If you want to spend more I would buy the Tamron 28-300 or the 18-270. Besides it isn't the size of your lens it is the size of your lens hood that matters. You want to get yourself a lens hood that is so big it looks like you have one of those massive $10,000 lenses that people take to the zoo to grab monkey photos.
Also make sure you always have it zoomed out when you carry it around so it looks longer...
I'm in sort of the same position as the OP. I would love the sharpness and price of the 70-200 f4 but I'm afraid if I buy it, I will want something with more reach since I really want to shoot small birds. What do you guys suggest has the best optical quality in the 300-400mm range for under $600? That's the big question, at least for me.
I've been seriously looking at the 70-300 IS but it just seems crazy to buy that when the 70-200L is so close to it in price.
I'm in sort of the same position as the OP. I would love the sharpness and price of the 70-200 f4 but I'm afraid if I buy it, I will want something with more reach since I really want to shoot small birds. What do you guys suggest has the best optical quality in the 300-400mm range for under $600? That's the big question, at least for me.
I've been seriously looking at the 70-300 IS but it just seems crazy to buy that when the 70-200L is so close to it in price.
I am not a birding expert. But IMO, a 200mm lens that is sharper will give me equal or better results (from its crops) than a 300mm one that is just average at its longer end of the focal length. I had a 70-300 Sigma.. which was great for DOF/general purpose zooming UNTIL I needed to crop 100% or close sometimes. All post-processing to sharpen/(un)sharpen usually only worked ok for that lens as long as I only cropped to 50% or so. Any higher crop, and it showed lost details generally. Sometimes my tripod helped in getting tack sharp pics at 100% crop too at 300mm range.. but rarely.
IMO, a 200mm lens with better optics may give you more keepers since you may be able to crop farther than usual. But thats just IMO.
I am not a birding expert. But IMO, a 200mm lens that is sharper will give me equal or better results (from its crops) than a 300mm one that is just average at its longer end of the focal length. I had a 70-300 Sigma.. which was great for DOF/general purpose zooming UNTIL I needed to crop 100% or close sometimes. All post-processing to sharpen/(un)sharpen usually only worked ok for that lens as long as I only cropped to 50% or so. Any higher crop, and it showed lost details generally. Sometimes my tripod helped in getting tack sharp pics at 100% crop too at 300mm range.. but rarely.
IMO, a 200mm lens with better optics may give you more keepers since you may be able to crop farther than usual. But thats just IMO.
That makes a lot of sense, and I could also get a 1.4x teleconverter which would probably still be better than the 300mm. I don't do much if any PP so I didn't even think about cropping which would be a great idea!
That makes a lot of sense, and I could also get a 1.4x teleconverter which would probably still be better than the 300mm. I don't do much if any PP so I didn't even think about cropping which would be a great idea!
How much were you planning to spend?
Have you priced the 70-200 and a 1.4 extender?
