Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ultimate Canon Wildlife Lens?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ultimate Canon Wildlife Lens?

    I am looking to step up from my current 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 and get something better for my full frame sensor and something great for wildlife.

    I am planning on spending some time in Yellowstone within the coming year and want a great lens for photographing bears, wolves, and other Yellowstone wildlife.

    My thoughts are:

    1) 70-200 f/2.8L II IS
    2) 300 f/2.8L IS
    3) 100-400 f.4.5-5.6L IS

    I know each have their pro and cons, but I also like to shoot sports and shows, and would love to have a lens that could be used for that.

    My thoughts are as such:

    100-400 gives me a huge range in focal length, but looks like when using the x1.4 teleconverter there may be no AF when used with the 5D MkII... unless I am looking at an old compatibility list.

    70-200 has a wider aperture and can be great for when a little closer and has the option of using the x2 teleconverter bumping it up up to 400 f/5.6

    300 is fixed, but I hear it is just an incredible lens and with the x2 teleconverter is bumped to 600 and suffers little loss of IQ

    As far as IQ and focal length go, what would some of you consider the best option? Is it better to go with the 100-400 with the smaller aperture, or going with the 70-200 with an option to shoot wide and attach the teleconverter, or to go with the fixed 300 and being able to bump it up to 600?


    I know there is no best, and it all depends on the situation, but you have to start somewhere and getting opinions is a great start.

  • #2
    In what lighting conditions will you be shooting sports and shows?
    Flickr stream.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34094515@N00/

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by RichardTaylor View Post
      In what lighting conditions will you be shooting sports and shows?
      I guess lets just look at them for wildlife and wildlife only. Sports could be at night, though I would like to shoot snowboarding and skiing, as well as some mountain and rock climbing and those would be during the day.

      I suppose I should look at the best lens possible just for wildlife.

      Comment


      • #4
        Sony DSC H 50

        Are the additional lenses good Tele & wide for sony DSC H 50. Is it worth to invest in it
        considering the wildlife photography
        regards
        Prasad Photographer

        Comment


        • #5
          300 F2.8 is insane, as is the 400mm, but they are 4 times the price of everything else.

          they are also massive lenses.

          If you want a really good all rounder - 100-400.

          Comment


          • #6
            I have used a Canon 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L for the last 2-3 years for mostly urban wildlife & motor sport.
            It is a very versatile good light lens. It is my most used lens, but not my favourie (that's a 135 F2 L).
            The only downside is that it is relatively big & heavy for a general purpose lens - bit no more than one of the 70-200 F2.8s.

            For maximum flexibility a 70-200 F2.8 + TC would be the way to go, although I am not sure how good the IQ is with a 2xTC.
            Last edited by RichardTaylor; 11-25-2010, 08:34 AM.
            Flickr stream.
            http://www.flickr.com/photos/34094515@N00/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RichardTaylor View Post
              I have used a Canon 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L for the last 2-3 years for mostly urban wildlife & motor sport.
              It is a very versatile good light lens. It is my most used lens, but not my favourie (that's a 135 F2 L).
              The only downside is that it is relatively big & heavy for a general purpose lens - bit no more than one of the 70-200 F2.8s.

              For maximum flexibility a 70-200 F2.8 + TC would be the way to go, although I am not sure how good the IQ is with a 2xTC.
              It is a little soft at 400 - I use mine on a canon 2.8 IS L
              BUT
              it is a shed load cheaper and takes up a lot less space than a 100-400. I also very rarely use the 400 range.
              If I needed the crisp images at 400 on a weekly basis I would get the 100-400.

              Comment


              • #8
                Personally, I consider anything under 400mm too short for wildlife/birds. Especially on a full frame body. Of the lenses you mention I'd say probably the 100-400 w/ tc's. I would think you can get autofocus but might require older tc w/ screw drive coupling....or Kenco Telepro TCs.

                You will be somewhat limited by good light.

                In big Tele's I highly recommend third party. You may give up a little in image quality, but you get a lot more for the same dollar.

                Personally I had a Tamron 200-400 nice image quality, cheap-ish lens. I currently own Sigma 50-500mm- Great versatility and portability for good light good image quality but I don't use it much at all anymore (If I'm "compromising" I'll put a 1.4 on my 28-300). Sigma 500mm f/4.2 Good long/fast lens but limited versatility. Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6- my "favorite" wildlife/bird/motorsport lens but it has 3 major drawbacks: it's HUGE, HEAVY, and EXPENSIVE.

                I'm using a Nikon D3...In many ways, a good crop body is a cheaper/ better way to get more "reach". It will generally work as well or better than a tc or cropping.
                Steve
                the Photographic Academy.com
                SharpShooter Industries
                My 500px, My Flickr, My Blog

                Comment


                • #9
                  You do realize that the 300/2.8L costs about 3x what the 100-400L does, right? (and that's just the Mark I. The Mark II is probably even more). It's also one big lens. While I'm sure there are some hardy souls who can handhold it, that seems more like one of the Great Whites that comes with its own hard-sided case and that forces you to shell out the bucks for a Wimberly head. Most of us can't afford to go there.

                  I think what you might have meant is the 300/4L IS, which if you use it with a 1.4x will get you to 400/5.6 if you need it. So, a better mostly-sports solution.

                  But I'm with the others who argue for a 100-400L for wildlife. It's probably going to be the best bang-for-the-buck for what you want to use it for. If you're solely doing birds in flight, then the 400/5.6L is another possibility, but it's not faster than the 100-400L.

                  There are the Sigma alternatives, like the 120-400 OS, 150-500 OS, and 50-500 (both OS and non-OS versions), but the repair rate on the first two is not great, according to lensrentals.com, and the Bigma OS (50-500) is about as expensive as the 100-400L and harder to handhold due to weight.

                  Were you planning on using this lens handheld?
                  Last edited by inkista; 11-25-2010, 07:22 PM.
                  I shoot with a Canon 5DmkII, 50D, and S90, and Pansonic GX-7. flickr stream and equipment list

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I plan on sticking with Canon, but I am still trying to decide between the 70-200 f/2.8L and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L lenses.

                    Taking price out of the equation, it all comes down to quality and usefulness. With the 70-200, I can get the x2 converter and have a 140-400 f/5.6. So with that I essentially have 2 lenses in 1. With the 100-400, that's all I get.

                    Can anyone tell me if the 70-200 suffers much loss in quality and sharpness with the x2 converter? If it is hardly noticeable, then I think I may go that route.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Why don't you go to a pro camera shop and rent these lenses for a day and see for yourself what works best for you?
                      Patrick
                      Nikon D40x; Canon sd770is P&S
                      Nikon 18mm-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses, Nikon 50mm f1.8, OLD Nikon 105mm micro f 2.8
                      "All of that beauty is out there somewhere...you just have to get out there and capture it!" PLF

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ElCapitan View Post
                        I plan on sticking with Canon, but I am still trying to decide between the 70-200 f/2.8L and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L lenses.

                        Taking price out of the equation, it all comes down to quality and usefulness. With the 70-200, I can get the x2 converter and have a 140-400 f/5.6. So with that I essentially have 2 lenses in 1. With the 100-400, that's all I get.

                        Can anyone tell me if the 70-200 suffers much loss in quality and sharpness with the x2 converter? If it is hardly noticeable, then I think I may go that route.
                        Not a canon user but I'd bet money the canon 70-200 2.8 performs comparably to the nikon versions...
                        With a 1.5x you will notice almost no degradation...Image quality is still VERY good with a 2x (especially for wildlife/nature).

                        You could use a 1.5x with the 100-400 as well....150-600 which is into good wildlife focal lengths (but light limited).

                        I really don't think anyone would classify either solution as an "ultimate wildlife lens", but it might ork for your needs.
                        Steve
                        the Photographic Academy.com
                        SharpShooter Industries
                        My 500px, My Flickr, My Blog

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ElCapitan View Post
                          I plan on sticking with Canon, but I am still trying to decide between the 70-200 f/2.8L and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L lenses.

                          Taking price out of the equation, it all comes down to quality and usefulness. With the 70-200, I can get the x2 converter and have a 140-400 f/5.6. So with that I essentially have 2 lenses in 1. With the 100-400, that's all I get.

                          Can anyone tell me if the 70-200 suffers much loss in quality and sharpness with the x2 converter? If it is hardly noticeable, then I think I may go that route.
                          Hi
                          Just to note f/2.8 X2 is f/4 not f/5.6.
                          I have both the Canon 100 - 400L and the 70-200 f2.8L IS. The 100-400 is excelent for wildlife shooting and sports (with my little experience im a newbe). I use the 100 - 400 for shooting high speed model power boats and with the IS set to II for panning it is superb with a slightly higher ISO at faster shutter speed.
                          The fact that it is a shotgun zoom rather than a ring as the 70-200 has, realy helps to compose realy quickly which is neaded for my needs and wildlife.

                          I have used a x2 (borowed) on my 70-200 giving me 140-400 at f/4 and it is great the, ISO can be set lower ect. The IQ was excelent upto 300mm ish but after 325mm> was a litle soft on my 550D. AF worked fine.

                          I sometimes wished I did not get the 1000+ 100-400 and just got an x2. this also would have been easier to carry. But as it was I got the 100-400 before the 70-200.

                          In conclution It has worked out to the best as the 100-400 is sharper at 400mm. Also i was not convinsed that the IS on the 70-200 with the x2 on was as good as the 100-400 IS at 400mm. You noticed the IS "hunting" more at the upper mm which is logical realy as the movement is times by 2.
                          If you are not considering portrate shooting I would go for the 100-400. With your camara at a slightly higher ISO will well componsate for not having f/4.

                          As for DOF.
                          Using the 70/200 lense x2 at 50 feet 400mm f/4 you get 0.7' DOF, at 100 feet 400mm f4 you get 2.86' DOF and 11.5' DOF at 200'
                          Using the 100-400 lense at 50 feet 400mm f/5.6 you get 1' DOF, at 100 feet 400mm f5.6 you get 4' DOF and 16.3' DOF at 200 feet.

                          I have pointed this out as when people are looking for a lower f stop lense they are looking for better light intake, lower DOF or both.

                          So consider taking a photo of a larger animal at <100 feet you will probably bump up the f stop to get a grater DOF to try to capture the anazing animal in detail. Thats asumilg you are licky enough the get thet close.

                          The point is at close range f/4 gives a very shallow DOF but at a higher range 150'+ you get a much larger DOF at f/4 and of corse f/5.6 therefor is less significant. So the extra cost for a lower f stop for shooting larger wildlife and not having the shotgun zoom albeit you gain 3 stops of shutter speed, also considering the slightly softer image with the 70-200 lense, probably is not worth the extra cost.

                          I am asuming you were condisering the 70-200 IS as in my opinion the IS is a must if you are not using a trypod at 400mm.

                          It boils down to this. The 70-200 f/2.8 is designed for portrate photography and the 100-400 is designed for sports and wildlife photography.

                          Well hope this helps and I hope im correct in what I am saying. This if from practical experience over only several months of using a DSLR.
                          Last edited by PAKirk; 12-06-2010, 06:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PAKirk View Post
                            Just to note f/2.8 X2 is f/4 not f/5.6....
                            Actually, OP was correct. 1.4x adds one stop (2.8 -> 4), 2x adds two stops (2.8 -> 5.6).

                            The math goes like this.

                            f-number = focal length / aperture opening diameter.

                            So, a 100mm lens with a diameter opening of 50mm has an f-number of 2.

                            And a 200mm lens with a diameter opening of 50mm (which is what happens when you put a 2x on a 100mm lens) has an f-number of 4.

                            f/2 -> f/4. Two stops.

                            Agreed, though, about the 100-400 over the 70-200 + tc combination. Particularly if we're not talking about the 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II.
                            I shoot with a Canon 5DmkII, 50D, and S90, and Pansonic GX-7. flickr stream and equipment list

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks inkista for correcting my on the f/stop. I only used the 2x for an hour or so and I thought I was getting f/4 didnt do the math.

                              In that case I would certanly go for the 100-400

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X