Advice for an prime lens >400mm for wildlife

[tomcat]

Hello!

In the last years I became more and more interested in photography. My favourite is to shoot animals in wildlife and birds (living and bird made out of aluminium).

Recently I use the 100-400mm Canon lens, but I was able to save around 9000Euro to buy an prime lens.
To do this in the right way, I have some questions. Can you please help me?

I am looking for an prime >400mm. So the brandnew Canon 400mm DO IS2 or the Canon 500mm 4.0 II are in my focus.
The 500mm is one kilogram heavier, but has an extra reach of 100mm. Optically , if you read some tests, they seem to be equal.

What is your experience "in the wild"? Which one is better for animals that are far away? Can I use the 500mm "out of the hand" if needed, or is this lens just to be used on an tripod? Or better an 400mm DO IS2 with an extender?

I own 2 tripods, but the more stable one (Manfrotto 055) will need an new head (Manfrotto 288). Which head is right for an combination with the 500mm and an 7D or 6D?

Much obliged!
Thomas

 

[geonix]

Re: Advice for an prime lens

Hello Thomas and welcome to the forum

I have very similar thoughts than you. For me the prime L lenses like the 500 f4 L or 600 f4 L are simply way too expensive. And even if I had the money for them, I would still think about the seize and weight.

I would go for the 400mm f4 DO II. The small size would be perfect for me. Its easily handeholdable and with an 1.4 extender it would give the range I need for birds. I just wished canon would have made a 500 F4 DO lens with around the same seize, only marginally bigger.

BUT: I got the new 100-400mm L IS II lens. That thing is really great, with top image quality.
An additional investment of 6500 euros I can't really justify as a hobby photographer.

 

[tomcat]

Re: Advice for an prime lens

Hello Thomas and welcome to the forum

I have very similar thoughts than you. For me the prime L lenses like the 500 f4 L or 600 f4 L are simply way too expensive. And even if I had the money for them, I would still think about the seize and weight.

I would go for the 400mm f4 DO II. The small size would be perfect for me. Its easily handeholdable and with an 1.4 extender it would give the range I need for birds. I just wished canon would have made a 500 F4 DO lens with around the same seize, only marginally bigger.

BUT: I got the new 100-400mm L IS II lens. That thing is really great, with top image quality.
An additional investment of 6500 euros I can't really justify as a hobby photographer.

Thank you for your message.
Is the new 100-400mm L IS2 so much better than the old one? Does it come in the proximity of the 400mm, or is there still an big gap between them?

 

[candyman]

You may consider to replace your tripodhead with a swinghead/gimbal
I just purchased the Jobu Heavy Duty MK IV - which is brand new. I like the flexibility of the gimbal up/down and left/right. This gimbal MK IV is relatively light (1000 gr / 1kg) and they improved the crucial rotation parts compared to previous version. Which means less vibrations while rotating the combination of lens and camera. I am very pleased with it.
But with a 400DOII you may not need as much to justify the purchase.

 

[danski0224]

Thomas, you make no mention of having any difficulty with the "weight" of either lens and you mention that you are looking for more than 400mm.

That puts you at 500mm+.

One always seems to need more reach- another vote for the 500.

If you browse other forums, the 500 is the overwhelming choice for handheld nature/wildlife photography. Many of these photographers are using the lens handheld.

The 500 v II takes both version III Canon teleconverters very well, although the electrical/firmware portion of the VIII teleconverters only works well with the very latest Canon bodies (5DIII, 1DX, 7DII and presumably the upcoming 5Ds/r).

The 500 v II has a reasonable minimum focus distance.

If you are using a 35mm format camera vs a 1.6x or 1.3x crop, you most likely want the 500 over the 400.

As far as tripod heads go, you will want to look at a gimbal setup from Wimberley, Jobu Design, Custom Brackets or components from RRS... or something comparable that is available in your country.

A good monopod with a tilt head would also work.

A ballhead would not be the first choice.

 

[RGF]

Hello!

In the last years I became more and more interested in photography. My favourite is to shoot animals in wildlife and birds (living and bird made out of aluminium).

Recently I use the 100-400mm Canon lens, but I was able to save around 9000Euro to buy an prime lens.
To do this in the right way, I have some questions. Can you please help me?

I am looking for an prime >400mm. So the brandnew Canon 400mm DO IS2 or the Canon 500mm 4.0 II are in my focus.
The 500mm is one kilogram heavier, but has an extra reach of 100mm. Optically , if you read some tests, they seem to be equal.

What is your experience "in the wild"? Which one is better for animals that are far away? Can I use the 500mm "out of the hand" if needed, or is this lens just to be used on an tripod? Or better an 400mm DO IS2 with an extender?

I own 2 tripods, but the more stable one (Manfrotto 055) will need an new head (Manfrotto 288). Which head is right for an combination with the 500mm and an 7D or 6D?

Much obliged!
Thomas

With the 100-400, especially the new mark II, I would go as long as possible

I originally had 500 Mark I, purchased 200-400 (before the 100-400 M2 was released) and decided there was too much overlap with the 500 So I sold the 500 (got more than I originally paid for it) and purchased a 600 II.

With the new 100-400 II, the 200-400 is somewhat redundant, but still very useful. Can put the 100-400 on a FF body and the 200-400 on a crop sensor body. That cover 100- ~900.

 

[geonix]

Re: Advice for an prime lens

Thank you for your message.
Is the new 100-400mm L IS2 so much better than the old one? Does it come in the proximity of the 400mm, or is there still an big gap between them?

I can't compare it to the old version of the 100-400, as I never used this one. I have the 300 f4 L IS and so far I would say the 100-400 II is at least as sharp, if not sharper than that older L prime. On the "real" range I can not give a comparison either, as I don't own a 400 prime.
As I have now heard several time here and elsewhere, all zoom lenses do have a certain variation to what is the 'real' focal length compared to what it says on the sign. This is mostly noticeable when shooting something near the minimum focal distance. When shooting something far away, like 50 m, the focal length is virtually 400mm.
On the other hand the new 100-400 has a very short minimum focal distance (mfd) and that compared with a relatively high maximum magnification makes it a very interesting lens for people shooting at a wide varity of distances.
On reason I love the 300mm f4 L IS is its short mfd of 1.5 meters. The 100-400 II tops even that.
I still have to try it, but I guess with extension tubes or a teleconverter this new zoom will be also excellent for "almost"-macro shots of dragonflies, lizards, snakes and all other kinds of smaler animals.

 

[candc]

if you are doing a lot of bird shooting that means you need as much focal length as you can get. maybe you should consider the 600ii.

 

[Loswr]

I am looking for an prime >400mm. So the brandnew Canon 400mm DO IS2 or the Canon 500mm 4.0 II are in my focus.

If you're looking for a prime >400mm, that puts the 400 DO II out of consideration.

For wildlife the 500/4 II is a good choice. For birds, you generally need all the FL you can get, meaning the 600/4 II is better. The local 'wildlife' is mainly rabbits and deer, and they're a backyard nuisance for which a 70-200 is more than sufficient. I shoot mainly birds, and I almost always use the 1.4xIII with my 600 II, sometimes the 2xIII.

For a lens longer than 400mm, a gimbal head is the way to go, the Wimberley II is great (personally I use a RRS PG-02 LLR).

 

[tomcat]

Thaks for the head-tipp!

My financial range is 9000Euros, I can get the 500mm for 8800. The 600mm is to expensive for me.

Thomas

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thaks for the head-tipp!

My financial range is 9000Euros, I can get the 500mm for 8800. The 600mm is to expensive for me.

Thomas

Don't overlook the additional things you'll need. Do not use a ball head, budget for a Gimbal head, particularly for BIF, a ball head is useless. Then, a good AS lens plate is expensive, then a lens carry bag/case, then a pol filter, it adds up quickly.

For aircraft shows, a 100-400L is popular, and the new one is better. I've had 300mm f/4, 300mm f/2.8, 200-400mm f/4 (Nikon), 400mm prime, two 100-400mmL MK I, a 600mm f/4, and now the 100-400mm MK II. Its so much more portable and it has very fast AF, on the same order as the expensive big whites. For a longer lens, I don't see any out there practical enough for me, but for many, the longer lenses work out well.

Sometimes, the small compact camera super zooms are handy to have, because you can carry them in a car easily, and capture a fleeting bird or animal in seconds. Canon is planning to release a super zoom with 1 inch sensor that might be a good choice alongside a 100-400 and not bankrupt you with the $2,000 worth of accessories you will need for a big lens.

 

[Loswr]

My financial range is 9000Euros, I can get the 500mm for 8800. The 600mm is to expensive for me.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off deciding which is best for your needs, and continuing to save if needed. Personally, I find the 600 + 2x too short sometimes, had I bought the 500/4 I would have regretted it – and with that expense, regret is bad (and buying the other likeky precluded).

OTOH, while I can certainly handhold the 600 II the 500 II is lighter.

 

[Dylan777]

Don't leave out Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II. It works extremely well with 1.4x TC III(560mm @ f4) and x2 TC III(800mm f5.6).

Here are some photos I took 1Dx & 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III:
http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Sports/Surfing/

The gimbal head is almost required if you shoot all day. Like neuro mentioned, the Wimberley II is very smooth.

Added: a friend of mine using this gimbal head for his 600mm f4 IS II. Although is not quite smooth as Wimberley II, still, it does feel solid.
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-GH1-Heavy-Gimbal-Supports/dp/B0071BIQZC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426972432&sr=8-1&keywords=gimbal+head

 

[lescrane]

Someone said that the ball head is "useless"..a bit of hyberbole here

I guess the whimberly type head is the standard, I don't know if anyone in the world ever took a decent wildlife photo before mr. whimberly invented it.... I don't have one because it is quite heavy,(even the sidekick is heavy), yes it's expensive too.

I've been getting by with an Acratech GV2 ball head which has the pseudo-gimbal feature. Very lightweight and portable, I use a 150-600, not a heavy 500, 600 f4. Have gotten some great flight shots with it so far, it's been very useful to me....

I have no affiliation with Acratech, but I like their creativity.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Someone said that the ball head is "useless"..a bit of hyberbole here

I said it, don't misquote me though.

What I said is that "for BIF, a ball head is useless", and I'll stand by that. A ball head is just not the right tool for photographing a bird in flight and a very heavy lens.

 

[quod]

What is your experience "in the wild"? Which one is better for animals that are far away? Can I use the 500mm "out of the hand" if needed, or is this lens just to be used on an tripod?

I have the 500/4 I, which is heavier and has worse image stabilization than the 500/4 II, and I can hand-hold the lens, but it's never very comfortable due to the size and weight. I have gotten very sharp action shots doing this (birds in flight), but the keeper rate is much better on a solid tripod with a gimbal head. It can be exhausting with longer shoots. You will want the reach, so the 500 is preferable to the 400, especially with birds and other small wildlife.

I own 2 tripods, but the more stable one (Manfrotto 055) will need an new head (Manfrotto 288). Which head is right for an combination with the 500mm and an 7D or 6D?

The Manfrotto 055 is probably solid enough for the 500, although you can get a more stable platform by upgrading to a higher weight-rated tripod like a Gitzo 3-series (or equivalent). A ballhead like the Manfrotto 288 can be difficult to use with a large super-telephoto like the 500/4 because it can easily become unbalanced. A better option is a gimbal head. My favorite gimbal is the Wimberley II head, although there are other quality (and lower cost) gimbals available. You might want to try your new lens with your existing kit. You will probably realize, as I did, that you will need a little more stability when working with an unwieldy super-telephoto.

If you plan to continue using your 100-400 I after you get your new super-telephoto, you may want to consider upgrading to the 400/5.6 or 100-400 II. Both are great hand-holdable lenses, and both are noticeably sharper (to my eye) than the 100-400 I, especially with fine feather detail. My 400/5.6 is as sharp as my 500 I, and the 100-400 II is nearly as sharp as the 400/5.6, but it offers image stabilization. Both lenses have very fast auto-focus, much faster than the 100-400 I. I have used the 1.4x III extender on my 400/5.6 and 100-400 II, and it works best with the 100-400 II, meaning that there is the least amount of degradation of sharpness and contrast.

 

[Loswr]

Someone said that the ball head is "useless"..a bit of hyberbole here

I said it, don't misquote me though.

What I said is that "for BIF, a ball head is useless", and I'll stand by that. A ball head is just not the right tool for photographing a bird in flight and a very heavy lens.

A ballhead is very useful with a supertele lens if you want your lens to flop forward...best case it slams into a tripod leg, worse case it misses the leg and goes further, unbalancing then toppling the whole rig to the ground.

 

[Dylan777]

Someone said that the ball head is "useless"..a bit of hyberbole here

I said it, don't misquote me though.

What I said is that "for BIF, a ball head is useless", and I'll stand by that. A ball head is just not the right tool for photographing a bird in flight and a very heavy lens.

Agree with Mt Spokane Photography.

 

[Northbird]

My financial range is 9000Euros, I can get the 500mm for 8800. The 600mm is to expensive for me.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off deciding which is best for your needs, and continuing to save if needed. Personally, I find the 600 + 2x too short sometimes, had I bought the 500/4 I would have regretted it – and with that expense, regret is bad (and buying the other likeky precluded).

OTOH, while I can certainly handhold the 600 II the 500 II is lighter.

Excellent advice, I'd also emphasize that with some practice it is possible to handhold the 600 II for short periods of time with surprisingly good results.

 

[Loswr]

My financial range is 9000Euros, I can get the 500mm for 8800. The 600mm is to expensive for me.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off deciding which is best for your needs, and continuing to save if needed. Personally, I find the 600 + 2x too short sometimes, had I bought the 500/4 I would have regretted it – and with that expense, regret is bad (and buying the other likeky precluded).

OTOH, while I can certainly handhold the 600 II the 500 II is lighter.

Excellent advice, I'd also emphasize that with some practice it is possible to handhold the 600 II for short periods of time with surprisingly good results.

Yes, indeed.