Originally Posted by
HDNitehawk
I would hope that you came to this realization through the process.
After climbing the mountain to get enlightenment the answer to the question:
What is the "Ultimate Supertelephoto for Travel"?
You would now come to the realization that when it comes to the big white lenses there is no universal answer for all.
The white lenses are all the "Ultimate" and the right one is the one that fits your needs the best.
Yeah, but wouldn't it have been great if there was a single "ultimate lens?" 
This has been a fun project. I will actually miss it. Basically as I've traveled or if my wife picked something I did not care to watch on TV, I would read different things. I'd actually say there has been a lot of enlightenment along the way. But not just with the Big Whites, which are remarkable, but in general lens usage.
So, I am going to try to summarize everything in a couple more posts for those that find this interesting or may be picking up a Big White lens at some point and time. But, in reading reviews, evaluating which lenses are being used for different subjects, and making this very complex, I did come to a few very obvious (my favorite type) conclusions:
- Any lens can be a wildlife lens
- Nothing beats distance to subject. Get as close as possible as safely as possible.
- Because of that, my profound love for National Parks is heighted.
- Birds, you need all the reach you can get, but there is such a thing as enough.
- Lenses really just capture a given amount light for a given field of view. They are tools with a certain size and weight. This is a draconian admission from someone how likes to think certain lenses have a bit of magic.
- But, there are details, sharpness, bokeh, contrast, AF speed etc that can certain make some lenses special.
So, I have done a bunch of research and a more analysis of different focal lengths that I would like to present. But Rick's comment fit nicely with the research part, so I will focus on that first, and the additional analysis in another post when I have time.
Big Whites can be used to photograph anything, of course, but in looking at it, really people use them to photograph sporting events, wildlife, and aviation. I am still interested in those tickets to the superbowl, but for me, the niche really would be wildlife.
So, in focusing on that, I quickly realized that all sorts of lenses were used by professionals for wildlife. It all depended on distance to subject and what composition the photographer was attempting to capture. The next harsh realization: Most of my favorite wildlife images were taken with something other than a supertelephoto lens.
That still stings a little. Especially considering what is waiting for me on my credit card.
So, I think the best way to arrange this is by lens or focal length. My impressions after much review as well as links that I hope are interesting.
BTW, at times I will link various reviews. I assume that, as this forum is part of TDP, that you will be able to easily find those reviews.
UWA or General Purpose Focal Lengths
Absolutely used for wildlife. Matter of fact, may be some of the most common lenses for wildlife fall into this range. I did not observe a trend toward a specific lens (other than the 16-35 f/2.8 II), but more that every wildlife photographers had UWA and general purpose lenses of f/2.8 or f/4 varieties. Probably a slight preference for the true UWA lenses, which tells you how close the animals were to the photographers.
In general, these images were typically wildlife set in their environment, and here you can see the convergence of landscape/wildlife photographers, at least to me, landscapes with wildlife is more interesting. But some people also were getting very creative, especially with remote triggers.
Will Burrard-Lucas has some good stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8rtkgvEqGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8gG1ioMjc
Mac Stone has also used UWA/General purpose focal lengths for wildlife. One example:
https://www.audubon.org/news/-how-ph...burrowing-owls
Mid-Telephoto Lenses (70-200 mm)
Looking through images, I think a lot of my favorite wildlife shots were taken with mid-range telephoto lenses. I've always loved this image of Jonathan's, which I recall being taken with a 70-200 II:
https://www.huyerperspectives.com/Na...rs/i-hqtXG6w/A
Especially for mammals, I probably read more about low light than I did about reach. One of the great benefits of this range of glass is that wide apertures are more affordable and practical.
But, a bit more specific.
70-200 f/2.8 II
I saw this recommended on a lot of safari sites. In fact, Art Wolf calls the 16-35 II and 70-200 f/2.8 II his "workhorse lenses."
https://artwolfe.com/gear/
All I can say is that this is the second lens I would own if I could only own two lenses. It is amazing. If the field of view fits your composition, the optics and the f/2.8 will give good light in a lot of situations.
EF 200 f/2.0
I thought this was interesting. If you read the article, the photographer simply wanted to create unique images in an area where they knew they could get close to wildlife (Yellowstone). So, 200/2 on a crop body to maximize bokeh.
https://thephotonaturalist.com/2017/06/05/yellowstone-2017-2-wildlife-photography-with-the-canon-200mm-f2-lens/
Tele/SuperTele Zooms
100-400 II
Not sure what more there is to say than this was in 5 of 5 "Wildlife" Explorer of Light's bag. This actually may be the "ultimate travel supertele." It takes the 1.4xTC well. If I was limited to 3 or 4 lenses, this would be #3 or 4 (tough competition against the 16-35 f/4 IS). But, better photographers than I seem to like it a lot:
https://blog.parkcameras.com/2017/06/andy-rouses-essential-lens-canon-ef-100.html
It also gets ranked as the best zoom at 400 mm:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...00mm-shootout/
And is apparently built pretty darn well:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...ilt-lens-ever/
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Sport
I think there is a natural inclination to think that the 200-400 f/4 TC as premier telephoto zoom. But, especially for safari recommendations, I probably saw this recommended more often than the 200-400 f/4 TC. A side note, I first became interested in the 150-600S while on a whale watch with a photographer that turned out to be from the Wildlife Federation. He was shooting with the 120-30S and it was his goto lens. Usually with TCs, thus he was interested in the, at the time, rumored 150-600S. And I've checked, DXOmark rates the T-Stop just fine.
https://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-120-...2-8-dg-os-hsm/
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma...urements__1009
Sigma 150-600 Sport
I have owned this lens since it first came out. I have taken many photos that I really do love with this lens. Since the contemporary version came out, it seems to be a bit of a forgotten lens, and for all intents and purposes, it does seem like the contemporary is optically equivalent. I still think bokeh is better on the sport and the sport is just a bit better at 600 mm, which is where I tend to use this lens. I have found having a zoom critical. As a quick example, on a whale watch, I figured the whales would all be at distances. Nope, I was between 200-500 mm the entire time. Had I brought a fixed lens, I would have missed many shots. Instead, I have these:
Small-5957 by kayaker72, on Flickr
Small-6265 by kayaker72, on Flickr
Same boat ride, I was shooting puffins and wanted 20,000 mm focal length. Same trip, I was shooting bears almost exclusively at 600 mm. Yet, I've read 600 mm is too much for Brooks Falls. Bottom line, this is a good, useful lens. The T-stop issue I discuss earlier is a concern. But for an enthusiast photographer, it is a good lens. I suspect I am replacing it with two lenses, the 100-400 II and 500 f/4 II.
A review:
https://www.kruger-2-kalahari.com/si...ns-review.html
EF 200-400 f/4 1.4TC
As I said, there a lot of general support for the 200-400 f/4 + 1.4TC:
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/...e-photography/
Of course, that is pretty general, but many pros are using this lens. It is one of the lenses in Bryan's bag, and one that I tend to see a lot of pictures.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...?Equipment=764
Also interesting to me, I see several serious pros where they have the 100-400 II and the 200-400 f/4 TC. That is it. No 500 mm f/4, no 600 mm f/4. As one example, I cam across Richard Bernabe because I found several references to him and the 500 f/4 II....well, that isn't what is in his bag anymore:
https://www.richardbernabe.com/photo-equipment/
Super Telephoto Lenses (>300 mm)
When you look at guides for wildlife, they almost always recommend getting something >300 mm. Whether it be a safari, a trip to Yellowstone, or just general guides, get something with at least 300 mm. And, I think that it is a very valid point. But, at least I find it a bit funny, but as you dive into a subject your perspective changes. As I mention above, as I looked through different images, many of my favorite shots were shot <300 mm and some professional wildlife photographers do not have anything beyond 400 mm.
EF 300 f/2.8
200/2 on crop? Well, on a FF the 300 f/2.8 would give you even better bokeh for similar framing as the 200/2 on a cropped sensor. Lots of mentions of people loving this lens overall. Many using it as a goto wildlife lens, but I also saw several mentions of moving off of it both for wildlife and BIF.
EF 400 f/5.6
As I am trying to get to the 500 vs 600, I can't dwell on each lens. The pictures that Stuart takes with his copy were enough for me to evaluate further. There is a lot of love out there for this lens. I even found several references to people that own several other lenses that cover the 400 mm range but still own this lens. Why? Well, if you want light weight and f/5.6 is enough, do not need IS, it is hard to beat this lens.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/94381946@N07/38865959664/in/dateposted/
EF 400 f/4 DO II
This was the first lens that I was able to test. I have been interested in it since it's release. Great lens. I had a lot of fun shooting it. Being able to so easily walk, hop in an out of a car, and use a supertele was great. It performed really well as a 560 f/5.6. This lens seems to be very vogue, with a ton of reviews out there, which is not common for the superteles. But I get it. A few that I found interesting:
Ari Hazeghi is very vocal in a couple of forums I found, works with Art Morris, and has been a strong advocate for this lens for BIF, granted, he just shifted to Nikon:
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blo...-light-lenses/
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blo...-400-do-is-ii/
I also like Grant's review:
https://www.grantatkinson.com/blog/c...m-field-review
EF 400 f/2.8 II
There is just not much out there on this lens. I found maybe two people using it. I would think others would be all over it for the bokeh. I can only think the thin DoF comes into play, but I've played with some numbers, they seem to work. Maybe there are just better options?
EDIT: So, Craig from CR seems to have gravitated to the 400 f/2.8 II for the dof/bokeh. And this makes a lot of sense to me, really, at the end of a shoot, it is really a handful of the "best" images that we are after, right?
https://www.canonrumors.com/when-i-g...my-camera-bag/
EF 500 f/4 II or EF 600 f/4 II
I think I will talk about these in comparison to each other, as that seems to be a pretty common decision point. I was able to use both, first and foremost, I have to say they are more alike than different. I think this is critical. These are both amazing supertelephoto lenses. When I reviewed the Canon "Wildlife" photographers for USA and EU, it was really split with half having the 500 f/4, and the other having "more reach" either as the 600 f/4 or 800 f/5.6. As Rick pointed out, you get 20% more reach with the 600 for 20% higher cost/weight/size. And 20% is something, but also, it is only 20%. Going through this, I had focused on 20% more reach (or 44% more area), which can be offset with your feet. Bryan made a good point and had me focus on bokeh...and I have to agree, I can see a bokeh difference with the 600 mm, as you'd expect.
Two great write ups comparing the two both come down to---get the 600 mm:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...spx?News=20151
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/...0mm-f4l-is-ii/
I get a kick out of these reviews, as they both lay out about many categories, the 500 mm is best in all but one of the categories, but then recommend the 600 mm because reach/bokeh is the most important. And there is truth to there as gathering light from a given field of view is the primary function of a lens. if you want a long lens, you want the best/longest. Then there are these again in favor of the 600 mm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IQIh5FIi6g
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/ef600ii_review/
But, then there is a lot of sentiment in general threads in favor of the 500 f/4 II. I read through several, but generally, I found it very interesting that whatever people had, they loved. A few people sold the 600 mm because of size/weight. Most seemed to think it was just fine. A few people sold the 500 mm f/4 because they wanted more reach, but generally 500 f/4 or 700 f/5.6 was enough. I wouldn't even say this was definitive, but those wanting more tended to be birders, those content with the 500 f/4 tended to be birders and maybe focus on larger mammals. A few examples:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4224133
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1547697/0
In terms of kit construction, there is something to be said for setting an extreme with something like the EF 600 f/4 II for reach and bokeh. I almost went with the EF 600. But, for me, it came down to the earlier post of comparing what was best for my intended uses (BTW, Bryan travels with his 600 mm in big and small planes, for what it is worth) and also I think a good rule of thumb would be for my travel kit to fit in one bag. I like to be organized. I recently purchased the Firstlight 40L, and I am pretty sure I can fit my 5DIV, 16-35, 24-70, either the 100-400 or 70-200 (probably not both), and a 500 mm lens in it as well as an odd/end here or there. I might be able to fit something close to that in with the 600 mm f/4 II, but suspect I would lose at least a lens if not two. Given that I want to travel with that kit in one bag, and given the fact that I very much appreciate other lenses usefulness for wildlife, that was another factor. Finally, I did use both. Scrolling through my images, the 500 f/4 II did what I wanted it too. Usually with a 1.4tc attached, but it did it. Will it in the future? We'll see.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...Light-40L.aspx
A few more links that may be of interest:
A similar look at different canon lenses and how used for wildlife:
https://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/...e-photography/
Lenses, cameras and gear recommended for wildlife photography:
https://shuttermuse.com/essential-wi...tography-gear/
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photography-gear/photo-accessories/gear-for-wildlife-photography/
http://www.goynp.com/gear.php
Pictures of Yellowstone and general info on each:
https://photographylife.com/a-day-in-yellowstone
Originally Posted by
HDNitehawk
On another note, I hope you do not tip over often in your kayak. If it were me in a kayak I would be looking for floaties for that 500mm.
I've already used the 150-600S for years and it really isn't a problem. Only 0.5 lbs more. Believe me, if something happens, I'll save the lens first.
Reply With Quote