Lens recommendations for wildlife

[gjones5252]

I am look at a longer lens for wildlife and I need help picking out a lens.
Here I the options I see so far
1-70-200 already have but if I add an extender
2-100-400
3-400 5.6.

I don't know if I would miss the extra versatility of the 100-400 over the 400 5.6. And I am hesitant of a extender setup because I have heard image quality can be pretty bad.
I mostly looking at elk, deer, foxes from a pretty good distance.
Does anyone have any recommendations?

 

[Random Orbits]

Which 70-200 do you have?

 

[charlesa]

A prime in the 400 mm range.

 

[LDS]

I am hesitant of a extender setup because I have heard image quality can be pretty bad.

The upcoming 200-400 comes with a built-in 1.4x extender, thereby extender quality may not be that bad. An extender will degrade the image a bit, but a lot depends on the quality of the lens it is attached to, and the quality of the extender itself.

 

[gjones5252]

I have the 2.8 is ii
The 200-400 sounds good but it just is not out and not in my price range.

 

[RLPhoto]

Perhaps an older 300mm 2.8 IS? They're getting cheaper on Evil bay and they hold their value over time quite well.

 

[Random Orbits]

I have the 2.8 is ii
The 200-400 sounds good but it just is not out and not in my price range.

It depends on how much you plan on shooting at 400mm. The 70-200 IS II takes extenders pretty well. The general consensus is that its IQ at 400mm is close to the 100-400L's but its AF will be slower. If you go this route, make sure you AFMA with the lens + extender(s) -- it won't automatically port over the settings for the bare lens. If you shoot at 400 a lot or want longer, then the 400 f/5.6 is really you're only choice.

I suggest trying the extender route first. If that works for you, then you could wait for Canon to revise the 400 f/5.6 later.

 

[Lurker]

I started with the 100-400 but it is now retired. On mine the images were soft. I was happy with it on film but not as happy on digital (even with focus adjust). I found I almost always used it at 400. Other things I did not like led me to look for other options.

I now use the 400 f/5.6 for my walk around birding lens. Light weight, quick, and sharp. Don't really miss the zoom, sometimes though, but that's when I'm too lazy or uninspired to change the lens. I do miss the IS though, it is nice to have in the woods and at dusk or dawn. Using the tripod more now with this lens and experimenting with the 2x for 800 f/11. Using live view for manual focus (you can auto-focus in live view too thought it's slow and not real accurate).

I also have the 70-200 f/2.8 ii and the 1.4iii and 2.0iii and both produce wonderful images. I like having the IS. Not crazy about the weight and balance with the 2x in place. Also have found that it is very easy to move the zoom ring until you actually want to when wearing heavy gloves. I just started using this combo and on a recent outing, in sub-zero wind chills, I found the zoom was always moving and most of my shots ended up below 300mm. I would notice and reset to 400mm but with the gloves it was hard to move and keep the zoom at 400.

No need to worry about image quality with the Canon Mark iii TCs with the 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[coreyhkh]

The 100-400 because it has IS

 

[Quasimodo]

I have the 2.8 is ii
The 200-400 sounds good but it just is not out and not in my price range.

It depends on how much you plan on shooting at 400mm. The 70-200 IS II takes extenders pretty well. The general consensus is that its IQ at 400mm is close to the 100-400L's but its AF will be slower. If you go this route, make sure you AFMA with the lens + extender(s) -- it won't automatically port over the settings for the bare lens. If you shoot at 400 a lot or want longer, then the 400 f/5.6 is really you're only choice.

I suggest trying the extender route first. If that works for you, then you could wait for Canon to revise the 400 f/5.6 later.

I have the 70-200 ii and 2xiii combo and AF is not slow at all imho, and IQ is brilliant!

 

[Random Orbits]

I have the 2.8 is ii
The 200-400 sounds good but it just is not out and not in my price range.

It depends on how much you plan on shooting at 400mm. The 70-200 IS II takes extenders pretty well. The general consensus is that its IQ at 400mm is close to the 100-400L's but its AF will be slower. If you go this route, make sure you AFMA with the lens + extender(s) -- it won't automatically port over the settings for the bare lens. If you shoot at 400 a lot or want longer, then the 400 f/5.6 is really you're only choice.

I suggest trying the extender route first. If that works for you, then you could wait for Canon to revise the 400 f/5.6 later.

I have the 70-200 ii and 2xiii combo and AF is not slow at all imho, and IQ is brilliant!

Depends on what you shoot. Tracking kids running toward/away from the camera is a tougher test on AF accuracy than something moving in the transverse direction. Distance also matters. AF speed definitely takes a hit compared to the bare lens.

 

[gjones5252]

Ok awesome! Thank ou for all your information. It seems that having an extender can really hurt and for now it would get me to the focal length I want.
I don't believe I do it enough to consider a 5k or more lens tho
I am in a position where I can really invest in lenses but I want to make sure I do it right.
This forum gives me great insight to what you guys are using or have used thanks again.

 

[Don Haines]

I shoot on a 60D.

For a project at work we tried out a 400f5.6 and the 100-400 lens. The 400 took better pictures.

At home, I have a Sigma 120-400, it sits between the 400 and 100-400 for quality. Most of the time that I am using it it is at the 400mm end, and qui often I am lusting over the 600, but it is beyond my camera budget and more weight than I am willing to carry hiking or canoeing.

If I were to start again I would get the 400f5.6. If canon ever comes out with a 500f6.3 I will probably be lining up to get it..... A bit more reach but still light enough to pack...