a lens for Wild life in a bit tight budget

HI


I've been reading all the reviews for the recommended wild life lenses but I still don't know which one to pick.


I would like to hear some opinions please.


I have the 7D, 15-85 and 100 L macro, now I want to buy a lens for wild life photography (which was my first interest when I bought this camera), my budget is around USD$2500, and I don't know what to buy, the options I'm concidering are?

1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens
2. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L USM Lens
3. Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens
4. any of the 70-200mm plus a teleconverter
5. maybe the 70-200mm F4 L IS and the 300mm F4

please any advice or comment is going to be apreciated


thanks!!

What kind of wildlife? I have the 70-200mm F4 and 300mm F4. I try and shoot everything. Here's what I like and don't like about the combination:


Pros for 300 F4:


1. Has IS


2. Light


3. Good maximum magnification (e.g., 0.24 native). If you stack a couple extension tubes on this lens you are approaching macro range.


4. Good sharpness without a teleconverter


Cons for 300 F4:


1. Sharpness not great with teleconverter


2. Too short for birds


In conclusion (300mm): I think the 300mm is a great wildlife lens. I call it my "Lizard Lens." I don't think I will ever get rid of it b/c of its ability to focus close. However, I am thinking about getting the 400mm F5.6 or saving up for the 300 F2.8 + 1.4x combination to shoot birds. The 300 F4 can get the job done, but in most cases it's too short unless you have a real nice blind and feeder set up.


Pros for 70-200 F4:


1. Has IS


2. Light


3. Good maximum magnification (e.g., 0.21 native).


4. Good sharpness without teleconverter


Cons for 70-200 F4:


1. Sharpness not great with teleconverter


2. Too short for most wildlife, unless you are at the zoo


3. F4 is pretty slow for the 70-200 range


In conclusion (70-200mm): I consider this a great walk around lens and portrait lens, if you have a full frame camera. I actually don't like this focal length on a crop (but I'm sure other opinions will vary). This is my least used lens. I like the 24-105mm range better on a crop camera for general purpose use. However, when I do use this lens, I always like the results. I take this lens to the zoo a lot, but even there it's a little too short sometimes.


If I could do it all over again: I'd get the 300 F4 and the 400 F5.6, and not get the 70-200. Anytime I think I might need the 70-200, I typical just grab the 85mm F1.8 instead. Think about it this way...I have never gone out to shoot wildlife (when taking a 85mm and 300mm; I usually take a macro too but I only have the 60) and said, "man, I wish I had that 115mm between 85 and 200." But I have said often, "man, I wish I had another 100mm on my 300." Since you have up to 100 covered already, I would think you would be saying something similar.


What should you do: Buy whatever makes you happy. Somebody else will probably note that if you aren't concerned about high maximum magnification that the 400mm and 70-200mm would also make a really nice combination. I don't disagree. With any of these 'L' tele zooms and primes you really can't go wrong. Just think about what you want to shoot the most. I don't like the 100-400mm b/c I don't like the push/pull zoom mechanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirrick

I've been reading all the reviews for the recommended wild life lenses but I still don't know which one to pick.

---

With no other requirements of the lens, other than wildlife. The longest reach wins. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L. It will have the best IQ at 400mm of any of the other lenses (meaning when you use a extender with them), and you will want the most reach you can get.


If you are using the lens for other things as well, then one of the other lenses might be a better choice. For instance the best IQ would come from the 70-200mm F2.8L II and it will barely be in your budget, but 200mm is a little short even with large game.

I would also consider weather proof feature as well. I don't do too much wildlife photography, but often times I've shot outdoor events and had to put my weather proof 7D away since my 70-200mm f/4L wasn't [:^)]

Hi, i posed this same question about a year ago and for many of the same reasons...I shoot a lot of birds n wildlife and airshows..I went with the 100-400 l and love it rite now for the price i think its the best lens out there for this type of shooting........

When I started out shooting wildlife I had a 55-250mm lens. One of the biggest draw backs was I found myself cropping way to much to get the picture I wanted. So I bought the 100-400mm and was real happy with it (with and added benefit of better IQ). You cannot always get close enough to animals to get a good clear view of there eyes which seems to really enhance the picture. So the extra reach does help a lot. In fact, I find myself at 400mm most of the time. You can go with a 400mm prime, but I also find the zoom to be handy because the 400mm was to big for shooting things like my kids soccer games (sports with good light outdoors). So the 100-400mm range worked good for me (although I would love to have the 500mm, it is a bit out of budget for me).


On of the big complaints I hear/read for the 100-400mmis the push/pull zoom action, but it was never really an issue for me.It was something that I got used to quickly, and it never really bothered me. I used this lens so much that when I got other lenses I had to get used to the rotational zoom action again.


Just my two cents for what ever it is worth.


Pat

I would go for the 100-400mm in your suggested list. But I would recomend the 400mm prime over the zoom for better IQ and extender performance. The zoom is amost useless for birds and a little more useful for wildlife, but still not very useful. IS is helpful but the AF is better on the 400mm prime. I find most of the time the subject is moving more than my minimum shutter speed at this focal length and IS is less important. All the image quality in the world is useless if it's not properly focused and in this case I think AF wins over IS. BIF is one form of bird photography that is not too hard to do if you have adequete AF and is a lot of fun to shoot.


But for serious bird and wildlife photography I would get a manual focus 500mm/600mm/800mm lens, they cost about the same aseither lens and they enter a new dimension of photography compared to shorter lenses. Not only do they have longer native focal lengths but with extenders they can get shots and perspectives of wild subjects that would be imposible with shorter lenses, in this case AF is useless because you can't get the shot in the first place without loss of AF anyway. Or taping the pins trick wil give you poor AF performace in lower light.


BTW, all my bird and wildlife shots are taken with aMinolta 600mm f/6.3 manual focus lens.


John.

Of the lenses listed, I

all good suggestions. there is one more lens you might want to try is the Sigma 400mm 5.6 APO Macro, it's hard to find it now, you can google it, there are some reviews on the internet, it should be a very good alternative choice, if you are lucky, you can find it for about $400-$500

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Or taping the pins trick wil give you poor AF performace in lower light.

---

John, I tried that trick on my 400mm 5.6 with the 7D, not very happy with the results, it hunted a lot even in good light. there is no cheap solution if you want something longer than 420mm and still AF on the non 1D body[:(]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

But for serious bird and wildlife photography I would get a manual focus 500mm/600mm/800mm lens, they cost about the same aseither lens and they enter a new dimension of photography compared to shorter lenses.

---

Do you have some (more) suggestions in this category?


Since Bryan doesn't review them I wouldn't even know where to start looking ;-)


Thanks, Colin

Yes I do, the FD or New FD 500mm f/4.5 L. It has flourite glass like the EF 500mm f/4.5 L. I have heard that it

Like you, I started this passion for wildlife and I have been using the 100-400L for almost 3 years and love it, But since I am set at 400mm 99.9 of the time ---in hindsite, I would go with the 400L 5.6 prime, as FastGlass said. It has better IQ, is smaller and it has a really cool sliding shade. If there is any doubt, look at some of the bird shots that Nate took with his 400L. Good luck


Bob

Thanks, John, seeing your Minolta I wouldn

I've tried many telephoto lenses, 400mm 5/5.6L, 600mm f/4L, 70-300mm IS, Tamron 200-500mm, Sigma 400mm, etc. The 600mm L was the best, of course, but I could not take it with me for a quick shot, it became a big expedition with the heavy tripod and Wimberly Head, etc. For wildlife, none of them were as long as I'd like.


I finally decided on a compromise, the 100-400mmL. Its easy to carry along, its quite compact when telescoped to 100mm, the IS works well, and at 400mm the images are sharp, even with a 1.4X TC. For small birds, its ability to focus closely is valuable.


100-400mml and female redwing blackbird


[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/[View:http://www.mount-spokane-photography...:1900]immature redwing blackbird[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/[View:http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Photography/100-400mm-L/20100516-IMG9567/1061665801_pTPv7-XL.jpg]:1900:1900]