70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II

[sudhirss77]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I am leaning towards 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Also, I saw this ad in Craigslist where a Sigma 50-500mm is available for $450. I called the seller and he said it is in very good condition and he wants to sell it as he rarely use it. I want to take a look at it and if it's in good condition, then I will go for it and plan to use it for bird photography. I am getting 70-200 f/2.8 anyway even if I get Sigma lens and drop the idea of 100-400 mm.

 

[beagle100]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I am leaning towards 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Also, I saw this ad in Craigslist where a Sigma 50-500mm is available for $450. I called the seller and he said it is in very good condition and he wants to sell it as he rarely use it. I want to take a look at it and if it's in good condition, then I will go for it and plan to use it for bird photography. I am getting 70-200 f/2.8 anyway even if I get Sigma lens and drop the idea of 100-400 mm.

OK but be prepared to (eventually) become dissatisfied with that 50-500 !
If you want a long lens (beyond the 70-200) skip that older Sigma and save your money for a 150-600 or 100-400

 

[jaomul]

You originally asked between the 70-200 and the 100-400 and mentioned zoom in a zoo( bit of a tongue twister). The 100-400 would imo give you better options, sure the 70-200 is better in low light and can seperate subject from background better but I would prefer the 100-400mm. This of course bucks the trend and some of those who commented are far more experienced than me, but would the extra 295mm reach you get from a 100-400 not serve you better than the 95 you get with the 70-200.

In real terms the 70-200 may be the better more desireable lens, but it does depend on your shooting needs

 

[JacaRanda]

You originally asked between the 70-200 and the 100-400 and mentioned zoom in a zoo( bit of a tongue twister). The 100-400 would imo give you better options, sure the 70-200 is better in low light and can seperate subject from background better but I would prefer the 100-400mm. This of course bucks the trend and some of those who commented are far more experienced than me, but would the extra 295mm reach you get from a 100-400 not serve you better than the 95 you get with the 70-200.

In real terms the 70-200 may be the better more desireable lens, but it does depend on your shooting needs

Pretty much with you. Better more desireable depending on needs makes the most sense to me. I went with 70-200f4 IS II and although it is my favorite lens, it's not getting much use because of what and where I shoot most. An argument can be made for the 3rd party versions also.

 

[DB_Cro]

An argument can be made for the 3rd party versions also.

Sigma's 70-200 F/2.8 with IS (OS) costs a bit less then the Canon F/4 IS so.. yeah.
Good idea. I've been looking into all 70-200 stuff available and I'll be getting the Sigma.