Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Some of these do have rather prohibitive price structures, but, of those considered affordable, do you feel there is one which is more than adequate for your needs? ... And, alternately, is there one (or two) which you would NOT ever consider? ... If so, which, and why? ...

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Canon has six different 400mm lenses, I do have the cheapest one of them, and although it is a cheap lens, I really like it, so yes, it is adequate for my need (that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have one of the better ones though)!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yes, so I see, S ... three primes, three zooms - including that really expensive 200-400 ...

If you find a lens to be adequate for your needs, then stick with it, S ... no need to spend money, foolishly ....

CO

I have the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S lens. I'm very impressed with it. It has very fast autofocus and is sharp throughout the entire zoom range. I really think lenses that have the nano crystal coating on the glass have slightly higher contrast than lenses with standard multi-coatings.

Nikon just replaced their 200-400mm f/4 lens with a 180-400mm f/4 with built-in 1.4x teleconvertor. It was just announced at the consumer electronic show. I'd like to read some reviews on it although at $12,400. I don't think I will be purchasing one.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, did, they, CO?

I didn't know ....

The 200-400 is a VR II ... so, that's pretty recent, CO ... sure they haven't just added to the line with this new one?

I have the Tokina 80-400 AT-X for my Canons ... a very capable lens ... but at farthest zoom, it does need a tripod ... still ...

taco40

I'm trying to determine which lens to purchase. The Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM or the Tamron 18-400mm F/3.5-6.3 DI-II VC HLD All-In-One Zoom For Canon (or for over double the price, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens).
In reading reviews, it would appear that they both have pro's and con's. The Sigma seems to lose points for speed of auto-focus, but I'm finding I use that less and less. I use the auto- to focus, then switch to manual to fine tune.

If you have a Tamron or Sigma, I'd like to hear your opinion.
Thanks.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

I don't have either, Taco ... the only thing I have in that range is the Tokina 80-400 APO AT-X ... seems to fill my needs, adequately ....

The Tamron 18-400 is quite a lens ... fantastic range, just $650, too ... hard to beat it for value ... but, it's bound to suffer, somewhere along that range. Check DPReview.

You could also check out that new Sigma 100-400, there, too ... maybe that'd be a good way to find out for yourself about the quality of that lens.

Now, then - on the two Canon 100-400s .... leaving the best till last ....

The older one, at $1400 ... is adequate for most people's needs ....

The newer IS II version - at $2200 ... is a vast improvement over the older one ... it should be - for almost a grand more ... if you can afford it - go for the best!!!!