HI, I bought the tokina 80-400 yesterday and I have to take it back, as it has focusing problems and I'm pretty sure its the lens, after trying all the different settings to get a AF, it had trouble focusing on anything, anywhere in any light conditions!

I still would love it and could be happy with it after much thought about the lenses between 300 and 400mm available that are lightweight. I know I can't use a large heavy lens because of my neck. The problem now is WHAT TO GET?

I have a 55-200, 50mm, and 17-85IS. And if I am going to spend over $500, I want it to be good quality glass.[for once, lolol].

I know theres not much out there mid range pricewise, it seems its either cheap, or too expensive. I wrote these down to take in with me to the store. Any comments greatly appreciated:

Sigma- 70-200 f2.8 EX APO USM, + 1.4x tele converter [heard this can be a problem lens with canon 20D?]
or
Sigma-135-400 ASP AF APO or
Tamron AF 75-300 LD macro or
Canon 70-200L f4 +canon 1.4 teleconverter or
for the little use of a long lens, just buy the new Sony H1 12x digicam, and be done with it, and enjoy the game instead of lugging lenses around....

Thanks so much fo any thoughts you can give here to assist my confusion.

Within your choices, I would go with either Sigma 70-200/2.8 or Canon 70-200/4 route.
But you said you cannot use heavy lens because of your neck,,, is Sigma okay? It's not too heavy, but not light either.

If you don't mind buying old lens used, Canon 100-300/5.6L may be another way to get 300mm reasonably. It's not fast at f/5.6, it doesn't focus fast without USM, but optics are very good from my experience. And you can find it way below $400... (but you have to be lucky to locate one...)

Comments on your choices based on your criteria of weight, picture quality and price to reach 300mm:

Tokina AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AT-X 840AF - 34.1 oz $490 (already eliminated, but listed for weight and price)
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM - 49 oz, $799 (too heavy)
Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO Aspherical - 42.7 oz $539 (too heavy)
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro - 15.4 oz $150 (consumer (not SP) grade, low PQ)
Canon EF 70-200L f/4- 25oz $580 (L grade, very good PQ)

At 300mm, I recommend that you consider:

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro II - 20.6 oz $209
Canon EF 70-300 EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - 25.6 oz $1150 (I have one as well as the 17-85 IS, and think that they are both worth the price for IS and convenience of portability and zoom range.)

Other high quality choices at 300mm (and also 400mm) will be too heavy for your neck.

You've already mentioned what I think is the best choice for you at 200mm.

Canon EF 70-200L f/4- 25 oz $580 (L grade, very good PQ)
Canon Extender EF 1.4x II - 7.8 oz, $270

You've clearly limited your choices by quality, weight, and cost, But remember not to forget both the weight and the cost of the extender. The combined weight on your neck might push you towards one of the recommended 300mm zooms.

Other suggestions are a monopod (more cumbersome), or something like the Nikon Vestrap to distribute the weight.

I have a database that might help for such raw specs as weight:
http://www.nobell.org/~gjm/photography/lenses.html

If weight is an issue then you've got a problem with long lenses. From the above options the Tamron is the lightest lens, but the poorest optically. The two Sigma's are heavy options (in the order of 3 lbs each), so the best compromise is probably the 70-200 F4.

As an alternative (not a cheap one and the image quality isn't spectacular, but it's small and light) the Canon 70-300 DO IS may be worth thinking about.

It's not listed but how about the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX? Depending on your needs you can about sacrifice the 30mm on the front end. As far as the weight issue I don't see that your going to be able to get away from it using the longer lenses like the 70-200's or equiv. Any of the lenses that are about 8 inches in length are going to put a heavier burden on your neck simply because of their size. One other I might throw out so you don't have to really look for an extender might be the Sigma 80-400. I've seen a lot of reviews saying this is a great lens and it may help you get longer reach for the money. Again I'm not sure what to say for really great quality without the weight (The monopod suggestion was a good one). Good luck!

Thanks to everyone for your great info and thoughts. I am actually printing this out and taking it with me to the store. [in this case, I am glad I bought it at Samys, close by me for convenience. It also opened some more insight on "cost" versus convenience and also other options where I can actually handle the product. Might be worth the $80 more after all.

The Tokina is fairly heavy so I understand what you mean, I am so limited to either the cheaper [lighter] weight lenses, and may settle for 300mm, although I would have been happy with the tokina. I was also aware that the 200 f4L would be heavier with the converter and thats why I didn't buy one in the past. So thanks for all the info, again reminding me that I may be looking for the impossible, as usual. lolol

I was only leary of the sigmas having problems with my 20D and don't want to have to send them back for chipping or whatever they do to make them work? Does anyone know which one I should stay away from if I am worried about that?

Thanks again, and I will check out the used lens stuff too. The older canon would be close to my needs.

Wish I could afford the Canon EF 70-300 EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - 25.6 oz $1150 that would be great choice for me size wise.

I do use the monopod about 40% of the time. Will definately check out the 80-400 sigma, and the others listed here. Thanks so much!

Gary thanks for the link and price diffs, very helpful!

Can anyone tell me which ones can't be used with a teleconverter? tnks again. You guys are so helpful! I know theres no secret diamond in the rough, and may just have to settle for a cheaper lens for now. My 55-200 ain't so bad, and have gotten some good photos with it, so I'm not afraid of them. Just wish I knew what was the best of the lesser glass!

I'll second steve_t's statement "If weight is an issue then you've got a problem with long lenses."

Since the Canon 70-300 DO is too much for your budget, I'd suggest a serious consideration of the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro II - 20.6 oz $209. From expert and owner reports on this and other forums, it is the best of the consumer 300mm zooms, with exceptionally good quality for the price like your 55-200 (Mk II assumed). I don't recall reading any reports of compatibility problems or focus issues with the 20D.

Anything with better quality and/or longer reach is going to cost more in dollars and/or weight.

Anyone use this one? Looks good. Sigma, aspherical 28-300, but more on the order of the canon 70-300 DO IS USM?

http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=8910&start=1

or this sigma?
http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=8921&start=1
thanks

Also consider the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. It isn't going to knock an "L" lens off the roost, but it is well made, has fast-focusing ring-type USM with focus scale and rear focus element. It is most capable of making very good images. Plus, its light.

It runs around $280 in the US and handles rather nicely, similar to the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 or the 28-135 mid-priced Canon zooms.

If I hadn't gone to "L" in a handbasket, I'd give that lens some consideration.

Nobody says you have to put the lens on your neck. In fact, I often find it easier to carry it in my hand and put the strap around my neck for just a few seconds while changing lenses. Even that is not necessary if you make good use of a camera bag or if you sit down to change lenses.

Thanks to all. Yes, will look in to and finally go take a look at them all, now that I know a little more. Yes, I hand carry it, instead of on the neck too.
Great help you guys!

Hi

I have intermittend joint problems so weight is a paramount factor for me. My handholdability is not that good anymore. In search of a replacement for a 100-300 L, the lenses I checked were an 200/2,8 + 1,4 converter vs a 70-300/5,6 do. In the end IS made the difference, but the 200 mm was a very nice lens!

success HK

The Sigma 80-400 definitely is heavy (nearly 4 lbs). Another Canon that might be worth considering is the 75-300 F4-5.6 IS USM. Again not wonderful optics, but light (1.4 lbs) and IS helps with a long lens.

Thanks HK, I wish I could afford a 70-300 DO!
I am taking a break and regrouping, ;~)

I might just get the cheaper 70-300mm USM IS and be done with it until something better comes up.