L IS could be the one as the new 70-300DO is a vastly overpriced coke bottle (Going by the multitudes of shots here on this forum) , the 75-300IS is a consumer lens and shows it (Slow AF and CA probs) and the Sigma 80-400OS has a tiresome slow Zizzy DC AF motor..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

EOS-1D & Sigma SD9 - Sharper than a Savile Row Suit!

I'm interested in the 100-300 f4, after not being impressed with the 50-500 i had.

I'm also having issues with the 70-200 f2.8, though the lens operates fine the images are not that good.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=8644836

any suggestions? whats wrong? when tested on a bit of paper the pictures are sharp, but in "in the field" they are odd... notice the halos in the hover fly shot...

I now have a D60 rather than the 300D and though the focus is very very slightly slower, i much prefer the ability to rattle off shots and how much quieter the shutter/mirror is.

Adam-T said:

Well it looks like there is only one real choice unless you want to
spend a fortune and mess about with a heavy 70-200L IS F2.8 and TCs
(which you may want if you have use for an F2.8 lens) - I guess the
100-400L IS could be the one as the new 70-300DO is a vastly
overpriced coke bottle (Going by the multitudes of shots here on
this forum) , the 75-300IS is a consumer lens and shows it (Slow AF
and CA probs) and the Sigma 80-400OS has a tiresome slow Zizzy DC
AF motor..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

EOS-1D & Sigma SD9 - Sharper than a Savile Row Suit!

Click to expand...

--
Sane: To know when your doing something crazy
Bigma Believer.

Hokum said:

I'm also having issues with the 70-200 f2.8, though the lens
operates fine the images are not that good.

Click to expand...

I used the Sigma 70-200EX on both the D60 and 10D and the copies I tried were only sharp wide open between 100 and 150mm - the one I tried on the SD9 was sharp from end to end at F2.8 and produced knockout images in the field - these things vary it would seem

Hokum said:

I now have a D60 rather than the 300D and though the focus is very
very slightly slower, i much prefer the ability to rattle off shots
and how much quieter the shutter/mirror is.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I notice that I've yet to have a misfocus with the D30 - the AF sensors are from the APS Film EOS-IX and not a full frame 35mm camera so are more than likely smaller and therefore covering less of the frame meaning better pinpoint focus - The D60 is the same AF system

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

EOS-1D & Sigma SD9 - Sharper than a Savile Row Suit!

So you say 100-400? I don't know. The 70-200 IS is 'only' 200 euros more than the 100-400 so price isn't much different. Also the two have about the same weight. The 1.4x I want anyway to use with the 300 for dragonflies, butterflies etc. Maybe I am wrong but I think the 70-200 adds much more possibilities. Only andvantage to the 100-400 is not having to change lenses too often, I admit not a small advantage but I don't know if it is large enough...

Kind regards and thank you for suggestions,
Paul.

Adam-T said:

Well it looks like there is only one real choice unless you want to
spend a fortune and mess about with a heavy 70-200L IS F2.8 and TCs
(which you may want if you have use for an F2.8 lens) - I guess the
100-400L IS could be the one as the new 70-300DO is a vastly
overpriced coke bottle (Going by the multitudes of shots here on
this forum) , the 75-300IS is a consumer lens and shows it (Slow AF
and CA probs) and the Sigma 80-400OS has a tiresome slow Zizzy DC
AF motor..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

EOS-1D & Sigma SD9 - Sharper than a Savile Row Suit!

Click to expand...

--
macro pictures and some 'fireworks' can be found at: http://www.dse.nl/~luap

berki47838 said:

Hi all,
first let me tell you what I have at the moment:
eos 10D
300mm f/4 IS
24-85 USM
50mm f/1.8
tamron 90mm f/2.8
I shoot nature and macro mostly. Dragonflies, butterflies,
occasional birds, landscapes... etc.

what I want:
more reach towards tele (a never ending story I suppose)
something between 90mm and 300mm, it is a large gap.
something with IS

Options,
100-400 IS
70-200 f/2.8 IS + 1.4x tele

Both options will give me 400mm (I understand that the 100-400 is a
tad sharper then the 300 + 1.4x). Both options fill the 90 to 300mm
gap. However the 70-200 is optically superior. Also it is more than
a full stop faster. I am leaning towards the 70-200 and 1.4x
although it is more expensive. The 300mm is not for sale, I love it!

Click to expand...

I think the 70-200IS (I assume because you want IS that that's the version you're looking at) + the 1.4x TC is a good choice. You do know how heavy it is, right?

And I don't know that the 100-400 would be sharper than your 300 + TC. I chose that combo and am very happy. For that kind of shooting you're almost always at the long end of a zoom anyway, and the 300/TC handles better.

berki47838 said:

what I want:
more reach towards tele (a never ending story I suppose)

Click to expand...

1.4TC

berki47838 said:

something between 90mm and 300mm, it is a large gap.

Click to expand...

70-200/4L or 135/2L

berki47838 said:

something with IS

Click to expand...

You have the 300/4IS

berki said:

So you say 100-400? I don't know. The 70-200 IS is 'only' 200 euros
more than the 100-400 so price isn't much different. Also the two
have about the same weight. The 1.4x I want anyway to use with the
300 for dragonflies, butterflies etc. Maybe I am wrong but I think
the 70-200 adds much more possibilities. Only andvantage to the
100-400 is not having to change lenses too often, I admit not a
small advantage but I don't know if it is large enough...

Click to expand...

A significant advantage is that the the 100-400 goes to 400mm, and the 70-200 is 280mm with the 1.4 - shorter than your 300mm lens. You will need a 2x converter to equal the other lens.
--
Misha

Thank you, misha, brooke and mcfly.
I will try and respond to all your suggestions,

Misha: yes I know that the 200 + 1.4x is about equal to my 300mm. So I am keeping it, I can use the 1.4x with that one as well to give me 420mm.

brooke: I don't know how heavy it is (well it is 1470 g, just checked) but never handled it. My 300mm is 1200 g and I can walk for hours with that one. So that should not be a big problem. In the backpack I don't think I will notice it (will have to remove my bottle of water I always have with me, same weight as 70-200). And yes the 300mm is a real pleasure to use and handles very nice. Hope same thing goes for 70-200.

mcfly: 70-200/4L or 135/2L. Hmmm don't know, no IS but I do save a lot of money when buying the 70-200 f/4. I will try it at the shop to see how it is and if I miss IS a lot. I do think I will prefer that one over 70-200 f/2.8 no IS (weigth and more compact). I only wish they had a 70-200 f/4 IS... Although the 135mm is amazingly sharp I think I will prefer a zoom.

Thanks again!

--
macro pictures and some 'fireworks' can be found at: http://www.dse.nl/~luap