Which prime lens for nature fotography?

[xps]

I saved some money, I´d like to buy an prime for nature photography (animals, birds,...). I will use it for day trips, no longer expeditions.

As they are not cheap, I´d like to ask which lens to buy?

300mm 2.8 with 2x converter?
400mm 2.8 with 2x converter?
500 or 600 mm 5.6 with an 1.4x converter?

Optically, all 4 lenses are now very good. (my old 400mm DO IS was not).
I will carry it around all day long - so low weighted will be an plus, but I want an good optical quality too. So the 2x converter is not the best solution....

But which one to decide? Can you give me an advice?
My cameras are: 5DII, 6D and 7D

 

[Helios68]

Hi,

Did you mean 500 or 600 f/4?

I do not have one of them but the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II.
I am also considering the 300mm 2.8. I really find 2.8 a good feature because nature photography means low light conditions.
But with ISO performance of the FF you have. f/4 should deliver stunning images.

If I had to choose:
-300mm f/2.8 on 7D + tele 1.4x => 672mm f/4 (I would avoid tele 2x)
-500mm f/4 on 5D II or 6D + tele 1.4x => 700mm f/5.6
-400mm f/2.8 is really heavy and I would not like to pay for carrying it (4Kg !)

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I think Canon 300 F2.8 + 1.4x teleconverter the most versatile combination. However, if you want to shoot small birds, 500mm + teleconverter seems to me the minimum necessary.

 

[ecka]

I think there are no EF 500 f/5.6 or EF 600 f/5.6 lenses.
Your 400 DO was 1940g.
The new 500/4L'II is 3190g, which may be the one you actually need (the old one is 3870g).
The new 400/2.8L'II is 3850g (the old one is 5370g).
The new 300/2.8L'II is "only" 2400g, which may be the one to get for lower weight, while accepting all the compromises (short reach, worse IQ and AF with TCs).

 

[tayassu]

Your primary body is probably going to be the 7D because of the AF.
For bigger animals and BIF, an equivalent of 500mm is very good, for sitting birds and smaller animals, an equivalent of 600-800 (-1200) mm is perfect.
I would go for the 300/2.8 with both converters, as you then have (with FF the 300mm, the 420mm and the 600mm option) the 480mm, the 672mm and the 960mm option on your 7D. The new 300/2.8 is spectacular even with the 2x, don't be worried about that. It is also the least expensive, smallest, lightest and optically best performing of those 4 lenses.
If you want to shoot FF, go for the 500/4 for the same reasons, it is lighter and smaller than the 600mm and great even with converters, although not as good as the 300/2.8. Besides, you won't be able to use it with the 2x because f/8 AF is not available on your bodies, what would mean, you'd use it on the 7D for longer FL's, which would destroy the purpose of shooting FF, which is why I'd get the 300/2.8.
I hope you can make the right decision for you and this helped a little for that purpose!

 

[Skatol]

+1 for the 300 + TC option. I have this combination and use it 75% of the time for my wildlife shots. The shorter MFD is key for smaller birds. This combination provides the most flexibility. I also shoot with the original non-IS 600F/4 with the 1.4TC for long distance shots of Bald Eagles. If I had to choose between the two I would opt for the 300 +TC combination.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I saved some money, I´d like to buy an prime for nature photography (animals, birds,...). I will use it for day trips, no longer expeditions.

As they are not cheap, I´d like to ask which lens to buy?

300mm 2.8 with 2x converter?
400mm 2.8 with 2x converter?
500 or 600 mm 5.6 with an 1.4x converter?

Optically, all 4 lenses are now very good. (my old 400mm DO IS was not).
I will carry it around all day long - so low weighted will be an plus, but I want an good optical quality too. So the 2x converter is not the best solution....

But which one to decide? Can you give me an advice?
My cameras are: 5DII, 6D and 7D

I own/have owned 3 of those 4 lenses so may be able to throw a little light (or confusion) on your quandary.
The most important consideration is the subject matter. As the lenses get longer they become more specialised as well as much heavier!
Firstly any of your cameras will give their best on lenses like these and, if you are going to use the 2x extender make sure it's the Mk3 version - much better than the Mk2.
My current wildlife setup is the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS and the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS though I have owned both the 600 F4 L IS and 400 F2.8 previously. Firstly if your subjects are small then discount the 400 F2.8 - It doesn't have enough reach and is too big and heavy if you need to stalk your subjects.
As to the 600mm I would say that it depends on which version you are looking at. I had the IS Mk1 and whilst it is a great lens my current 800 F5.6 beats it in almost all respects except minimum focus distance. It is lighter, slimmer and significantly more manageable as well as being sharper and having much better IS (which I don't use?!?). Now if you are looking at the 600 Mk2 then things change around a bit due to it's better IQ and greatly reduced weight. This would be my choice for smaller subjects like songbirds etc.
The Canon 300 F2.8 (any version) is simply a stunning lens and they work very well with extenders. However if you are constantly using extenders - is this really the right lens?
This is just a personal view but I would suggest you look at having two lenses (if funds will allow). I normally carry my 800 and 300 F2.8 (V heavy!) but I do get shots that I would have missed otherwise. Perhaps a better alternative would be a 500/600/800 lens + a Canon 300 F4 L IS - I really regret selling mine!
Well that lot has probably left you even more confused! Perhaps if I/we knew a little more about what you are specifically after I could be a little more precise in my suggestions. Anyway feel free to PM me if you want to pick my brains any more.

 

[Jim Saunders]

Speaking of the 300 f/4, if you can borrow or rent one take it out for a weekend. After that, the amount of cropping you need will be an indication of how much lens you'll need.

FWIW I miss the one I had also.

Jim

 

[candc]

If i was only going to have one lens and I could have any of those for free I would take the 300 without a doubt. You will get better pictures if you can get closer because of the seeing conditions most of the time. You can use your tc's if you have to.I know you said you want a prime but there are some really good zooms available now,

 

[MrFotoFool]

300 makes sense if you think you will use it alone quite a bit, as well as with the extender. If you will use it almost exclusively with an extender (as a 600) then it makes little sense. Buy a 500 or 600. 300 is too short for a lot of wildlife (and especially birds), but is great for landscape if that is part of what you mean by nature photography.

If you want to save weight, the new Tamron 150-600 zoom is getting really nice reviews and the images I am seeing from it on the forums look really good. Of course a Canon fixed prime will be sharper, but I am surprisingly impressed with the Tamron images. I expect Sigma's upcoming equivalent to be similar.

 

[Lurker]

I hope to face a similar dilemma soon.

I know you said prime but might I suggest considering the Canon 200-400, it seems very versatile. 200-560 on its own and I believe it can be used with an external 1.4 for 400-800. IQ is very good too.

If you can wait a little longer the new 400 DO looks to be very impressive. Need to see some reviews when it's finally out but the MTF charts sure look good. If you're happy with a 400 range then the new DO should be on your short list.

 

[eml58]

I currently own & use these long lenses, 200f/2, 300f/2.8 II, 600f/4 II & 200-400f/4 (sold the 400f/2.8 II).

My primary Photography is Wildlife, and which Lens to take & use is always an internal debate, I've never been in the situation where at some point I haven't thought "Crap, wrong decision".

When I look through my most used lens, it's without doubt the 300f/2.8 II (and previously the V1 of this lens), mostly @ 300, but quite frequently with the 1.4x Mk III Converter. The 200-400f/4 is fast taking over through.

Given the Bodies you have, FF 5D II & 6D, you are going to get your native 300 @ f/2.8 plus 420 @ f/4 with the 1.4x

With your 7D you have 480 @ f/2.8 & 670 @ f/4

The weight package to carry is still reasonably light, when compared to say the 400f/2.8, 600f/4, and the 300f/2.8 II although not considered a cheap Lens, is reasonably priced, light weight, and in my opinion the sharpest Lens Canon make.

A word on the Converters, only buy the Mk III units, and consider only the 1.4x, the 2x is Ok, but just that, Ok, where it's hard to tell any degradation on the image from using the 1.4x. And you have your 7D for those times you can't get close enough.

Hope this helps & what ever you decide, enjoy.

 

[florian]

I had the same problem over the last 2 1/2 years. I got a 400 5.6 a 300 4 and it was too short and two slow light and AF speed so I got the 600 II IS my first big white before that I only had the 70-300 L or still have the 70-200 II IS.
I love this lens and I have no Problem to carry it around all day but a few month ago I got myself the 300 II IS.
300 was just missing and I don't want to get back to the 300 of the 70-300L zoom.
If you think you will get two lenses over the next few years start with the one you really need. In the end it just depends how small your objekts are and how close you can get. If I can get close I perfer switching to the 300 lens and when I'm to far away again I switch back.
if you got one you might get another one filling the gap inthe next years.
The best compromise of price weight and picture quality is the 500 II IS. 200-400 zoom lens is to heavy in my opinion for just 400 4.0 / 560 5.6.
Good luck and I hope you are happy with your choice and have some nice pictures to post in the future.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I just recently ordered the 400/5.6L and I would like to know if anyone here has used this lens in combo with 5D3 and how it works.

Thanks in advance