Wildlife lens setup

[icassell]

Birds or other wildlife? It makes a big difference. As a bird photographer, I lean towards the longest lens I can get (I started with the 400/5.6 and now have a 500/4 that usually has my 1.4x mounted) on a crop sensor camera. If you are after larger beasts, these might be too long. When I should larger animals at the Zoo, I use my 70-200.

 

[Yankeedog]

As noted, it really depends on (a) what kind(s) of wildlife you like to shoot and (b) where and under what conditions you expect to shoot.

I myself am mostly a wildlife & adventure tourist who likes to take good photos of the animals I see. I need a zoom telephoto with a wide range to take advantage of fleeting opportunities. I might be relatively wide taking shots of big bull elephant when suddenly a malachite kingfisher shows up and I want to zoom in as much as possible, stat.

What I shoot with must travel on my back, sometimes for fairly long hikes through difficult terrain. Furthermore, small aircraft flights into remote areas can have strict baggage weight limits. So I need to keep my total gear package fairly light.

Good IS is essential for what I do. Yes, you are usually using a higher shutter speed for wildlife to freeze subject motion but some types of wildlife can stand VERY still so subject motion is not always a concern. Some of my best shots have been of stationary subjects in dim light at low shutter speeds. Weight and bulk of a decent tripod is out of the question for me.

Right now, I rent my big zooms from LensRentals, and while I sometimes use others, lately I've mostly been renting the Canon 100-400 as it offers the best weight/bulk vs. IQ/versatility compromise I've been able to find. I usually have a couple of smaller lenses in my bag as well for wider stuff.

It's not an ideal lens -- I wish it focused faster and there are definitely times I wish I had another stop of aperture to work with. But I can't get either of these without giving up zoom range and/or adding weight, so the 100-400 is the best compromise for my purposes, with the 70-300L coming a close second. I do want to give the new Sigma lenses a try, and I'm very curious to see what Canon comes up with as a replacement for the 100-400. If the new 100-400 (or whatever it ends up being) is good enough, it might even induce me to buy rather than rent.

 

[AlanF]

No no no no no! Noooooo. IS is so important for wildlife. Many many great wildlife activity and sightings happen in low light and IS is paramount in those situations…. Not all wildlife photos are hunting cheetahs! And it gets worse in ever green forests like India and Costa Rica…

Nah, its helpful but really once you get down to the point that IS becomes necessary the movement of the bird will blur the shot. Its extremely difficult no matter what equipment you have to shoot in heavy forest. You really need to use a flash in those cases, both for illumination and to freeze motion.

+1 to Sanj. The little birds etc don't move perpetually but do have periods of keeping still, which is why you can get sharp shots at 1/15s etc. IS is very useful and expands the range of what is possible. I could not go back to non-IS now.

 

[stochasticmotions]

Right now my setup is normally the canon 1D IV with the sigma 120-300 and often one of the teleconverters for the longer stuff and I keep the Sony A6000 with the 70-200 for the shorter reach stuff. I can't wait to see the new sigma 150-600 sport to see how it compares to my current setup especially weight wise.

Funny how over the last couple of years I have pretty much replaced all my canon L lenses with sigma or tamron, (and lately with sony camera/lens options) with the exception of the 100L. 5 years before that there was almost nothing to compete with canon L.

 

[Omni Images]

I only have Canon lenses so the other options are out, full stop.
I use the 70-200F2.8IS right now, do have a 2xIII but am loathed to use it, for image quality hit and slow AF.

My pick was the 300F4.
Main reason is that I usually can get very close and the 300 can focus down to 1.8m .. the 70-200 to 1.4m I can get that close ... small birds will let you get that close, or just come up to you if you are still.
I pretty much always use a monopod, and yes they are always in shadow ... I am loath to use high ISO .. I want images I can print up and look good .... if an image is full of noise, then it's trashed really ...
So many times I use a flash so IS is not a big issue ...
The 400F5.6 would be my second choice, but min focus of 3.5m ... wow thats a long way away for many small birds, great for BIF and larger wildlife.
Extension tubes or a tele converter would help to get closer and fill the frame.

I don't see the point of lugging around all that glass in the 100-400, when I would also want it at 400 ..
So light weight prime for me would always win.

Of course if I had the money a 500F4 or 600F4 would be my pick for sure ... but these are not in the list to pick ... it's for us guys who maybe will never be able to afford a great white.

So the 300F4 for it's close focus ... slightly over the 400F5.6 ... I may get both.
But both are so old ... I am waiting for a new version of both .... !
Come on Canon pull your finger out.

 

[AlanF]

I don't see the point of lugging around all that glass in the 100-400, when I would also want it at 400 ..
So light weight prime for me would always win.

The 100-400 weighs only 110g more than the 400 prime, 1360 vs 1250g. The difference in weight is not that big a deal.

 

[Marsu42]

The 100-400 weighs only 110g more than the 400 prime, 1360 vs 1250g. The difference in weight is not that big a deal.

I don't know about the specific models, but it's not just the weight itself but the *distribution*.

For example the long 70-200L/2.8 creates much more torsion on the wrist than to be expected even considering the weight difference to the 70-300L. The more glass is on the front and the longer the lens, the worse this effect gets.

 

[2n10]

The 100-400 weighs only 110g more than the 400 prime, 1360 vs 1250g. The difference in weight is not that big a deal.

I don't know about the specific models, but it's not just the weight itself but the *distribution*.

For example the long 70-200L/2.8 creates much more torsion on the wrist than to be expected even considering the weight difference to the 70-300L. The more glass is on the front and the longer the lens, the worse this effect gets.

If the lens is properly supported there should be little to no torque tension to the wrist. The left hand should be supporting the lens at least half way to the end. Not only does this balance out the set up it makes IS even more efficient due to you not struggling to balance the lens and camera.

To the OP my only experience is the 100-400L. My choice was based on the fact is is a zoom. There will be times your subject is larger than will fit in the field of view of a fixed length lens.

 

[Deleted member 369279]

Hello,

I used the 7D with the canon 100-400. I had great results with this combo. It is best to use the 100-400 until 370-380mm at 400mm the IQ was not as good. Now I am using the 5dmk3 and the Tamron 150-600. It gives great results as well even at 600mm. As long as you are stable and close the aperture at f8,0. With that aperture the background is still blurred since you are at 600mm.

Of course if you have the cash get a canon 200-400 or a 300mm f2,8 or 400mm f2,8. I used the 300mm in Botswana, it is an amazing lens, event with a 1,4 converter. But personally I don't have the budget to buy this lens.

IS is very useful, I have found that most of the time my position to shoot wildlife is not very comfortable and not stable.

A canon 70-200 can be very useful as well for wider angle and low light photos.

Vincwat

 

[Marsu42]

If the lens is properly supported there should be little to no torque tension to the wrist. The left hand should be supporting the lens at least half way to the end. Not only does this balance out the set up it makes IS even more efficient due to you not struggling to balance the lens and camera.

Sure, but it depends on what "wildlife" you shoot. If you do it from the comfort of a zoo bench or a safari pickup, you have both hands available to hold the camera at all times. Nothing wrong with that, mind you.

It's just that with my wildlife, I often need a free hand to stand up, lie down, remove clutter from the view, prevent horses from eating my gear or balance myself in an awkward position like when standing in water. That's why I'm very happy with the right-hand only button layout of 60d/6d and a weight I can handhold with one hand (just supported by a wrist strap).

I sometimes see another photog shooting the same scenes, but with a 5d3+70-200L/2.8 - moving in a different way means shooting in a different way. Of course if you get a top notch bokehlicious shot with a heavy prime or 200-400L zoom, nobody cares how you did it. But when doing "dynamic" wildlife weight is something to think about.

 

[Drum]

I voted for the 150-600 I find the focus fast and quiet and the images are sharp. I had a 100-400 beforehand and that is a good lens too (I was using a 60d with the 100-400 and a 5d3 with the Tamzooka) The biggest difference between them is that the 100-400 will zoom to the focal length that you want far quicker than the tamron because of the push pull zoom (some people hate it- I never had a problem with it). Also the Tamron doesn't have a dedicated panning mode in IS whereas the 100-400 does. OK it sounds like i'm slamming the Tamron I'm not it is a very good lens for the money - the least expensive choice of your options. If you are going for a zoom over a prime lens, I would thoroughly research both lenses as both have pro's and con's

 

[Chisox2335]

I shoot a 70d with a canon 100-400 and a 6d with a tamron sp70-200 f2.8. The combo has served me well. It lets me cover most focal ranges I'm looking to shoot. With that said I will be trying out a 500mm f4 in Botswana in but I'm only renting it.

 

[Phil L]

I currently shoot wildlife action with the choice that seems to be getting the least amount of votes, the 300 f4 with a 1.4 extender.
I have tried and tested the 100-400 and the 400 5.6 and prefer this combo.
Virtually every image on my wildlife photography blog was taken using the 300 and 1.4 on a 7D and I have always found the AF to be fast and accurate and the IQ, even when shooting jpegs, is quite good in my view.

Here's my post for today:

http://phillanoue.com/2014/09/20/big-breakfast/

 

[JorritJ]

Call me crazy but I'm still hoping next month aside from a high MP body, the next 100-400 will be officially announced. If not, I'll have to get something else for next year's safari.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Hi,

I know this question may have been asked many times. However it is interesting to collect minds sometimes.
I am using an APS-C 700D body (why not 7DII in the future) and I am always wondering what will be my next investment or not.

I can't wait to see your opinion about this subject.

Regards

I voted for the tammy but the new Sigma (Sport or Contemporary?) might be better. Zoom lenses offer flexibility but the 400/5.6 is sharper than all others in the same range up to 400mm, once you add the 1.4x IQ degrades and fall below the tammy.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

God Dammit! I KNEW it was you!!

I love the shots you posted recently to these forums. It is brilliant all the way out to 800mm, isn't it? Sometimes I regret selling it, but we don't have anything like Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge back in the "old country."

How are you and how's that Sigmonster working out for you??? ;D ;D ;D

I also owned the beautiful 300-800mm f/5.6 EX HSM Sigma. This was during the time I've owned the 7D (going on 5 years now). It's fabulously sharp and great, again, for the flexibilty. But it's heavy and you need to be careful about stability at anything over 600mm. I got some BIF using it, but it wasn't easy. I sold it when we moved to Europe. I'm not sure I miss it. Not yet, at least. But then duck migration season isn't here yet.

Ha, you didn't happen to live in Portland, Oregon before moving to France, did you?

 

[Steve]

God Dammit! I KNEW it was you!!

I love the shots you posted recently to these forums. It is brilliant all the way out to 800mm, isn't it? Sometimes I regret selling it, but we don't have anything like Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge back in the "old country."

How are you and how's that Sigmonster working out for you??? ;D ;D ;D

Haha, the internet is a small world. Its really great, I love the extra working distance and I was surprised to find that the zoom range is extremely useful. Its a beast, though. I just got back from backpacking in the Washington mountains looking for goats and there was no way that was coming with me, heh. But yeah, tack sharp, responsive AF, and reach for days - I'm happy with it for sure.

Hopefully France is working out well for you! Its so awesome that you were able to make that move.

 

[Helios68]

Thanks for your answers !

Still waiting on first reviews of 7D II and then why not combining it to the 400mm f/5.6 +1.4x 8)

 

[Davebo]

If birds are your target…you cannot go wrong with the 400 f5.6. When I first got it I ,too, regretted that it didn't have IS.
Initially my keeper rate was very low and I was more than a little frustrated..…however being stubborn, I persevered and with practise this lens (w/7D) is a deadly combo. Once you really learn how wonderful this lens is ,you won't leave home without….I don't, and I also own a 500 f/4. If you are shooting things that move 'fast'…. IS may only serve to slow your AF.