Recommendation For Long Lenses

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

briansquibb

Guest
I was making the point that there was no point in taking the 7D as at every point the 1D IV was better. The OP was going to use the 5D II for landscapes - where again it would outstrip the 7D and the 1D IV - so his 1D IV and 5D II was the best combination. I am sure the OP had thought this through carefully.

BTW - The 1D IV with lens + 1.4 gives more reach than the 7D + lens - and the 1D IV has AF at f8 if needed
 
Upvote 0
S

smirkypants

Guest
I'm kind of with REVUP on this. The 1D4 can handle anything the 5D can, but on the jeep I'd have the 7D+500=800 equivalent and still be at f4. On the 1d4 I'd have mounted the 70-200+1.4 and be at about 364mm max zoom @ f4. Maybe keep the 5D + wide angle zoom or a couple of small primes. Bodies are generally smaller than lenses and TCs and the 7D & 5D share batteries. Three bodies and three lenses and you've got super long, long, medium and short covered. Plus, you're backed up twice.

Don't poo-poo the 7D+500. I rented a 500 for a month shooting a major tournament and made a lot of money from what it produced. I also got a write-up in an important equine trade magazine on the strength of a lot of the photos I took. To my eye, IQ is a wash between 7D vs. 1D4 +TC to get roughly the same reach, plus you don't lose a stop with the 7D.
 
Upvote 0
B

briansquibb

Guest
So you are saying take the 7D as well then? That makes more sense than dumping the converters as REVUP was suggesting ;D

I would expect on safari in Africa in their summer that losing a stop would not be much of an issue shooting at that reach.

I have compared the IQ of the 1D4 and the 7D (on the 400 f/2.8) - which is why both 7Ds have been sold on.

Dont underestimate the 5DII on slower moving large animals either especially with the 500 at F/4 - the background blur will be far far better than the 7D will achieve
 
Upvote 0
S

smirkypants

Guest
briansquibb said:
So you are saying take the 7D as well then? That makes more sense than dumping the converters as REVUP was suggesting ;D I would expect on safari in Africa in their summer that losing a stop would not be much of an issue shooting at that reach.

I have compared the IQ of the 1D4 and the 7D (on the 400 f/2.8) - which is why both 7Ds have been sold on.

Dont underestimate the 5DII on slower moving large animals either especially with the 500 at F/4 - the background blur will be far far better than the 7D will achieve
But it's an unfair comparison, Squibby! Of course the 1D4 will look better than the 7D at f2.8. The point is that you need a TC or a longer lens on the 1D4 to get where the 7D takes you, and the TC hits your image quality and it hits your aperture. The longer lens is bigger and more expensive.

And at the golden hour, when you're taking your prettiest shots, you're going to be wanting f4. Sure the midday sun will make aperture irrelevant. Indeed, I would suggest taking a few ND filters in order to maintain a low aperture. At mid-day in Africa at f4 you're probably shooting about, what, 1/2000th to 1/8000th at 100-200 ISO? Being able to cut 3 stops to make sure you don't exceed your shutter speed might be nice.

As for the 5D2/500 at f4... That's just an enormous chunk of hardware for something that a 7D + 70-300 (480 equivalent) can get you and you can hang around your neck to boot. You'll get very good photos, plus you can be extremely mobile with the latter and you will nail shots you will otherwise have missed. Try hopping out of a jeep and running to an angle with a 500 and you're lion fodder.
 
Upvote 0
B

briansquibb

Guest
smirkypants said:
briansquibb said:
So you are saying take the 7D as well then? That makes more sense than dumping the converters as REVUP was suggesting ;D I would expect on safari in Africa in their summer that losing a stop would not be much of an issue shooting at that reach.

I have compared the IQ of the 1D4 and the 7D (on the 400 f/2.8) - which is why both 7Ds have been sold on.

Dont underestimate the 5DII on slower moving large animals either especially with the 500 at F/4 - the background blur will be far far better than the 7D will achieve
But it's an unfair comparison, Squibby! Of course the 1D4 will look better than the 7D at f2.8. The point is that you need a TC or a longer lens on the 1D4 to get where the 7D takes you, and the TC hits your image quality and it hits your aperture. The longer lens is bigger and more expensive.

And at the golden hour, when you're taking your prettiest shots, you're going to be wanting f4. Sure the midday sun will make aperture irrelevant. Indeed, I would suggest taking a few ND filters in order to maintain a low aperture. At mid-day in Africa at f4 you're probably shooting about, what, 1/2000th to 1/8000th at 100-200 ISO? Being able to cut 3 stops to make sure you don't exceed your shutter speed might be nice.

As for the 5D2/500 at f4... That's just an enormous chunk of hardware for something that a 7D + 70-300 (480 equivalent) can get you and you can hang around your neck to boot. You'll get very good photos, plus you can be extremely mobile with the latter and you will nail shots you will otherwise have missed. Try hopping out of a jeep and running to an angle with a 500 and you're lion fodder.

Are we comparing quality or mobility?

I have said that taking all 3 bodies is a good idea - I would definitely take all converters too - especially the x2 for maximum reach.

However there will times when a 500 is all you need - and for IQ a 5D + 500 will look a lot better than a 7D with the 70-300L. However the 5DII will be wanted for lightweight lens too so then you get mobility and IQ.

Of course the 70-300L is only f/5.6 which is the same as the 500 +1.4 - which you seemed to indicate was an issue whereas the 5DII would be able still to shoot at F/4. On the 1D4 and the 5DII of course you have the higher iso to play with anyway so f/4 to f/5.6 would not be an issue providing DOF was OK. F/5.6 still gives significant background blur which is when the background start to get messy on the 7D

Shooting at iso 50 is a good option in the bright light. I would think that iso50, f/5.6 would not push the shutter to be faster than 1/8000.

So I think we are in agreement - use the 1D4 and 5DII when IQ is the priority, 7D when mobility with reach is the priority.
 
Upvote 0

jhpeterson

CR Pro
Feb 7, 2011
268
35
cfargo said:
I still would love to hear more thoughts on this.

500mm f/4L
70-200mm f/2.8L II
24-105mm f/4.0 L
17-40mm f/4.0 L
24mm f/1.4 L (for stars)
14mm f/2.8 L (if I have room)
8-15mm f/4.0 L
My thought would be to go with the 300. Even though the 400 is a most amazing piece of glass, there's likely just not enough difference between it and the 500 to justify taking it along. Besides, the 300 focuses closer, thus it's more useful for relatively short range. You also should be able hand-hold it for longer and in a lot more situations, as I've found it is still small and light enough to capture so many of those spontaneous moments. (Yes, I'd take along the 300 for "grab" shots!)
While I have yet to be on safari in Africa, I have friends who've led groups in the bush. If you want specific recommendations for the places mentioned, perhaps I could ask them.
 
Upvote 0
9

92101media

Guest
briansquibb said:
I would expect on safari in Africa in their summer that losing a stop would not be much of an issue shooting at that reach.

In general, the best chance to take photos of wildlife in Africa is around a watering hole, in either early morning (one will often have to get up and/or leave before dawn for these opportunities) or early evening, before the sun gets too hot & all the animals go & hide in the shade. Luckily, early morning or early evening is a good time of day to take photos as far as quality of light goes, however the amount of available light is not as great as during the middle of the day, so, depending on the situation, max aperture may well come into play.
 
Upvote 0
C

cfargo

Guest
Thanks for all the great advice. I went to PMA/CES and played with the lenses. The 300mm f/2.8L II gives me so many more options than the 400 f/4.0L DO and the 300 is current technology where the 400 is 12 years old. While still on the show floor I got on my phone and ordered the 300mm f/2.8L II. I have also come to the conclusion that I'm going to bring my 7D Also.

My Body & Lens List:

1D MK IV, 5D MK II, 7D, G10 (IR Converted)

500mm f/4L
300mm f/2.8L
70-200mm f/2.8L II
24-105mm f/4.0 L
17-40mm f/4.0 L
24mm f/1.4 L
14mm f/2.8 L (if I have room)
8-15mm f/4.0 L
1.4X III
2.0X III
 
Upvote 0
cfargo said:
Thanks for all the great advice. I went to PMA/CES and played with the lenses. The 300mm f/2.8L II gives me so many more options than the 400 f/4.0L DO and the 300 is current technology where the 400 is 12 years old. While still on the show floor I got on my phone and ordered the 300mm f/2.8L II. I have also come to the conclusion that I'm going to bring my 7D Also.

My Body & Lens List:

1D MK IV, 5D MK II, 7D, G10 (IR Converted)

500mm f/4L
300mm f/2.8L
70-200mm f/2.8L II
24-105mm f/4.0 L
17-40mm f/4.0 L
24mm f/1.4 L
14mm f/2.8 L (if I have room)
8-15mm f/4.0 L
1.4X III
2.0X III

dont forget to add a sherper to the list to carry all that :p
 
Upvote 0
S

smirkypants

Guest
That, my friend, is a ton of gear. As I said, the bodies act as teleconverters to cover focal ranges. The 7D is a 1.6 and the 1D4 is a 1.3. If you think of it that way, there's a lot of overlap everwhere.

• The 17-40/4 + 70-200/2.8 with the various bodies makes the 24-105 irrelevant.
• The 70-200/2.8 + 500/4 with various bodies completely overlaps the 300/2.8 (but the 300 is sweet).
• The 8-15/4 with various bodies completely overlaps the bulky 14/2.8 (though not the same kind of lens)

Three lenses, two teleconverters, about 15 pounds, your back and sherpa saved with no loss in focal length coverage. Keep the long mainly on the 7D, the medium mainly on the 1D4 and the short mainly on the 5D2. Play to their strengths but swap out when needed.
 
Upvote 0
cfargo said:
wickidwombat said:
dont forget to add a sherper to the list to carry all that :p

No hiking on this trip and in the bush they don't let you out of the land rovers too much.

I had few instances in Kruger National Park where my 70-200 f/4 lens felt short -- lion kill and and a resting leopard. A 5D Mark II with a 24-105 lens or 24mm L lens will be very handy as animals do get very close in most cases.
You can also visit this website and pose your question there: http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forums/. This forum has lots of experienced wildlife photographers that regularly go to the national parks in South Africa and therefore can also assist you.
 
Upvote 0
I did a safari in serenghetti last year and would say that there is an overly big fetish on millimeters amongst people... Dont get me wrong, sometimes youll need those 500mm or even more. I just want to state that some of my best shots i got with a standard lens allowing me to encompass the animals as well as their native enviroment in the same shot.
 
Upvote 0
W

willrobb

Guest
neuroanatomist said:
I'd take the 300/2.8 II + 1.4x III over the 400/4 DO - the IQ of the new 300/2.8 even with a TC beats the 400/4 DO lens.

I haven't used either of these lenses, but I know a few people who use them and everyone loves the 300 2.8II and those with the 400DO aren't so enamoured with it (but that's only 2 people I've met with the 400, so not a good sample of people).
 
Upvote 0
A

aldvan

Guest
cfargo said:
I have ruled out taking the 100-400 as it is too soft.

May be I'm quite biased about the 100-400, since it is a lens I adore. I'm afraid you get a bad example of it and that is a shame, since, I know that for personal experience in photosafari in SA, the 100-400 has the perfect zoom range for the business. By the way, what do you mean by 'soft'? Is the following image (100-400 at 300) soft for you? (Unfortunately I had to resize it to allow uploading it, loosing a lot of IQ)

P.S. I think the following article could be very useful.
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/
 

Attachments

  • NewYork2011_04-124sm.jpg
    NewYork2011_04-124sm.jpg
    362.7 KB · Views: 1,095
Upvote 0
Why not just take a 50mm f1.8 and zoom with your feet? ;D when people tell me that I offer to let them shoot from my 25th floor balcony.

Seriously though, I like the 500mm plus 70-200 plan plus a good medium to wide zoom. Take the teleconverters, and the 5d as a backup to the Mk4. Anything more as space/weight allowance and your ability to carry it allow. I can't see picking up the 400 DO or the 300 II as there are so big and expensive. Unless you have a paid assistant, or are seeking to end a marriage.

I never travel without my 8-15, but maybe that's just me.

Oh and interestingly, if your main (normal) camera is a EOS 1 MK4, then the 7D is a 1.2 crop, and the 5D is a .77 crop.
 
Upvote 0
C

cfargo

Guest
aldvan said:
cfargo said:
I have ruled out taking the 100-400 as it is too soft.

May be I'm quite biased about the 100-400, since it is a lens I adore. I'm afraid you get a bad example of it and that is a shame, since, I know that for personal experience in photosafari in SA, the 100-400 has the perfect zoom range for the business. By the way, what do you mean by 'soft'? Is the following image (100-400 at 300) soft for you? (Unfortunately I had to resize it to allow uploading it, loosing a lot of IQ)

P.S. I think the following article could be very useful.
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

I'm very well aware that the 100-400's are not all created equal. There are good ones out there and there are bad ones. I agree the focal length is awesome for a safari. But what made me stop using MY 100-400 altogether is when I tried to micro adjust it, the output was too soft that I wasn't even able to find the sharpest point. I do own the 70-300L also but I opted for the 70-200 f/2.8L II along with the 300mm f/2.8L II instead because I can put converters on both of these lenses, their faster and sharper.

As for TexPhoto's idea of zooming with feet, I'm just crazy enough to do that but I want to be able to shoot again the next day not being the days kill. I love a wide angle, I like getting right into my subjects face but they won't let me in Africa for some reason.
 
Upvote 0
Let me offer a different perspective, one gained on dozens of photo safaris. I lived in South Africa for several years and have gone back twice in the past few years.

Unless you are going on a safari organized by and for professional or seriously advanced photographers you will be too weighted down by all that gear to react quickly.

My suggestion is that you buy a high quality compact like a canon G1X or Fuji X10, and carry the 5D II with the 70-300L as your two main pieces of equipment. Unless you are making room-size prints this combination would give to the ability to react quickly to fleeting opportunities and still get very good quality images. IS and the ability to hand hold the 70-300 will serve you better in the bush than a longer reach setup that requires a tripod.
 
Upvote 0
C

cfargo

Guest
gak said:
Let me offer a different perspective, one gained on dozens of photo safaris. I lived in South Africa for several years and have gone back twice in the past few years.

Unless you are going on a safari organized by and for professional or seriously advanced photographers you will be too weighted down by all that gear to react quickly.

My suggestion is that you buy a high quality compact like a canon G1X or Fuji X10, and carry the 5D II with the 70-300L as your two main pieces of equipment. Unless you are making room-size prints this combination would give to the ability to react quickly to fleeting opportunities and still get very good quality images. IS and the ability to hand hold the 70-300 will serve you better in the bush than a longer reach setup that requires a tripod.

Thanks, this is Organized by a Pro Photographer for Photographers. At this point I'm planning on hand holding everything except the 500 while in the vehicle.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.