It all depends what your definition of 'Breaking the bank " is. The key is the F-stop. It tells you how much light the lens will take in. The lower the number, the better. f/1.4 f/2 f/2.8 f/4 ect. This is also talked about in "speed", how fast a lens is. These numbers are more expensive. Price is also affected by focal distance and quality of glass. With canon, the best is "L" glass. The 70-200L f/4 is around $650 without IS (image stabilizer). The 24-75L f/2.8 is around $1400. These two combined is a great kit to have. They will also work on your new canon camera when you update. Canon makes some pretty good non "L" glass and so does tamron. Remember, you get what you pay for!!!
I'm currently saving up for "L" glass. Any amount is a waste of money if you eventually spring for the good stuff, and the other lens just sits on a shelf. I want the 70-200 2.8 (approx $1200) to replace a tamron 70-300 vc ($450). That's $450 I could of put towards the "L". That being said, I had much more luck with the tammy over sigma. I have an eight year old 17-35 2.8/4 that I use almost every day.
Thanks michael digital for the info. that is a great shot.
I thought that auto focus did not work on the 400 5.6 and the 1.4 or 2.o converters. also that would make this shot @ f11 or did you step it down to get it that sharp? either way, its still better than the results I get with the tamron 70-300 4-5.6 vc. even when i step it down. just not happy with that lens.
Thanks Larryd
Ibought the sigma 150-500mm and had to return it. It was almost always too soft, nomatter what I did. I have read that both the 300 and 400 are tack sharp wide open. To sharpen the 300 + 1.4 going to f8 mostly won't be a problem due to the fact that I almost always use a tripod, or atleast a monopod. I wish I had the money to buy both. I have also read that the new features of the 1.4 III has no affect on these lenses, only on the newer "L", is that true.
I'm torn between the 300L IS + 1.4x or the 400L. I've heard conflicting results. On paper, the numbers add up: 400mm @5.6 & 420mm@5.6 (using T2i). I will also purchase th 70-200L 2.8 (non IS). Main subjects are wildlife and birding, with the occasional high school sports shoot. I figure the 70-200 will take care of that. I don't mind size or weight for quality, so you don't have to mention that. I know the IS and auto focus works with the 300mm, but not the 400mm. Any input from people who own/use one or both of these lenses would be greatly appreciated. thanx
I own only b+w. no sense putting cheap filters on nice glass. You can't go wrong with heliopan. Always buy MC (muilticoated) it lets in the most light. The circular versions (77mm) work great for uv, cprl, and nd. I spent the money on a LEE 77mm adaptor and ring. I use the 4x6 Galin Rowell singh ray filters. The circular b+w is ok for "spinning", but to control the horizon, you may have to recompose your shot. The 4x6 spins, moves up and down, and covers a wide angle lens better than the square. Since I got the 4x6, the round one isn't even in my camera bag anymore. Its brand new, you can have it for $50, lol. price: 77mm adaptor-$25 * lee holder-$75 * Galen rowell gels-$160. They are availlable in hard edge, soft edge, and (this is cool) reverse soft edge that starts dark and gets lighter to the top(for shooting sunsets and sunrises) I think the lee 4x6 are cheaper. Just my opinion.