70-200 2.8II or F4 for Zoo Shoot

[takesome1]

You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?

Odd and definitive point of view, others have given good reason to go for the 2.8.

As for the latter half of your statement, "monster"? That lens is hardly a monster lens unless you're Monty Burns...

I don't think it's too odd to say you won't need f/2.8 much. Zoo shots are going to be mostly about up close and recording detail and you could lose a lot of that with shallow DOF. OOF fur not too interesting!

Depends on the zoo of course, but my last zoo trip was about shooting over fences or through glass - not so much through fences. On that trip I used my 400 f/5.6 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Having checked those shots, there are a lot with the 400mm, but those with the 70-200 tended to be at 200mm and few at wide apertures.

Only exception was a close up (through glass) of one gorilla grooming another - that was at f/3.2 and did benefit from a portraity shallow DOF. But definitely the exception.

So, I think there's little to be lost with the f/4, and if it allows you to play with a 24mm f/1.4 as well - bonus!

You haven't been to our local Zoo then. All the big cats are behind chain link or thick glass which is usually dirty.
The problem is that the 200mm is almost to short for the ground layout. I have some great 300 mm f/2.8 baby tiger pics.

Some of me favorite pics are from the 24-70mm F/2.8 shot at or near wide open. They are orangutan and upland gorilla portraits.

If I am going to photograph the zoo I am taking the big guns, if I am taking the grandkids I am packing light.

 

[Ryan85]

You should be just fine with the f4. Especially since you're shooting a 6d and can shoot with a high ISO if needed. I would personally take the 2.8is so I could shoot faster shutter speeds and blur the background more if I wanted. Also since you said you're doing portraits too and I love shooting that lens at 2.8 for portraits. But that's just a personal thing and the f4 will be fine. I would consider renting a 100-400 or 70-300 if you can so you have more focal length if you need it.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Thanks guys, getting the 2.8is

You won't regret your decision. For portraiture is one of the best.

 

[bholliman]

We are visiting a zoo this weekend. This will be my first zoo visit since I graduated from point and shoot cameras. I will take my 6D and either 70-200 2.8 II or 135L along with my 35mm f/2 IS for wider shots. Its a mid sized zoo and most of the animals are reasonably close, mostly within 50 yards/meters.

The 135/2 is my zoo go-to lens.
Easy to carry, fast as heck!

Noticed you choose your 135/2 over your 70-200. Do you find the 135 has enough reach?

 

[sagittariansrock]

We are visiting a zoo this weekend. This will be my first zoo visit since I graduated from point and shoot cameras. I will take my 6D and either 70-200 2.8 II or 135L along with my 35mm f/2 IS for wider shots. Its a mid sized zoo and most of the animals are reasonably close, mostly within 50 yards/meters.

The 135/2 is my zoo go-to lens.
Easy to carry, fast as heck!

Noticed you choose your 135/2 over your 70-200. Do you find the 135 has enough reach?

Yes, as you said- in a mid-size zoo (Houston) the animals are pretty close, so the 135 works very well (although I take a standard lens on a second body).

 

[bholliman]

We are visiting a zoo this weekend. This will be my first zoo visit since I graduated from point and shoot cameras. I will take my 6D and either 70-200 2.8 II or 135L along with my 35mm f/2 IS for wider shots. Its a mid sized zoo and most of the animals are reasonably close, mostly within 50 yards/meters.

The 135/2 is my zoo go-to lens.
Easy to carry, fast as heck!

Noticed you choose your 135/2 over your 70-200. Do you find the 135 has enough reach?

Yes, as you said- in a mid-size zoo (Houston) the animals are pretty close, so the 135 works very well (although I take a standard lens on a second body).

I think I will take the 135/2 and 35/2 and see how it goes. We will probably be there for most of the day and I'm not sure I like the idea of carrying the 70-200 that long. The f/2 lenses should do well for the indoor exhibits also.

 

[Stu_bert]

I just did Loro Parque in Tenerife (Canary Islands). Most of the enclosures where i wanted to shoot were glass fortunately. The problem I find with fences is that the larger glass does not lose the fence enough. I've done a private zoo in the UK (big cats mostly), and the 300 f/4 was more practical as you could get it in-between without issue.

In Tenerife, based on the predominancy of glass enclosures, the 300 MK II and the 70-200 MK II sat on 2 bodies the whole day, and I preferred the flexibility in some lighting conditions rather than adjust ISO but that's a personal thing. Based on distance to most subjects the DOF didn't impact sharpness. I also just preferred the speed as there were a number of shows worth capturing. Only once or twice did I need to step back to mitigate wider than 70mm, most of the time I shot at the 200-300mm with an occasional 1.4x or 2x converter (reptiles) but that's just my preference...

 

[Hannes]

It really depends on the zoo like others have said but for the ones I go to a 135mm wouldn't be ideal. London Zoo has a lot of glass and relatively small enclosures however the whipsnade zoo I would want a 150-600mm zoom for (think safari). Monkey world (of animal planet fame) you need longish fast lenses as everything is chain link. My go to zoo lens is the 70-200 2.8 IS but on a 1.3x crop body. I would personally rather have a zoom with IS even if it means loosing one stop of light compared to the prime.

Shooting through the fence requires the fence to be close to you and the animal farther away if you want to make it disappear.

 

[dgatwood]

If you have a decent 1.4x and 2x TC, then go with the 200mm f/2.8. If you don't, then I tend to agree with the folks saying that a 200mm lens probably won't cut it, no matter how wide the aperture. I'd try to rent a 100–400 L or a 150–600 if you can, or failing that, a 70–300L.