Where to buy? Which lens?

[la lumiere]

I could really use some help/advice I have a canon 50D and am poised to buy a new lens.
I was hoping to get away with one brilliant lens that does everything- the perfect- although not realistic option.
Considering.....1/... 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS (It didn't feel great in my hand-nervous of push/pull zoom)......2/.....70-200mm f2.8L IS II.......(probably where I'm leaning but worried too short and can't find anyone happy with 2X extender even tho new one due out- hopefully improved)......3/.... 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS.........OR .... 4/.....70-300mm f 3.5-5.6 L IS.
I like to shoot horses/horse events, outdoors, looking to try wildlife and birds.
Also where to buy.. internet- supposedly Aus sellers are about $900 cheaper than stores- supposedly with warranty (some with Aus canon 1 year) reluctant to buy what I can't see- most pickup locations Syd or Bris. Does anyone know of Melb based pickup with competeitive price?
Thanks

[Wayne]

The 100-400 covers alot of ground, but unfortunately none of what you have listed is really going to take extenders except the 70-200. All of the others at max focal length will be f/8 with a 1.4TC

There really is no single lens solution unless you only shoot one type of genre.

[dulvariprestige]

la lumiere,
If you really want the reach, then the 100-400, but if you want the best IQ, then from what I've heard and read, it would be hard to go past the 70-200 II, but in saying that, the 100-400 is no slouch.
I had the 100-400 for about 4 months and didn't mind the push pull zoom, actually I really got to liking it, the reason I sold it was that the 5.6 aperture was a bit slow for me, I've just received my new sigma 100-300 f4, can't really afford a 2.8 in this range right now, that extra stop does help a lot, doubles the shutter speed, so now I don't have to crank up the ISO.

It sounds like you want to stick with canon, but have you looked at sigma's 120-300 2.8, around the same price as the 70-200, and if you add a 1.4 TC you'll be getting an f4 168-420mm, the downside is that it doesn't have OS/IS, and it's big and heavy.

[la lumiere]

Thanks for your reply. Do you know anything about the 70-300?

[la lumiere]

Thanks for your replies.
Do you know anything about the 70-300?
I was looking at canon as I presumed it was better to buy same brand lens as body. I am happy for your suggestions. I think I may have looked at the Sigma you mentioned but the shop guy told me it was not weather-proofed-- Is this the case? Weatherproofing is an issue as I seem to spend most of my time in the rain or the dust. The lenses are expensive and it has taken me a long time to save for a lens - I would like it too last for a long time.

[Wayne]

Don't make the error of thinking lenses are weather proof. Unless they are specifically designed for water photography, they will not be weather proof. Some have seals to assist with weather sealing, but you certainly wouldn't leave them out in a downpour or take them into a dust storm.

[la lumiere]

OK. So can you or can't you shoot in the rain or must the lens/ camera etc stay dry? Covers? Sorry if I'm asking really basic questions- I just don't know the answers.

[dulvariprestige]

The 70-200 could handle a light drizzle more than the other lenses you've mentioned as it has better weather sealing, but you're forgetting about the body, you're better off looking at some type of rain cover, thinktank and aquatech are a couple that come to mind.
As for the 70-300, I'd rather sigmas 100-300, no IS, but the constant f4 is better and they're around the same price, I've only just received mine, but so far I'm very happy with it's performance, it definitely living up to it's reputation.

[neil70]

Hi
I shoot with a 100-400 most of the time. I shoot motor cross and football. I have found the lens really good and now love the push pull zoom (after getting used to it). It dose have issues with shooting in the rain and a rain/storm hood would be a good idea.

[la lumiere]

Thanks all for your help.
I'm leaning towards the new 70-200 2.8 because -out of all the reviews I have read I can't find a bad review for this lens, image quality is apparently super good.
Gembrook is not the sunniest place in the world and so light is an issue as I like to walk/ride through the bush here and look for that perfect subject. Weatherproofing is a consideration since 99% of my shots are taken outdoors.
Speed is an issue because I take lots of photos of horses at competition. I would like to take photos of birds also, a little worried that the lens won't be long enough- perhaps a teleconverter may be the answer here as most reviews agree that this lens can cope with that with minimal loss of image quality (I'll wait and see what the new ones are like- due out at Christmas I think).
Re-sale- should it ever be an issue sounds good.
The biggest downfall appears to be the initial price! I have been saving for ages and nearly have enough $. I just need to be brave and take the plunge. Not easy as we need to eat sometimes and my husband is getting sick of baked beans!

[flame70]

For an investment that'll last always buy good glass.
You would do well with the 70-200 but you'd do even better with a 400 prime but thats $$$$$$ and unless you can justify that sort of investment,... the 70-200 is a great lens. But its about positioning yourself with wildlife that counts.

[Cheach]

I got my 7D kit and 70-200 2.8 IS US from NGS (night groove systems), who is an AP site sponsor, without issues and great service.

Highly recommended.

[la lumiere]

Thanks for the heads up. I checked the site sponsors and have already contacted NG- very helpful. Waiting for call back today with price. He also suggested 7D but can not go the distance $ plus have only fairly recently bought the 50D and need to learn to drive that!
I seriously hope this lens is all it is cracked up to be - had a play in the shop and happy with size, weight etc. Have to say the hair follicles on the back of a not so distant customers head looked pretty OK! (No sign of dandruff or head lice - tho' posssibly a shame about lice - may have looked good!)

[Roosta]

I recently up-graded to the 50D and also purchased the 70 - 200 f2.8L nonIS, and find it surperb. The image quality is top notch, can only get better when I get of my learners with both camera and lens.

I don't find the non IS a problem, brought the lens for mainly rugby-sport (no tripod on monopod used as yet), but it hardly comes of the camera, with the focal zoom switch(1.5 Mtr or min 3mtr), it dosen't hunt for focus, so can only happly recommend it, If you can afford the IS version, why not.

Also, the Sigma 100 - 300 was looking as a terrific lens option, but wanted more weather proofing and the Canon 70 - 200 offered that.

Happy buying.

Canon all the way for me.

[unistudent1962]

I had been looking at upgraging my kit 75-300 to the 70-200 f2.8L IS until the Mark II came out and put it out of my budget.

I was also considering the 100-400 but a friend who has one has had problems with the push/pull action drawing dust into the mechanism.

I have since purchased a 70-200 f4L IS ($1575 from Photcontinental in Brisbane 06/2010) and have been astounded at the image quality.

PRO: It is significantly less expensive, outstanding IQ (Comparible to the f2.8L, and in some reviews superior)
CON: A full stop slower.

[la lumiere]

Thanks all for your input I appreciate your comments.

[la lumiere]

For an investment that'll last always buy good glass.
You would do well with the 70-200 but you'd do even better with a 400 prime but thats $$$$$$ and unless you can justify that sort of investment,... the 70-200 is a great lens. But its about positioning yourself with wildlife that counts.

I would love the 400 prime!!! Not going to happen unfortunately- neither is the 500, or for that matter the 600 (although I probably couldn't lift it anyway!)