@ Tom and piovanil,
Great shots, guys. 8)
Great shots, guys. 8)
Upvote
0
AlanF said:The fantastic photos by Piovanil plus all the others in his Flickr are nearly all of perched birds or static animals in good light. The 150-600mm C is superb for those conditions, and I take mine with me for trips under such conditions. But, there other circumstances where it isn't going to be much good - namely poor light. I posted questions quoted below of what lenses to take with me to Borneo, including my 150-600mm C or 400mm DO II. At the last minute, I unpacked the Sigma and took the 400mm f/4, which saved the whole trip. Nearly all the photos I took were at dawn or dusk or at night or in the rain forest. I was shooting at f/4 and iso 6400 most of the time. The 100-400mm II was being used by wife at doubly long shutter speeds hand held. The 150-600mm at f/6.3 and its poorer IS (about a stop less in my experience) would have been a disaster. Also, on a recent trip to film puffins in flight I needed exceptionally fast AF, which the Sigma is not good at.
It's nice to have a choice of lenses, but if you have only one, then the Sigma is excellent for much, but not all of the time.
AlanF said:I know what gear and lenses to take on a South African safari or a bird photography holiday, but my wife and I have a trip of a lifetime coming up at the end of August - Sabah in Borneo. The itinerary is:
KOTA KINABALU - Wet land, mud-flats and open country habitats.
SEPILOK – Lowland old secondary forest habitat.
GOMOTONG CAVES – Limestone habitat.
KINABATANGAN-BILIT – Riverine and flood plains habitat.
TABIN WILDLIFE RESERVE – Old secondary and primary rainforest habitat.
KINABALU PARK - Pristine montane rainforest.
PORING HOT SPRINGS – Upper hill forest
"Primary focus of this tour is on birds but we will also look at other natural history aspects including mammals (Orang Utan, Bornean Pgymy Elephant, Proboscis Monkey, Red-leaf Langur, Bornean Gibbon, Western Tasier, Clouded Leopard, Mouse-deers, Otters, Flying Squirels, Flying Lemus, Wild Cats, etc. etc. with a strong emphasis on finding wild Orang Utans), reptiles (Salt-water Crocodiles, Flying Lizards, Flying Snakes, etc. etc.), amphibians (Wallace’s Flying Frog, etc. etc) and interesting plants (Rafflesia, Orchids, Nepenthes, etc. Etc.
There will a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Sabah with restricted cabin luggage - 7 kg per person with the rest in the hold. The possible gear is taken from 5DSR, 5DIV, 7DII and M5, with 400mm DO II, 150-600mm C and Canon 100-400mm II. My initial thoughts are to take the 5DSR + Sigma for me, the 5DIV + 100-400mm II for my wife, throw the 7DII as a spare in the hold baggage, and slip in the M5 with a couple of lenses for scenery.
You really do need zoom lenses, but, I'll miss the 400mm DO II. I'd even be tempted to leave the 150-600 and get a Sigma 100-400 for the 7DII and throw them in the suitcase. What would you experienced hands recommend? (Should I even consider my 300mm/2.8?). Maybe having the prime and sharing the 100-400mm II?
tomscott said:TBH for Africa I didnt need my 70-200mm I wasnt there for 2 weeks was there 3 months and came across pretty much all situations you would find yourself light wise.
Many people think you need the biggest lenses you dont. Animals except a few are all within framing with 600mm. Birds are always a difficult one but again I had no issues except small birds like bee-eaters or lilac breasted rollers etc but they are everywhere so its not like you have to go far to find them.
I didnt find myself needing the 2.8, and its far too shallow for most subjects. Plus you have to think about the weight. The nice thing about the 70-200mm is you can put a 1.4 and get a good 280 F4 or 450 F4 on crop, I used to shoot primarily with the 70-200mm with a 2x and got some of my favourite shots with it.
The 100-400mm is just the best of both for me. Want 600mm stick a 7D on it want better IQ at lower light stick it on a full frame body. Essentially what I did, most of the time left it on the 7D and put a 24-105 on the 5DMKIII. There wasnt any time I needed more reach except once where a leopard was in a tree but the atmospheric issues with heat rising ruined the shot anyway.
Even shot this with a 70D and 55-250mm
Probably the most bang for buck/weight saving combo ive ever used. IQ is excelent for a £100 lens. What the GF took with her and went toe to toe with me. Although the 100-400mm has its advantages.
The one reason I wouldnt take the 150-600mm is the fact its beyond dusty. At the end of every safari all the gear, me etc absolutely head to toe. The 100-400mm didnt come home with one bit of dust. I took the tammy out for an afternoon at a zoo to test it and it came back full.
The thing is the Canon lenses are built to take the hammer one thing I really like about them.
piovanil said:tomscott said:TBH for Africa I didnt need my 70-200mm I wasnt there for 2 weeks was there 3 months and came across pretty much all situations you would find yourself light wise.
Many people think you need the biggest lenses you dont. Animals except a few are all within framing with 600mm. Birds are always a difficult one but again I had no issues except small birds like bee-eaters or lilac breasted rollers etc but they are everywhere so its not like you have to go far to find them.
I didnt find myself needing the 2.8, and its far too shallow for most subjects. Plus you have to think about the weight. The nice thing about the 70-200mm is you can put a 1.4 and get a good 280 F4 or 450 F4 on crop, I used to shoot primarily with the 70-200mm with a 2x and got some of my favourite shots with it.
The 100-400mm is just the best of both for me. Want 600mm stick a 7D on it want better IQ at lower light stick it on a full frame body. Essentially what I did, most of the time left it on the 7D and put a 24-105 on the 5DMKIII. There wasnt any time I needed more reach except once where a leopard was in a tree but the atmospheric issues with heat rising ruined the shot anyway.
Even shot this with a 70D and 55-250mm
Probably the most bang for buck/weight saving combo ive ever used. IQ is excelent for a £100 lens. What the GF took with her and went toe to toe with me. Although the 100-400mm has its advantages.
The one reason I wouldnt take the 150-600mm is the fact its beyond dusty. At the end of every safari all the gear, me etc absolutely head to toe. The 100-400mm didnt come home with one bit of dust. I took the tammy out for an afternoon at a zoo to test it and it came back full.
The thing is the Canon lenses are built to take the hammer one thing I really like about them.
So you were 3 months in Africa and took with you a 100-400 II and a 24-105 with a 7DII and 5DIII, and that covered all the possible situations?
I wanted to get the Sigma 150-600 Sport because of the weather sealing and good construction and the 70-200 f2.8 IS to complement in the second camera and go with those lenses plus the 100 f2.8 macro and the 17-40. Today I have 7D and 1DIV (should be nice to change to 7DII and 1Dx, but probably wont be able to do it).
In Galapagos the 100-400 II is the ideal choice (as you can get very close), but I went with my Canon 400 f5.6L and ended up getting good images too.
For Costa Rica the 150-600 C worked fine even when it was slow (f6.3) and suffered the bad weather conditions.
As I never went to Africa I was curious on your experience. In the past I've taken 2 cameras but only 1 long lens with me.
AlanF said:There are problems with f/2.8s. The 300mm/2.8 II and the 400mm/2.8 II are the sharpest lenses on the block. I have just sold my 300mm/2.8 II as I haven't used it since buying the 400mm DO II, and Art Morris says in his blog that the price of used 300mms has dropped since the 400mm II has come out as birders prefer it. 300mm is too short.
It might be a surprise, but there is little advantage in light-gathering f-stop using a 300mm at f/2.8 compared with a 400mm at f/4 when you are cropping. You get nearly as much light going through the 400mm/4 as the 300mm/2.8 as they have similar sized front elements. If you double the iso with the 400mm to get the same shutter speed as an f/2.8, and then downsize 1.4x, you end up with very similar signal to noise.
The 400mm/2.8 II is too heavy to hand hold for birds in flight. On my puffins in flight trip, I was able to swing around quickly with my 5DIV and 400mm/4 and get shot after shot whereas the person next to me with a 1DX and 400/2.8 on a tripod was too slow. For static shots, the 400/2.8 was the winner.
AlanF said:My one safari in Africa used the 7D + 70-200mm f/4 L IS, which Photozone described as "Every now and then EOS, the goddess of mercy, seems to speak to the Canon lens designers and this time they listened carefully. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date.". But, to agree with Tom, the 55-250mm is fantastic. My copy of the STM is sharper than the f/4 L at 200mm and carries through to 250mm, so I have just sold the L and use the STM on the M5. I think the 100-400mm II is the best safari lens ever, being able to cope with close ups and distance of animals, and it is sharper than the 70-200mm L IS.
piovanil said:Want to know what happened on the 4th second when it moved? Not one of my best moments!
Quirkz said:piovanil said:Want to know what happened on the 4th second when it moved? Not one of my best moments!
Not one of you best moments? This sir, is one of your finest moments! ;D Maybe I'm just odd, but there's something about this one that I just love - it looks like painted brushstrokes
I wish I could have such wonderful accidents
piovanil said:Here I have 2 pictures were the light also was very bad and the small birds were moving a lot, but was able to take the picture anyway. The monopod helped and it was a matter of shoot when the bird stood quiet for a second.
Regards
AlanF said:The 300/2.8 II is one of the best lenses available. My 300/2.8 + 2xTC gave some remarkable shots with excellent acutance and sets a very high standard that the 100-400mm II +1.4x can't match. However, the 300/2.8 + 2xTC is pretty slow focussing so if the 100-400mm II is slower, then something is wrong with either the lens or the camera.
krisbell said:AlanF said:The 300/2.8 II is one of the best lenses available. My 300/2.8 + 2xTC gave some remarkable shots with excellent acutance and sets a very high standard that the 100-400mm II +1.4x can't match. However, the 300/2.8 + 2xTC is pretty slow focussing so if the 100-400mm II is slower, then something is wrong with either the lens or the camera.
Hi Alan, thats interesting. I havent done anything 'scientific' in terms of comparisons and I havent used it enough to form a fully rounded opinion but I would say focusing so far has been no better than 300+2x. How would you expect IQ to compare between the 300+2x and bare 100-400 II?
birdforthought said:...So... without spending $11K what would be the next lens in addition to the 100-400 MkI
FYI: I also have the 1.4x TC version 1 but rarely ever use it...
birdforthought said:Great post and I know its old but.... I have a somewhat opposite question. I currently have the Canon 100-400 Mk I (on a 7D mkI). Yes both 1st generation. I really like this lens/body combination. However, I'm now looking for a more range and of course better low light capability (I photo only birds).
So... without spending $11K what would be the next lens in addition to the 100-400 MkI
FYI: I also have the 1.4x TC version 1 but rarely ever use it
Thanks,
Greg