"Budget" Wildlife Lens Option

[Fr3nzy Photography]

With tax season upon us (in the U.S. at least), I'm looking to have a budget for some new photography gear. One thing I would really like to due is acquire a lens to pair with my 7D2 for wildlife shooting while I'm out hiking. My current practice is to rent the 100-400mkII when I go on a big trip that might see some wildlife, but I would like to add a permanent member to my collection for any wildlife that might show up during my every day hikes and when I'm out on landscape shoots.

I technically can afford the 100-400mkII, but it would max out my budget and I wouldn't be able to get anything else. That said, I've narrowed down my options to 3 possibilities, primarily based on usability for wildlife or other subjects and IQ as based off of tests over at The Digital Picture. I do plan to rent all three of these items to test them during one of the coming up weekends, but I also wanted to get the thoughts and opinions from folks here who may have actually used the items in the field.

• 300 f/4L IS +/- 1.4t.c.
  • 300mm could be good for larger/closer animals
  • Based on TDP, IQ seems excellent and still pretty good after adding 1.4t.c.
  • Could still rent the t.c. for big trips as 300mm likely will satisfy my casual wildlife interests.
• 400 f/5.6L +/- 1.4t.c
  • IQ is just about on par with the zoom @ 400mm, but it is likely too long for a wide variety of situations
  • Cheap enough that I could buy the t.c. with the lens if I wanted more reach.
• 200 f/2.8L +/- 2.0t.c (I realize this is kind of an oddball thought)
  • 200mm f/2.8 is great for indoor sports, as a landscape telephoto and more, plus the IQ seems solid.
  • Adding the 2.0t.c. seems to take a decent IQ hit, but I have up to 3 different focal lengths with the 2 t.c.'s
  • Even with buying the t.c. it's the cheapest option.

I know that relying on teleconverters has it's own risks and concerns when in the field, but as wildlife is generally a secondary goal while I'm out, I'm comfortable dealing with whatever option is "stuck" on the camera at the time. I'm more interested in just having an option that I own so I can get used to it and know what I'm working with.

Thanks, in advance, for any thoughts or ideas. (I'm also open to other options, keeping in mind my budget.)

 

[slclick]

The age old quandary. It's well documented the 400 has the fastest AF and the 300+ 1.4 still keeps it's IQ but doesn't get you too many keepers with the AF taking a big hit. As for the 200 + TC's, I haven't seen anyone comment on those combinations but it is one of the most underrated lenses with a AF, colors and contrast very similar to the 135L. I'd be interested in seeing examples of it's use in Servo with certain bodies. Most folks say get the 400 5.6 but if it's MFD doesn't work for your style of shooting then exploring the 200+ options would be interesting.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Can't address these specific choices but I've had a lot of experience with the 300 2.8 X2. Kind of irrelevant except in this regard. Everyone says that it is just too slow focusing but I did lots of BIF with it on the 1D IV and it worked well provided you were previously focused to the approximate distance and didn't initiate AF until the bird was under the focus point. Generally the IQ with X2 is quite good. If you can focus at F8, I'd be tempted to try the 300 F4 X2. 600 is a nice FL for birds and 300 is nice for larger animals. Of course, zoom is always nice but ....

Jack

 

[candc]

Budget wildlife lens = tamron 150-600 or sigma C

 

[wtlloyd]

Don't waste your money or time renting. If you can afford the 100-400 II, as you say, get it. Best bang for the buck, most versatile, IS, longest reach. A stellar performer in every way, really works well with the 7D2.
If you only had a $1K, I'd say go with the 400 f/5.6. Super sharp, but no IS is a real problem in low light.
Sure you can use teleconverters, but you will pay a penalty in AF speed that is worse than the stop of light you give up.
I can't recommend the 100-400 II for your situation highly enough.

 

[dolina]

Check Tamron or Sigma.

 

[dslrdummy]

I have owned the 400 f/5.6 and now own the 100-400ii. I have sold stock photos using the 400 on a 5Diii and the 100-400 on a 7Dii with and without 1.4 teleconverter. Both lenses will produce acceptable quality images on your 7Dii but I have captured photos with the zoom that I could never have composed properly with the fixed 400. e.g. a leopard coming toward the camera. And the IS is invaluable in low light.

 

[digigal]

Hi Fr3nzy--
I can answer your question about option #3 200/f2.8 + 1.4 and 2 x TC with the 7DMkII because this is the combo that I've been using for the past 3-4 yrs (with the 7D prior) Everyone knows what a dynamite lens the 200/2.8 II is bare and it's great for portraits (animals, people, concerts, events, etc) With the 1.4 III TC it still focuses fast, is great for safaris, big animals, close big birds, etc. The 2x III really needs focus assistance but still is great. I've done 7 Continents with that combination and a 24-105 and been a happy camper. I've travel with guys using the 1DX and big lenses and I can go toe to toe with them on many pictures but you have to know your settings well, have great hand holding technique and know what it will and won't do to maximize it. I've loved the versatility. THAT SAID, I'm thinking of switching to the new 100-400 which wasn't available when I started using this combo yrs ago. Why is that, you ask? The 200/2.8 is really really heavy on the front end and the 100-400 has the weight more in the back end of the lens so when they are on the camera, although they weigh almost the same, the 200/2.8 feels like a much heavier unweildy lens. Also the instant focusing of the 100-400 at all ranges is fabulous. I will miss being able to go to a fixed 4.0 with the 1.4 III TC on the 200 for the lower light situations and not having the 2.8 around too but for the birds and action, I think the new 100-400 is now where it's at.
Catherine
PS With the 200/2.8 TC combo I had 3 photos finish in Audubon magazine Top 100 Bird Photos in 2014 I can post later if you like

 

[unfocused]

Since you are in the U.S., be sure and register with Canon Price Watch for the 100-400 II refurbished. If you are both patient and quick to act, you can score one during one of Canon's 10-15% off sales, which brings it down to under $1,600. I got one before Christmas. I set the notification up and got a message in the middle of the night. Laid there for about 5 minutes contemplating and then got up, went to the computer and ordered it. By the time morning arrived, they were gone, so you have to act quickly.

Also, for a more portable choice, consider the 75-300mm "L". This is a great hiking lens -- lighter than the bigger lenses and while it isn't as long, it is very fast focusing and high quality.

The Sigma Contemporary and Tamron 150-600 zooms are good budget choices as well, but they are beasts and I wouldn't want to be carrying either one around routinely on hikes. Frankly, I'm not so sure I want to carry the 100-400 "L" around routinely either.

One downside to the 400 prime is that it is physically a long lens. It's not heavy, but it can be cumbersome to carry around hiking.

 

[PCM-madison]

Since you are asking about a "budget" option, you should seriously consider the 100-400L v1. It sells for very low prices now, and I have been happy with my copy on the 7DMII. Example of this combo from today, tufted titmouse.

 

[9VIII]

If you're talking about wildlife then the two 400mm lenses are the only ones worth considering. You want the 400f5.6 if you need to save money or weight, otherwise the 100-400MkII is unquestionably the right choice.
And as soon as you say "400f5.6+TC" I say "you're 75% of the way to the cost of the 100-400MkII".

The only case where I can see buying the 400f5.6 making sense is if every picture you've ever taken with the 100-400MkII has been at 400mm.

 

[cycleraw]

Fr3nzy, again if you can afford the 100-400 MII get it. It is a GREAT lens. I had the Sigma 150-600mm sport and sold it because once I got the Canon 100-400 MII I didn't use it any more. The Canon 100-400 MII with a 1.4 TC is just as sharp if not sharper than the Sigma at 600mm and the Sigma is worthless with TC's.

 

[AlanF]

If you're talking about wildlife then the two 400mm lenses are the only ones worth considering. You want the 400f5.6 if you need to save money or weight, otherwise the 100-400MkII is unquestionably the right choice.
And as soon as you say "400f5.6+TC" I say "you're 75% of the way to the cost of the 100-400MkII".

The only case where I can see buying the 400f5.6 making sense is if every picture you've ever taken with the 100-400MkII has been at 400mm.

I use the 100-400mm II 99% of the time at 400mm. But, the 1% at less than 400mm have been my very best shots. Also, most of the time I am using speeds of 1/250 - 1/500 s, which is below what I would be happy with a non-IS lens. If all you do is birds in flight in bright light or use a tripod, then the 400/5.6 is indeed fine.

 

[AlanF]

The budget options for wildlife lenses are:

Tamron 150-600 Di VC USD (~$1050)

Sigma 150-600 GD OS HSM Contemporary (~$1100)

If you want to shoot wildlife when you are out hiking and don't want your gear to weight a tonne, you need to go mirrorless - preferably m4/3. Otherwise, there are no options that pack lite and don't suck.

OK dilbert, what is your personal experience of hiking and nature photography to make these pronouncements? I don't see any posting of images from you in nature-bird-related threads (Animal kingdom) on CR.

 

[monkey44]

If i were you, I'd save up a little longer and buy the 100/400 v2 .... you won't regret it.

I've owned both v1 and v2, and the v2 is superior by far.

It's my position always that you can buy less expensive gear twice or later upgrade, or excellent gear once. It also makes a difference if you Hobby, or Pro shoot too, and your budget. But for pure quality of image, the best lens at that length and that versatility, the 100/400 v2 stands alone in my opinion.

I've not field tested other lens manufacturers, so there is that ... but it's because I don't need to check ... what I have does the job for my needs in the field. Good Luck ...

 

[AJ]

FWIW I own a 200/2.8 and a 2x TC. It's a very user-unfriendly setup. A steady tripod is required. I woould eliminate that option for hiking.

 

[Don Haines]

The budget options for wildlife lenses are:

Tamron 150-600 Di VC USD (~$1050)

Sigma 150-600 GD OS HSM Contemporary (~$1100)

If you want to shoot wildlife when you are out hiking and don't want your gear to weight a tonne, you need to go mirrorless - preferably m4/3. Otherwise, there are no options that pack lite and don't suck.

If you want to go for a budget option and don't mind the weight, the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 will get you the most reach, but at the expense of weight.....

You could go for the 100-400, but that kind of blows the budget.....

micro 4/3 is a lightweight option, but getting a decent body plus lenses blows the budget again.... Personally, I really like the Olympus..... but thats another $1000 to get a body....

you could always try one of those 24-280 or 300 third party superzooms, which gets you reach and light weight, but at the expense of lens speed and quality....

I don't think there is an option that includes budget, light weight, and quality....

 

[privatebydesign]

The Sigma 150-500 is a crazy good bargain at $525.....

 

[AlanF]

The Sigma 150-500 is a crazy good bargain at $525.....

Every review has it very, very soft at 500mm on FF. It must be unusable on crop?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.lenstip.com/184.4-Lens_review-Sigma_150-500_mm_f_5.0-6.3_APO_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-500mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-interchangeable-lens-review-13621

 

[privatebydesign]

The Sigma 150-500 is a crazy good bargain at $525.....

Every review has it very, very soft at 500mm on FF. It must be unusable on crop?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.lenstip.com/184.4-Lens_review-Sigma_150-500_mm_f_5.0-6.3_APO_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-500mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-interchangeable-lens-review-13621

The one I have is nowhere near as weak as that, but again, for the money it is a good lens. I haven't tried it on crop, maybe I'll try it later.