Is the Horse Dead Yet?

[Firephoto]

Sorry to be the one to bring this up again but, the money is available and burning a hole in my pocket.


I have a 7D and 70-200 f/4 non IS with a 1.4 extender. I shoot outdoors sports frequently and indoors during the winter as well as the occasional indoors event. I am having to bump up the ISO to 800 now to get decent shutter speeds with the extender. The daylight is getting shorter by the day and I know this will get worse. I have a couple of possible upgrades in mind but, have read so many forum discussions that my head is spinning. I do love the size/weight of my 70-200 but, I have the 24-70 f/2.8 and that weight doesn

[Sean Setters]

I think my original advice was a 70-200 f2.8 non IS with a monopod, if I remember correctly. And, looking over your choices, it

[ddt0725]

I think my 100-400mm would make a great safari lens!

[HDNitehawk]

Not that I am saying it would be the best choice, But why was the new 70-300mm F4-5.6L with IS not on the list. Not fast enough? I think the IS system would help a little withshutter speeds in low light compared to the non IS you are using now.

[Fast Glass]

If shooting sports and complaining about the low light capability of f/4 I don

[Sean Setters]

Of course, if he

[Joel Eade]

Maybe you should look at a Sigma 120 - 400mm or Sigma 150 - 500mm. They make vey nice products and you get more focal length for the money, of course it isn

[HDNitehawk]

Of course, if he's using the extender with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, he'd essentially have a 280mm f/4 lens on the long end. If he's using the 70-300 f/4-5.6, he'd be losing a stop of light at the comparable focal length when not using the extender.

This is true. I thinkasachoice for sports the 70-200m F2.8L would be best, I would prefer the IS version though.


The 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L is in the mix though. If it could be in the mix of possibles, it looked to me so could the 70-300mm. I think the compact 70-300mm might be a very good lens to take to Disneyland or on safari. Personally though, if I didn't have a suitable lens alreadyand were going on a real Safari that I had paid thousands of dollars to go on, I wouldn't take any of these lenses. I am thinking lensrental.com for that one.

[Firephoto]

HI Guys,


Thank you for your responses.


Is the weight of these lenses even a real issue?


Lets start from the top...


Sean that was your initial advice and I wanted to give you props for that. Sound Advice Sorry for the name misspell


HDNitehawk - The 70-300 L is too slow. I'm with Sean (Of course, if he's using the extender with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L, he'd essentially have a 280mm f/4 lens on the long end. If he's using the 70-300 f/4-5.6, he'd be losing a stop of light at the comparable focal length when not using the extender.) Without the extender I would have a 2.8 between 70-200 which the 70-300 L couldn't do. I do like the weather sealing and IS though.


John - I agree with you about not going lower than f/2.8, but you hear of the 70-200 f/4 Is being so highly regarded I thought is was worth throwing out there. I am considering the f/2.8 IS but am nervous about buying one used and haven't seen one on Canon's refurb. site forever. The 100-400 4-5.6 sounds good but the slow aperture doesn't. I could reach the same length with a 2x extender at the cost of some IQ and no Auto focus.


Joel - After reading Bryan's review of the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma I wasn't too interested in them anymore. Although at photography-on-the.net/.../index.php they rave about the lens. Any contrary thoughts would be interesting.


I feel better about trying to land a 70-200 IS 1rst then non IS. Thanks for your thoughts,


Brett

[Firephoto]

Denise,


If I go that route I would absolutely consider your lens. Great price!