[JJ_SO]

Once I had a Nikkor 70-200/4 and sold it as it was either too short or not wide enough. Instead of that I bought a Tamron 100-400 (after the 150-600). I'd recommend to take a closer look at this lens, it's affordable and the OIS rather good. It's 100-400 counterpart from Sigma is also rather good, there's a series of comparisons from Dustin Abbott, who was rather surprised how good the non-Canon 100-400 are. If speed is not a crucial part, the 100-400 is an excellent option as it's lighter than 70-200/2.8.

I see the Tamron telezooms as better equipped and not really worse optically than the Sigmas. Little details are really well thought on Tamron's telerange. If you can rent one, try it. Tamron's 100-400 has one of the coolest distance limiters I know of (but my experience with long lenses is limited).: you can adjust in with the tap-in console and you can use it to decide wether the working distance shall be below or above the distance limit - others need more switch positions for that.

I agree, one USB-dock instead of two is cheaper. Both are worth the investment: On Sigma Globalvision you get a ton of firmware updates for all Canon mount lenses, they are really taking it seriously. Same on Tamron, but less frequent.

[MBaehr]

Thanks for the tip but I probably have already seen every existing Dustin Abbott video on 100-400mm and 150-600mm lenses on Youtube. My concern with the 100-400mm lenses is that I would always have in the back of my mind how nice it would be to have the extra 200mm reach. I am not serious enough about photography to actually buy a 100-400 AND a 150-600 so I want to go all the way with one lens.

Besides the mentioned general concern I don't like the lack of a tripod collar on the Sigma (my handholding skills are bad) and the verdict of Klaus on the Sigma image stabilization. I also like a 70-200 f/2.8 because I have only three fast lenses of which the other two are primes only (50mm and 85mm). If I remember correctly the weight difference between my current 70-200 and the 100-400 lenses is only about 200 grams, I don't think that is so important.

What do you think about the 80D, would you consider that camera (almost 3 years old by now) sufficient with regards to your concerns about AF and high ISO capabilities? I know that a successor is probably due within the next six months but that one most likely will start off at € 1200 to 1300 again. I would personally prefer a camera at about € 800 - 850. I do not need 4K video, at the moment I do not have video at all!

[JJ_SO]

I shoot Nikon and have no idea about Canon.

But the weight difference of Tamron's 70-200/2.8 (1500 gr.) and 100-400 (1135 gr.) appears to be a bit more than only 200 grams...

I also like to add, although I could use the 200 mm extra range, I mostly pack the 100-400. Needs less space and is (on APS-C) sufficient to do these shots: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/Tamron-100-40045-63/

[MBaehr]

OK, should have realized that when you talked about your Nikkor lens. I am already pretty sure though there is enough improvement. The two-digit Canons have gone from 9 to 19 to 45 AF points and from ISO 100-1600 to 100-16000 between my old 40D and the 80D.

[Brightcolours]

The 80D is a pretty fine camera, especially compared to the 40D. AF system has improved, and higher ISO has made huge progress compared to the 40D. Go for it, I would say. Good sensor, good ergonomics, good AF (also in live view). Only if for some reason you would want to shoot 4K video and be serious about it, you should look elsewhere.

[MBaehr]

I do have the 80D since a week now but I am still not through all the options and settings. So much more camera than the 40D! Now waiting for the Sigma 70-200 Sports pricing to be announced and first reviews to come in.