"Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife

[hendrik-sg]

I can barely understand what you are trying to write? The 300mm 2.8 is way out of my budget, but the F4 is affordable and a good lens. As I've read other places, the 300mm F4 combined with a 1.4x extender will work ok, but might not work with the 2.0x? I have a 5D Mark II

I am sorry if i expressedm me unprecisely. I speek from my own expierience, we were in south africa for wildlife shooting 4 weeks.

if i look at the costs we had to pay for this trip, 4000$ for the aquisition of the 300 2.8 was not the major expense. this it if course different if you shoot wildlife next to your home if tehre is some (i dont know where you live)

After such a trip you can resell such a lense if it was a one time use, but i kept it because i hope to go additional times. Yes i would have liked to have a 600mm lens, but i didnt bye one for the same reason as you. if you consider a 70-200 ii its already hald the price, then the difference becomes even smaller compared to the costs of the trip.

the disadvantage of the "big" glasses it that you cant leave them allone in third world countries, means you lug the equipment even on a city walk.
 
If you need more reach than you can afford with your FF camera, maybe a second crop camera is an option, a 50d is available cheaply and has the best AF below a 7d.

because you reported that you tried a 600 ii i assumed that you have a dream and maybe oyou may be working at a solution to make this dream true, in ignorance of your "budget". Thats why i wrote about the 300 2.8 as a more affordable compromise :-)

[Julie G.]

I can barely understand what you are trying to write? The 300mm 2.8 is way out of my budget, but the F4 is affordable and a good lens. As I've read other places, the 300mm F4 combined with a 1.4x extender will work ok, but might not work with the 2.0x? I have a 5D Mark II

I am sorry if i expressedm me unprecisely. I speek from my own expierience, we were in south africa for wildlife shooting 4 weeks.

if i look at the costs we had to pay for this trip, 4000$ for the aquisition of the 300 2.8 was not the major expense. this it if course different if you shoot wildlife next to your home if tehre is some (i dont know where you live)

After such a trip you can resell such a lense if it was a one time use, but i kept it because i hope to go additional times. Yes i would have liked to have a 600mm lens, but i didnt bye one for the same reason as you. if you consider a 70-200 ii its already hald the price, then the difference becomes even smaller compared to the costs of the trip.

the disadvantage of the "big" glasses it that you cant leave them allone in third world countries, means you lug the equipment even on a city walk.
 
If you need more reach than you can afford with your FF camera, maybe a second crop camera is an option, a 50d is available cheaply and has the best AF below a 7d.

because you reported that you tried a 600 ii i assumed that you have a dream and maybe oyou may be working at a solution to make this dream true, in ignorance of your "budget". Thats why i wrote about the 300 2.8 as a more affordable compromise :-)

I never said that I've tried a 600 II, so I guess that's why I was confused. The 300 2.8 is already way out of my budget, and I really don't want to take up a loan just to buy a lens.

[yablonsky]

I would go with the 300 4L IS. It is really sharp. Although on FF bodies 300 mm are sometimes not long enough. You don't need a zoom for wildlife, except maybe for elephants in the zoo. I don't like tele converters. Tele converters always make the image hazy. The sharpness is ok, but contrast is missing.
I don't know the 400 5.6L but this could also be an alternative for you.

[leolol]

Take a look at a used sigma 500 4.5. It´s around 2000-2500€ used and it´s a good wilflife lens. Dont have one myself but used it

and teleconverters always make the quality worse, on crop and on full frame.

[neuroanatomist]

Although on FF bodies 300 mm are sometimes not long enough. You don't need a zoom for wildlife, except maybe for elephants in the zoo. I don't like tele converters. Tele converters always make the image hazy. The sharpness is ok, but contrast is missing.

A crop body wouldn't cause the same problems you describe with a tc, or?

No, it wouldn't.  But you'd be giving up the better high ISO performance of a FF sensor. 

I don't like tele converters. Tele converters always make the image hazy. The sharpness is ok, but contrast is missing.

Always?  No - it really depends on the TC and more importantly, on the lens.  IMO, these are both sharp and have good contrast:


EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 100

[Julie G.]

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

[vargyropoulos]

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]

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]

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.