Upgrading from Sigma 70-200 2.8

nicknackgtb

Hi all,

I am getting married in March and our suggestion for hunnymoon is to do a safari. Naturally (No pun intended), I want to bring my camera gear with me. I feel however that my sigma may not be up to scratch for this sort of adventure and want to think about upgrading.

My idea was to think about getting a 100-400L for this sort of thing. NowI have a 24-105 for everyday stuff but want something longer. I know that I would be loosing out on stops with the upgrade but then again has IS which helps greatly.

Another option would be to buy an extender for my sigma, although I dont want to have to be taking it on and off. With the 24-105 and 100-400, I have all bases covered.

What would you suggest being a good lens to have with me? I cannot afford a 300 prime or anything like that before it is mentioned and want to have something that is easy to have with me in my backpack!

Thank you,

flyingsnail

I have never owned or used the canon 100-400 L so I can't speak for its quality but I have seen a number pop up recently second hand since the release of the Mk 2 version.

A 2x extender would give you 140-400 focal length and in truth you would probably be only changing it as much as you would be taking the 100-400 on and off, but extenders do have an impact on image quality and autofocus speed.

The canon 300 F4 and 100-400 mk 1 are about the same price while the 100-400 Mk 2 is about an extra grand so the 300 might be another option.

Pat Dunne

I have a 100-400L and find it a super lens.
However I did a trip last year which involved long range wildlife photography, (our guide was not too keen letting us getting close to the Polar Bears and he was carrying a rifle) and I felt the Canon simply didn't have the distance. If I was doing the trip again, I would be giving the Tamron 150-600 some serious consideration.

I believe the new 100-400L II, can be now be sucessfully used with a 1.4 tele converter. However I have heard very mixed comments from people who used tele converters on the old lens, which persuaded me not to get one.

Heebie

I have a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 myself, and I've used it with a 1.5x and a 2x tele converter, and it's been OK.
Obviously the image quality isn't as good as using the lens directly on the camera. It gets softened, and loses a couple of f-stops, but still seems to do the job pretty well.
If you have the cash to buy the (much?) more expensive lens, then go for it.

LeoB

I use the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and have use a 2x converter with it and found the images a little soft. with the 2x on it still focus's still fairly quickly

I would think however a lot of the animals you will be shooting photographing will be fairly static, elephants Lions, tigers? and from what I have heard on a lot of safari trips you can get quite close.

Have you considered Sigma 120-400?

dubhoop

I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with both Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 i do aviation photography. I can recommend the Sigma 120-400, have not used the 100-400 L so cant comment on that. but the 120-400 with the 7D is fantastic. although the af can be a slight bit slow at times

CabanSail

When i have heard from a few people who have been on a Safari they say the they tended to use their 70/200 f2.8 most of the time. The trips go out so often that the animals get used to the vehicles and you get close enough. The exception was trying to get birds which are smaller and normally difficult to approach. This often needs a hide and patience.

This is all anecdotal and not from personal experience.