Primes for wildlife ...

[DaveMiko]

I am in the process of deciding which prime to get, for the time being, to use for wildlife. I have my mind set on the 300 f2.8 IS II, but I was wondering: What's the difference, practical and theoretical, between this lens and, say, the 400 f2.8, the 500 f4 , the 600 f4? The obvious answer would be the different focal lengths and, of course, price tag. But is there anything else that is significant, as far as the differences between them are concerned?! ??? :

 

[JPAZ]

No experience with anything other than the 300 f/2.8 ii (I rented for a weekend). And all I can say is, wow! Even with a 2x tc, unbelievable IQ and performance. The only flaw was inconsistent focus locking on BIF against a busy background like a forest in marginal light, but I suspect this was not the lens, just operator error in a setting without enough object contrast to lock on. Oh, and the only other negative is the price, but you do get what you pay for.

If I could afford it, I'd get this lens and know that with TC, I'd also be getting a good 420 mm and 600 mm. The 500 and 600 are supposed to be excellent but do cost a lot more.

 

[Vossie]

What wildlife do you intend to shoot?

I have a similar interst in one of the big whites so will follow this tread. So far I've only used the 600 which I rented for 4 days. I used it predominantly to shoot kingfishers. Got some great pics. The amount of detail is amazing (used it mostly with the 1.4x). Even though the 600 was a great experience, I feel the lens is too specilized and heavy for me. I would prefer a lens that is a bit more versatile for non-birding applications and lighter so I would be able to take it on hikes. I also like to handhold my cam, and not carry a tripod. With the 600 that is very difficult to do.

I read a lot how well the 300 copes with a 2x, but do not read many experiences about the 400 + tc combinations. With a 400 + 2x you can almost get as long as a 600 + 1.4x, but I do not know how the IQ and AF speed would compare. And what about a 400 + 1.4x vs a 300 + 2x. Anyone here with some experiences here? (Real-life not iso charts)

 

[AlanF]

A major difference is weight. The 300 II is light enough to be hand held, even with a 2xTC attached, and so can be used without a tripod or monopod for hiking and extended periods. If you want to sit in a hide (blind) and have your gear mounted on a tripod, then you will get significantly longer reach with the 400, 500 and 600. If you want to walk around, then the 300 is for you. I have opted for the 300mm f/2.8 II, which, as many of us have found is superb and works very well with the 2xTC III. I haven't regretted that decision for a minute. But, I would like to have access to a 600mm II on occasion. Neuro has a 600, and is saving up for a 300 for hiking.

A superb Belgian bird photographer I know through the internet uses a 400mm II with a 2xTC, with spectacular results.

 

[Eldar]

All the big whites in vII are excellent lenses. If you haven´t actually used them, I would recommend renting your most likely candidates first. It can be expensive gambles.

I have only tried the 300 f2.8L IS II one weekend and I believe it is the fastest AF of all the big whites. IQ is excellent and, as far as I can tell, it is the one who gives best IQ with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders. It is the least expensive (the word cheapest sounded totally misplaced here) and the smallest in size and weight, giving you 300/2.8, 420/4 and 600/5.6. Downside is if you need more reach.

The 400 f2.8L IS II gives you excellent performance on its own, very good with the 1.4xIII, but is in my view a bit soft with the 2xIII. The results are still very usable though. 400/2.8, 560/4 and 800/5.6 is an impressive versatility. I had this lens, but sold it. I kept the 600 f4L IS II and bought the 200-400 4L IS 1.4x. But I question whether I should have kept it or not. This lens is significantly lighter than the version I, which made it an alternative to me because of an option to handhold. But it is significantly bigger and heavier than the 300.

I had the version 1 of 500 f4L IS. Its main benefit is being smaller and lighter than the 400. But with f4 it is 100mm shorter than the 600 and one stop slower than the 400. So I decided against the version II of this lens when I updated.

The 600 f4L IS II is an awesome lens, which I believe I´ll keep until I´m unable to carry it. Performance with the 1.4xIII at 860mm/5.6 is excellent and actually better than the 800mm f5.6L IS. At 1200mm/8 the problem is first the very narrow angle of view (you need to find whatever you want to shoot in the viewfinder) and thereafter AF. With the 5DIII and 1DX you only have the center AF point available and in my experience, that requires very stationary objects. It is the biggest of them all, about as heavy as the 400/2.8 II, it requires a big backpack and it is almost 2x the price for the 300/2.8II. When I sold the 400/2.8, I kept this one.

The new 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x zoom is not a prime, but it is phenomenal. It is very versatile, with its 200/280 - 400/560 zoom range. about as heavy as the 400/2.8, but smaller. IQ is slightly behind the primes, but the difference is academic. The zoom function gives you a little less need to crop, to make up for it. AF is a fraction slower, but still very fast.

Summing up, these lenses are the best in the business for their respective focal lengths. They are big and expensive though. Make sure you know what focal length you need before you buy. But I can promise that when you unwrap your very own big white for the first time, it gives you that "Yes!" feeling

 

[Vossie]

A superb Belgian bird photographer I know through the internet uses a 400mm II with a 2xTC, with spectacular results.

Does he have a website? I actually work in Belgium (although I live in The Netherlands).

 

[Eldar]

I skimmed through my images to find an example. This is a handheld shot with the 400mm f2.8L IS II, with the 1DX body and the 2xIII extender. ISO4000, f6.3, 1/800s. Lighting conditions were fairly challenging and it is cropped to about 50% of the original picture. I hope it shows that this is a high quality package.

 

[AlanF]

A superb Belgian bird photographer I know through the internet uses a 400mm II with a 2xTC, with spectacular results.

Does he have a website? I actually work in Belgium (although I live in The Netherlands).

Vossie
He posts his photos on www.birdpix.nl under the user name charlysax (search for "poster" and then his name. That bird site has incredibly high requirements for sharpness and low noise, which is why I upgraded to the 300mm f/2.8 and the 5DIII, but the photographers who are much better than me seem to work wonders with cheaper gear.

 

[DaveMiko]

Well, guys, I intend to use my first big white lens on a safari trip I plan on doing in Kenya and South Africa in the near future. I also like to use it for birds, animals in the forest, and things like that. By reading and re-reading all of your comments I'm leaning now towards the 400+1.4x III, instead of the 300+2x III.

 

[DaveMiko]

I skimmed through my images to find an example. This is a handheld shot with the 400mm f2.8L IS II, I believe with the 5DIII body and the 2xIII extender. ISO4000, f6.3, 1/800s. Lighting conditions were fairly challenging and it is cropped to about 50% of the original picture. I hope it shows that this is a high quality package.

+1

 

[Eldar]

Well, guys, I intend to use my first big white lens on a safari trip I plan on doing in Kenya and South Africa in the near future. I also like to use it for birds, animals in the forest, and things like that. By reading and re-reading all of your comments I'm leaning now towards the 400+1.4x III, instead of the 300+2x III.

In that case, you should definitely look at the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. Magnificent lens. Combine that with a 70-200 f2.8L IS II and you have high quality glass from 70-560.

 

[DaveMiko]

Well, guys, I intend to use my first big white lens on a safari trip I plan on doing in Kenya and South Africa in the near future. I also like to use it for birds, animals in the forest, and things like that. By reading and re-reading all of your comments I'm leaning now towards the 400+1.4x III, instead of the 300+2x III.

In that case, you should definitely look at the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. Magnificent lens. Combine that with a 70-200 f2.8L IS II and you have high quality glass from 70-560.

I shall definitely think about that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Depends on what you mean by wildlife, and how close you'll be able to get. However...you can always crop, whereas you can't always back up.

I shoot birds, frequently small ones - for me, the 600 II was an obvious choice. I did debate 500 vs. 600 for a while, but I have no regrets about the 600. I often use it with the 1.4xIII (about as often as the bare lens), and occasionally with the 2xIII. I do shoot with it handheld, I carry it on hikes. But you'd definitely want to get a monopod, and a good tripod with a gimbal head (that applies to the 300, 500, and especially the 400 as well).

For 'general' wildlife, 500mm (on FF) is likely an optimal focal length. Wildlife is, by definition, wild - you usually can't get all that close.

Personally, I'll likely get the 300 II at some point soon. However, while that's partly as a more portable bird/wildlife lens, it's main use will be sports, since my older daughter is now starting to participate in several.

 

[DaveMiko]

Depends on what you mean by wildlife, and how close you'll be able to get. However...you can always crop, whereas you can't always back up.

I shoot birds, frequently small ones - for me, the 600 II was an obvious choice. I did debate 500 vs. 600 for a while, but I have no regrets about the 600. I often use it with the 1.4xIII (about as often as the bare lens), and occasionally with the 2xIII. I do shoot with it handheld, I carry it on hikes. But you'd definitely want to get a monopod, and a good tripod with a gimbal head (that applies to the 300, 500, and especially the 400 as well).

For 'general' wildlife, 500mm (on FF) is likely an optimal focal length. Wildlife is, by definition, wild - you usually can't get all that close.

Personally, I'll likely get the 300 II at some point soon. However, while that's partly as a more portable bird/wildlife lens, it's main use will be sports, since my older daughter is now starting to participate in several.

As I explained above, Neuro, I'll use my first big white lens on two safari trips in Kenya and South Africa+For birds, animals in the forest and things like that.

 

[xROELOFx]

I'm not really sure if this is helpfull, but something to consider is AF speed. To me this is the main difference between primes, primes + extenders or (big)zooms. Primes are just faster at it. Once you put an extender on, it will be slower. But, with small or shy subjects like birds, the longer reach you have the better.

If this AF speed really matters depends on the subject and what 'pose' you want to photograph. If your subject is stationary or does not move a lot (or moves slow), a smaller prime + extender can be excellent. For fast moving subjects you of course want fast AF. So a longer prime would be the better choice.

If that subject tends to move from/towards you often (and fast), a zoom like the new 200-400 would be a good choice as well. Since you can zoom in/out to get the subject in your FOV, it's easier to get a full body shot. With a prime you're stuck at that focal length, this can sometimes mean parts or your subject are cut off.

A nice trick I like about zooms is that it makes finding a subject easier: zoom to 200mm to get the subject in your sight, then quickly zoom to 400mm (or 560 or whatever with extender) to get the wanted framing. Finding a subject wich moves quick can be pretty difficult at the longer focal lengths, wich will often result in cut off parts like missing wing tips or worse. I have a whole collection of an eagle catching a fish who got too close

So it really depends on what you want to shoot, where you're taking the pics, and of course your personal skills and preferences. Good luck anyway

 

[candc]

i am looking at what you have listed as your gear and if i were you i would get the 200-400. you could keep the 5diii, 24-70ii, 70-200ii and sell the rest to help cover the cost of the 200-400. if you absolutely need the best iq and shoot small birds or longer distances then get the 600ii

 

[neuroanatomist]

As I explained above, Neuro, I'll use my first big white lens on two safari trips in Kenya and South Africa+For birds, animals in the forest and things like that.

Might want to inquire with the safari outfitters. When I was in the Serengeti, 600mm would have come in handy. In the Ngorongoro Crater, the lions came close enough for a 16-35mm to work fine.

I think the 200-400 + 1.4x would be an excellent safari lens, you may want to rent one for that, regardless of what you decide to buy.

 

[DaveMiko]

As I explained above, Neuro, I'll use my first big white lens on two safari trips in Kenya and South Africa+For birds, animals in the forest and things like that.

Might want to inquire with the safari outfitters. When I was in the Serengeti, 600mm would have come in handy. In the Ngorongoro Crater, the lions came close enough for a 16-35mm to work fine.

I think the 200-400 + 1.4x would be an excellent safari lens, you may want to rent one for that, regardless of what you decide to buy.

I was thinking about renting that new 200-400. Maybe, using a zoom lens might make more sense, since one can always zoom out to frame the subject into the FOV, if it's moving outside of it, and then zoom in to isolate it.

 

[dslrdummy]

Agree with neuro that the 200-400 would be an excellent safari lense. I don't have it but having just come back from Zambia and Botswana, I can tell you that changing extenders on a game drive is not to be recommended from a dust point of view. I had a 70-200 and 400 f/5.6 and often didn't have the right focal length which meant going with what I had or risking swapping in the extender. The convenience of the built-in extender cannot be over stated in my view.

 

[DaveMiko]

i am looking at what you have listed as your gear and if i were you i would get the 200-400. you could keep the 5diii, 24-70ii, 70-200ii and sell the rest to help cover the cost of the 200-400. if you absolutely need the best iq and shoot small birds or longer distances then get the 600ii

+1 8)