super tele-zooms

[ElFenix]

the candidates:
Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM
pros: IS , USM, great image quality, very good build quality, hood and tripod mount included
cons: 3.1 lbs, ginormous, $1,410

Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
pros: IS, USM, 1.6 lbs, hood included, compact
cons: $1150, somewhat short, reports of disturbing bokeh, a tad slower at the short end than similar lenses

Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
pros: $550, IS, similar optical quality to the DO lens, 1.4 lbs
cons: micro-USM, rotating front element, construction a bit cheap, somewhat short, hood is extra

sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 DG HSM
pros: long, HSM, hood, carrying case and handle/tripod mount included
cons: $1000, 4+ lbs., super ginormous, reported softness although it may need a very heavy tripod, possible poor bokeh, no OS though handholding is probably difficult at best

sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 OS HSM
pros: long, HSM, OS, case, handle, hood probably included, price is probably about $800
cons: i'd be a guinea pig as it's brand new, 4+ lbs., super ginormous, seems a bit slow at the short end

sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM
pros: fast, hsm, good image quality, hood, case tripod collar included
cons: $990, no IS, 3.2 lbs, short

sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 OS HSM
pros: hsm, OS, case, hood, tripod collar included
cons: image quality is unknown, price is unknown, build quality unknown, 3.8 lbs

tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3
pros: long, very good image quality (though not quite up to the canon 100-400), hood included, not sure about collar, $850, only 2.7 lbs, solid build quality
cons: micromotor focus, no OS, ginormous

tokina 100-300 f/4
pros: fast, good build quality, $700
cons: soft at 300, CAs at 300, only seller on ebay is in hong kong, no USM, no IS

tokina 80-400 f/4.5-5.6
pros: good build quality, relatively compact, $650
cons: not widely available, no USM, no IS, unsure of the image quality (though the limited reports of this lens and its predecessor have been pretty good)

 

[OdiN]

If I could get any of those, it would probably be the Canon 100-400mm, but that lens is so expensive! Cheaper than a 600mm F/4L IS though.

 

[Fardringle]

I think you should get this one. If you act now you can even save $4,780.01!

Seriously, though. Do you need a specific range on the short end of the lens? Will you be moving around a lot with it, or mostly be doing tripod shots? That might help narrow things down a little since you probably won't want a 4 pound lens while hiking through the woods taking pictures of the birdies.

 

[pennylane]

Can you use a teleconverter with all of them? How well does each work with a teleconverter?

 

[Alyx]

I'd probably got for the 100-400mm as well. Great lens.

Technically you can use a TC with all of them. TCs work a lot better with fast apertures though.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fanerman91
Can you use a teleconverter with all of them? How well does each work with a teleconverter?

the kenko 300 1.4x TC works on all of them, and is reputably sharper in the center than the canon.

Originally posted by: Fardringle
I think you should get this one. If you act now you can even save $4,780.01!

Seriously, though. Do you need a specific range on the short end of the lens? Will you be moving around a lot with it, or mostly be doing tripod shots? That might help narrow things down a little since you probably won't want a 4 pound lens while hiking through the woods taking pictures of the birdies.

i imagine it'd mostly be tripod shots at the moment. i'm not doing birding but i do have several hundred (maybe 1000?) acres of undeveloped swamp behind the house that has interesting wildlife at times (great horned owls occasionally).

i've already got a canon 70-210 f/4 that i'm thinking of selling and going for the much improved f/4L IS. though one of the 70-300s might kill two birds with one stone.


the canon 100-400 is probably out of my reach. though perhaps i could trick people into thinking i'm press and get courtside with the rockets

 

[Heidfirst]

the question is - what do you need it for?

Personal knowledge:
The Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM isn't ginormous - I know plenty of people that use it handheld all the time even in gloomy Scottish winters.

Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 DG HSM - still handholdable, great flexibility, gobbles light, not fastest focussing.

Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM - got this myself in MAF mount, with the hood it's actually longer than the 50-500mm. Can't really complain but for my needs 300mm is a bit short.

Tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3 - 200mm (320mm in 35mm terms on a Canon APS-C) can be a bit long for the "short" end for some people.
I think that you will find that at 400mm it's IQ compares favourably to the 100-400 IS which softens towards the top ( & of course it's 500mm beats the Canon's ...). Gobbles light.

You have to watch with TCs that you will still get autofocus - iirc some Canon bodies won't over f5.6.

Unless you need the 500mm the 100-400mm IS is probably the best option but if it's unaffordable ...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst
the question is - what do you need it for?

Personal knowledge:
The Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM isn't ginormous - I know plenty of people that use it handheld all the time even in gloomy Scottish winters.

Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3 DG HSM - still handholdable, great flexibility, gobbles light, not fastest focussing.

Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM - got this myself in MAF mount, with the hood it's actually longer than the 50-500mm. Can't really complain but for my needs 300mm is a bit short.

Tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3 - 200mm (320mm in 35mm terms on a Canon APS-C) can be a bit long for the "short" end for some people.
I think that you will find that at 400mm it's IQ compares favourably to the 100-400 IS which softens towards the top ( & of course it's 500mm beats the Canon's ...). Gobbles light.

You have to watch with TCs that you will still get autofocus - iirc some Canon bodies won't over f5.6.

Unless you need the 500mm the 100-400mm IS is probably the best option but if it's unaffordable ...

ginormous relative to some of the more compact options

as for the TCs... tape trick (though that only avoids the camera turning off AF because of the reported aperture, if it's too dark it's too dark)

and the price is probably the issue with the 100-400. for its price i could sell my 70-210, get the 70-200 f/4 IS, and still have almost enough money left over for the tokina 80-400

 

[Anubis]

i have the sigma 100-300 and its a great lens all around, especially for what it costs, i have no complaints other then its size, however any lens in this range is big


what are you going to be useing it for?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Anubis
i have the sigma 100-300 and its a great lens all around, especially for what it costs, i have no complaints other then its size, however any lens in this range is big


what are you going to be useing it for?

i've never had a super tele so i don't really know. my goal is the moons of jupiter.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Anubis
i have the sigma 100-300 and its a great lens all around, especially for what it costs, i have no complaints other then its size, however any lens in this range is big


what are you going to be useing it for?

i've never had a super tele so i don't really know. my goal is the moons of jupiter.

If you wanted the moons of Jupiter, you'd probably need a telescope + camera mount.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Anubis
i have the sigma 100-300 and its a great lens all around, especially for what it costs, i have no complaints other then its size, however any lens in this range is big


what are you going to be useing it for?

i've never had a super tele so i don't really know. my goal is the moons of jupiter.

If you wanted the moons of Jupiter, you'd probably need a telescope + camera mount.

nah, 400 mm + 1.4x TC + 1.6x 'crop factor' = moons of jupiter on a clear day. a 500 is better. both will get the rings of saturn.

plus they're more versatile than a telescope.