Need a lens. (1 Viewer)

Hi folks.
I have a 40d and currently own 3 lenses with it.
400mm 5.6
sigma 150 2.8 macro
canon 28-105 f3.5-6.3?(the old model with the word macro on it)

The 400 stays on my camera most of the time for my bird shots, but I want to get a lens that fills part of the gap in my focal length range. I would probably use this lens for larger wildlife, for example on a safari etc.

I want to get something that would deliver high quality images but I'm not sure if I could justify going for a top of the range model. I'd like a compromise between price and performance, but performance is probably the more important factor.
Some things I'm considering:
canon 55-250 - whats the IQ like?
canon 70 - 200 f2.8 or f4 - is it essential to get the IS model?
Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8
canon 100-400 - not sure if my budget will go this far.
canon 70-300? - any good ones out there?

What would people recomend?
Any other suggestions?
Thanks for your consideration.

If you look in my gallery, you can see some pictures taken with the 55-250, I think it's a pretty sharp lens for what it is, and while it is a little short for birds, I think it would be a good all-around lens.

Thanks for your comments.
Your images look pretty good, although I wouldn't want this lens for birding. It would be interesting to see how it captured larger wildlife such as mammals.
The price is particularly appealing.
Thanks once again.

As all of your short listed lenses are zooms, I assume that's what you want. However, it might be worth considering the 200f2.8 prime lens. All the reports I've read suggest that it's one of Canon's most underrated lenses. No IS, but works well with a TC, and has fast focussing and gives razor sharp images.

With a TC you would cover the 200-280mm range, and it is relatively cheap at around £600. Obviously less for a used copy.

I have a 100-400zoom which is versatile, though I sometimes find the AF a little temperamental. When it does hit good focus the IQ is very good, but as you say the cost is quite high.

I would personally be interested in any views on the 200f2.8, if anyone has one.

Steve

For £400 s/h (usually), the non-IS canon 70-200 f4 is an absolute steal by all accounts.

PS, I would see no reason to have both the canon 400 5.6, and the canon 100-400. You may be able to save cash and do a swap with somebody. I've seen that happen before with precisely these two lenses.

In your bdget you have the best lens available for your requirements. Most of those that have the 100-400 tend to use it at the 400 end most of the time

Thanks for all the help. I think I'm looking for a zoom to probably take on a safari next year. 400mm prime may be a bit close for some of the shots I might get and I want to reduce the amount of lens changing I do in the field. For this reason I'm considering adding the 100-400mm to my lenses, but its a lump of cash to fork out on top of the holiday cost.
Just wondering if the 70-200 will give me sufficient range and top end focal length in such a scenario.
Anyone else used 70-200 on a safari?

gordthelord said:

Anyone else used 70-200 on a safari?

Click to expand...

Yes, but only as backup to my 300 f2.8 with 1.4 and 2x TCs. And for my next African trip I'm seriously thinking about leaving them both behind and using my 100-400 to save weight.