Help- Which telephoto lens to get?

[archipirata]

I am trying to decide between the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G-Series



Specs: http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stor...reId=10151&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&productId=11033557


and the Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G-Series



Specs: http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stor...reId=10151&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665529564

While I do a wide range of locations and subjects, I like the idea of the 400 for wildlife shots but it as not as fast as the 2.8 200. All else being equal, what would you get?


(This is to be an upgrade from my current Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6. I also use a Sony 16-105mm f/4 and a Sony 24mm f/2.8)

[rob banzai]

It depends on the lenses you already have. If you don't have a 400 this would be a good time to add one. If you already have a zoom or telephoto in that range then I'd go for the faster lens.

I've found that for the most part I can always get closer to what I want to shoot, but I can't always get more light.

[mattkime]

can you get the 200 and a multiplier?

[archipirata]

Yes you can get a multiplier but you lose all auto focus capabilities.

[space-time]

I would get anything but Sony.

Sony does not have a lot of background in making lenses. I would stick to one of the traditional lens makers.

[mattkime]

space-time wrote: . I would stick to one of the traditional lens makers.

do they make lenses for sony dslrs?

[space-time]

he could sell the Sony and buy a better brand

[Sam3]

Aren't Sony lenses actually Carl Zeiss? If so, they are a high-quality makers of lenses.

[mattkime]

does that mean anything anymore?

Sam3 wrote:
Aren't Sony lenses actually Carl Zeiss? If so, they are a high-quality makers of lenses.

[slbett]

My choice would be the faster lens. I would just shoot at highest resolution and crop or use your 300mm for nature shots. Perfect lighting and a tripod are not always available out in nature. Just my 2¢