Aghhhhh.. Choices....

**[wingnut]** · 16th October 2006

Ok guys and gals need some serious help here now... I'm off over the pond on Saturday and have cash in my arse pocket that IS going to be spent on new camera equipment.. So here's the shortlist, I need honest constructive advice here and I need it fast..

My current kit is:
350D body
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

I was toying with a new macro lens but was honest and prefer to be on the shoreline taking surfing shots and landscape work. Macro will come laters I guess.. So I'm looking to get into sports a bit more.. My budget is slightly limited but not a great deal.

Was thinking of the following.

Fantasea 350D housing
and
Second hand Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO
Thinking this would be a good combo to get me into the water on smaller days then from the shore on the larger days..

And / or would sell my Canon 70-300mm IS USM for about �275 and upgrade to the Canon 70-200mm F/4L

Or not getting the housing and lenses and go for the following

Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
But still sell my Canon 70-300mm as it wouldn't be needed due to other lens i have close to that focal length..

Aghhhh I just can't make up my mind.. HELP................

**_Belial** · 16th October 2006

The sigma sounds like a monster, will it actually fit in the case though? I guess the decission is down to how much time you're gonna spend in the water, the 100-400L is gonna take some breathtaking shots at brilliatn quality, but then again if water shots are your bag then the housing and sigma seem a nice combo.

If it makes your decission any easier, i'll buy the 75-300 off ya if it's in good nick.

**slartibartfast** · 16th October 2006

I think the first combo offers you the most flexibilty. Having looked through some surf shots the most eye catching and dynamic images were taken in the water.

Only thing I'd worry about is the image quality of the Sigma, some of the reviews aren't exactly glowing.

Perhaps instead of going for the Sigma 170-500 and Canon 70-200 you could opt instead for the Sigma 100-300 f4 and a 1.4x converter. It get's very good reviews, link. You'd then have an extra 100mm at f4 over the 70-200 and with the 1.4x converter an extra 20mm over the 100-400, just a thought.

**[wingnut]** · 16th October 2006

You've got a fair point there mate, it's true just how many hours am i likley to be willing to spend bobbing in the water like a beached whale... The water is already starting to cool off and turn murky (not making for very good shots). Which would limit the amount of time I could fessably use the housing. Also it would mean I would need a much bigger CF card too. 1gb just isn't going to last long.. And then a 4gb would be another $150.

Just read Slarti's post now and like the look of the Sigma..

Aghhhhhh it gets worse.....

The Canon 70-300mm is in mint condition, always well loved and cleaned regularly, no dust spot, fungi etc etc.. Oh and also have 4 filters for it too. UV, CPL, 812 warm up and ND grad in a nice Tiffen pouch.

Will mull it over at work tomorrow and let you know.

**[wingnut]** · 17th October 2006

Ok, I have made a desicion based on the couple of replies to original plea...

Mother always said it was the best way to do things so i did.. I made a list.. Pro's and cons of both options.. And as much as I would have liked to get in the water, I feel I won't get enough use out of it to warant the money spent on it. Would rather buy a cheap dedicated waterproof camera instead. So.. Based on Slarti's advice I have narrowed it down to the following three lens. I won't make my final choice till I have tested each lens on my EOS body.

1. Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG IF HSM with 1.4x convertor giving me (140mm - 420mm @f/5.6 )
(Like this lens and with convertor I would get the focal length I'm looking for but might miss the bit between 70-100mm)

2. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DGM Macro HSM with 2x convertor giving me (140-400mm @f/5.6)
(Wanted this lens since going to NY last year, but ti was out of stock, this time it has the macro addition, not true macro, but would suit me to begin with, also with out convertor I will still regain the 70mm onwards focal length I'm used too.)

3. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
(Mmmmmm L series.. Would look shit hot getting it out of the bag. But seen mixed reports on it's performace, also might miss the bit between 70-100mm again.. But it's an L series lens..)

So that's me choices.. Liked the look of the Sigma 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 EX DG OS APO IF but can't find anywhere that has it in stock. Also it didn't rate that highly either...

**_Belial** · 17th October 2006

The sigma does sound saucy, i've been doing some reading recently on the sigma 10-20mm EX DG lenses and they seem to be getting favourable results. I've always been happy with my sigma 18-200 DC lens, i think it's great so they certainly get a thumbs up from me. And if you read the page that slarti recommends some people rated the sigma you want better than the L series anyway

I think you've done the right decission and getting a new lens instead of the waterproof unit tho, that can wait until next summer i'm sure.