July 28, 2014, 03:18:10 AM

Author Topic: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife  (Read 13700 times)

Julie G.

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2012, 07:14:59 AM »
If I were to shoot animals in the wild then I guess my choice would be the 400mm F5.6 + tripod. But if I only wanted to photograph animals nearby or at the zoo, without a tripod, would I be better of with a 300mm F4 or the 100-400mm? I'm guessing the 100-400 offers better versatility (duh..), but how's the sharpness and contrast compared to the 300 f4? I have a 5D2, 35L, 85L and 70-200mm F4 Non IS, and saving up to a 135L
Canon 5D Mark II | Canon EF 35mm F1.4L | Canon EF 85mm F1.2L | Canon 70-200 F4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2012, 07:14:59 AM »

vargyropoulos

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« Reply #61 on: November 22, 2012, 07:47:14 AM »
for the zoo you would need the zoom, even 100mm might be too long for some spots.

I will be primarily shooting birds in flight, I'll try to test out the 300mmf4 but from the looks of things so far the 400mm is looking like the winner for me. you don't even need the tripod for fast shutter speed shots...

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1284
    • View Profile
Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« Reply #62 on: November 22, 2012, 09:06:42 AM »
If I were to shoot animals in the wild then I guess my choice would be the 400mm F5.6 + tripod. But if I only wanted to photograph animals nearby or at the zoo, without a tripod, would I be better of with a 300mm F4 or the 100-400mm? I'm guessing the 100-400 offers better versatility (duh..), but how's the sharpness and contrast compared to the 300 f4? I have a 5D2, 35L, 85L and 70-200mm F4 Non IS, and saving up to a 135L

For the zoo, I like the 70-300L.  It's lighter than either 70-200 f/2.8 II or 100-400, and it is more compact.  It also beats carrying two lenses to cover the same range (70-200, 300).  It's only disadvantage compared to the 300L is losing a stop at 300mm, which isn't too bad if you're outside.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4356
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« Reply #63 on: November 22, 2012, 11:47:54 AM »
It's only disadvantage compared to the 300L is losing a stop at 300mm, which isn't too bad if you're outside.

It's not only the 1 stop more light (= lower iso), but imho f5.6 is the absolute minimum @300mm most of the time to have even a small object in focus unless it's in a right angle to the lens. Actually I'd like to shoot @f8 more often, but am limited by the mediocre iso capability of the 18mp sensor - the bokeh is still beautiful and pretty blurred.

So to me the disadvantage of the 70-300L is that focusing gets harder @f5.6, and even more so with a tc @f8 - and of course it's less sharp than a tele prime which is to be expected.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife
« Reply #63 on: November 22, 2012, 11:47:54 AM »