Wildlife lens setup

[Helios68]

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

 

[quod]

Of the lenses in the options you've presented, I have shot the 100-400 and 400/5.6. The more versatile of the two is the 100-400. The sharper of the two is the 400/5.6. Both have degradation of image quality (sharpness, contrast) when used with the 1.4x extender (as does my 500/4 version 1), but not to the point that I would not use one in a pinch. The 400/5.6 has much snappier AF, which is good if you are doing action shots. The image stabilization on the 100-400 is not very good (1.5 to 2 stops), but the 400 has no image stabilization. The 400 is light and has the built-in sliding hood, and to me is the more fun of the two to shoot. The bokeh of the 100-400 is pretty weird when you have a busy background. Since I shoot mostly at max focal length, I would choose the 400/5.6, but if I needed more flexibility, I would probably choose the 70-200 + 400/5.6 combo over the 100-400.

 

[AlanF]

You are spoiled for choice.

If you sit in a hide (blind) and use a tripod and have lots and lots of money, the 600mm f/4 II or the 500mm II are simply incredible. The I series are nearly as good, much cheaper but heavier.

If you don't mind less reach but more flexibility and be able to hand hold, and also have lots of money, the 300mm f/2.8 II plus 1.4 and 2xTCs or as seems likely the brand new 400mm DO II plus TCs are outstanding. (I don't get tired walking with and holding the 300mm f/2.8 II). The series I 300/2.8 is not as good with the 2xTC but still amazing native or with the 1.4xTC.

If you have much less money I would recommend the Tamron 150-600mm which is incredible value and as good as the 100-400mm L where they overlap and has the extra reach and better IS (I am very pleased with mine). The 100-400mm L is a very good lens and small, but you must check it out first as there are some bad ones out there. The new Sigma 150-600s are as yet untested, and the old 150-500 is not good at 500mm. The 400mm f/5.6L is a nice lens, very sharp and fast focussing but you are limited in its use as it doesn't have IS. The 300mm f/4 IS is very sharp but it is a bit short and it is not as sharp with the 1.4xTC as the 400mm native, but again it is very good value and has IS.

I started with the 400mm f/5.6 L, loved it, but changed to the 100-400 L as it was more useful to me with its IS and zoom, then did the 300mm f/2.8 II, which is my favourite, and now use the Tamron for travel as it is very good and more portable.

 

[FEBS]

Not that easy to choose from. Had the same problem a few months ago. Concerning the big primes, you will miss the flexibility with those lenses. If you want to add a extender then every time you have the possibility that dust enters the camera. I would not choose them. Beside your camera can't focus automaticaaly with the 400/5.6 with 1.4 extender.

Concerning the zooms. I'm a hard believer in Canon lenses. Nevertheless, immediate after the press release of the Tamron 150-600 I was interested in that lens. For an affordable budget, this lens looks really great. Know however that quality will drop after the 500mm. Sigma, which is annouced during the last days, seems to be a real challenger, for sure the sport edition. However, keep in mind that Canon has now official annouced that there will be a successor for the 100-400. As you might have seen here on CR, this 100-400 also has a patent in DO technology, and if you look to the new 400DO, then Canon has really done a good job with that DO technology. So, if not directly needed (Tamron has a lot of delivery problems to follow the market request and Sigma is not yet available) I would closely look what Canon will do in this area in the comming months. They need to do something, otherwise Tamron and Sigma will split up the demand from Canon users in this area.

 

[AlanF]

The Tamron 150-600mm is easily sharp enough at 600mm - if it wasn't I would always use the 300mm II + 2xTC. I post on a bird site that is an absolute stickler for sharpness. They used to reject loads of my efforts with the 100-400mm for insufficient sharpness but my latest ones at 600mm with the Tamron are invariably accepted and several getting on to the special lists.

 

[candc]

the tamron is a great lens. there are users who own it as well as some of the much more expensive supertele primes. they use the tamron much of the time because of its versatility, light weight, and good image quality.

 

[Marsu42]

Other: 70-300L (+1.4x Kenko possibility).

The 70-300L has ok iq and bokeh, as we know the difference of 100mm in the tele range is deminishing, and lugging around less weight, bulk (and price) can be a nice thing.

Last not least: I dispute the assumption that wildlife means tele, I shoot wildlife with my 17-40L or 100L all the time.

 

[lol]

It really depends on what you're shooting. I own and primarily use the 100-400L. It is sharp enough through the range. It could have better IS, although for moving subjects that doesn't matter anyway. You will need faster shutter speeds to reduce motion blur unless that is what you're going for e.g. to give a sense of motion. While the push-pull zoom generates a lot of love-hate on forums, in practice I find it far better than the twist zooms e.g. of my 70-300L if you need to zoom quickly and accurately.

For flexibility, unless you know you only need one focal length, then I'd pick a zoom. Messing around with switching extenders is not fun in the field.

While I haven't used the Tamron, it has one major flow which might not affect everyone. The zoom ring works in a backwards direction compared to Canon.

Sigma generally do use the Canon zoom direction on their higher end lenses, so if the Tamron is a consideration, maybe waiting for the availability of the Sigma lenses is also a consideration.

The ongoing tale of the 100-400L replacement I personally wouldn't wait for. It's one thing for them to say they're thinking about it, but without some more definite confirmation of timescales you could be waiting a very long time.

 

[tomscott]

I would disagree with the use without IS. When you are shooting wildlife you are probably shooting fast enough to make IS void.

70-300mm L is a really nice lens. The 400 F5.6 is probably the best bang for buck. More important is the understanding of the animal you are shooting.

 

[the blackfox]

i,m waiting with baited breath on the sigma ,also hoping that the lower weight/priced C model will come in as a serious contender to the tamron .
at the moment with a 1D body i shoot with the 400 f5.6 and 1.4 tc and having micro adjusted both the bare and tc mounted versions find them a super combo .
reading between the lines of this years historic announcements also suggests that canon and sigma may well have been co-operating on development of the new lenses i.e the year of the lens etc ,added to that is the fact that the new sigma will a/f at f8 with there new 1.4tc and the 7dmkii will also a/f at f8 makes it seem like the combo to go for next year .
time ,money and circumstances will prevail on this but it looks like an exciting few months ahead

 

[Steve]

Of the lenses listed, I would go with the 400 5.6 or the Tammy. Maybe check out the Sigma 150-600 once that starts shipping and getting reviewed. The 400 is great for beginners and really gets you to focus on fundamentals to get shots. Its light enough that it isn't a burden to hike with and handhold. Its just enough reach to force you to learn how to approach. I really liked my time with this lens. The Tammy and, I would assume, the Sigma would both be pretty great I think, but I've not used them. I think if they'd have been around when I was starting out I would have loved to have that kind of cheap reach.

I post on a bird site that is an absolute stickler for sharpness.

What site is this? I'd like to see some moderated/judged wildlife shots

 

[AlanF]

Of the lenses listed, I would go with the 400 5.6 or the Tammy. Maybe check out the Sigma 150-600 once that starts shipping and getting reviewed. The 400 is great for beginners and really gets you to focus on fundamentals to get shots. Its light enough that it isn't a burden to hike with and handhold. Its just enough reach to force you to learn how to approach. I really liked my time with this lens. The Tammy and, I would assume, the Sigma would both be pretty great I think, but I've not used them. I think if they'd have been around when I was starting out I would have loved to have that kind of cheap reach.

I post on a bird site that is an absolute stickler for sharpness.

What site is this? I'd like to see some moderated/judged wildlife shots

Birdpix.nl

The mods are so tough! But, I learned a lot from the rejections and the odd criticism from the mainly Dutch members.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

My current WL setup: Canon 7D + 100-400L

In fact, I've owned the 100-400 the 40D first hit the market and it's always worked well. Even with BIF.

I've used fixed and shorter focal length optics, but the 100-400 is nice for it's flexibility. I can hand hold it.

Also, the IS, for as old as it is, is very useful. For a short time I had a XTi (while awaiting the 50D) and made this shot. It's sharp as sharp can be and the shutter speed is down around 1/15th second. Seriously.

Crow - beauty expressed in feathers by Christopher Mark Perez, on Flickr

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.

 

[nc0b]

I only own Canon lenses that would work for wildlife, so I cannot comment on the other brands. I live in the country and see wildlife on most any 2 mile walk. Started using my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, with or without 1.4X or 2X III TCs. The 2X TC worked for antelope but not for BIF. First added the 400mm f/5.6, which is best all around choice for me with either my 6D or 60D. Recently picked up a mint 300mm f/4 IS, and got some really nice antelope shots with a 5D Classic. Just sold the 2X III since I no longer used it after buying the primes. Any of these lenses are fine for hiking over several miles and hand holdable. Doubt I will ever own a really expensive "big white" since I don't want to hike with something that heavy, don't use a tripod and have never been in a blind. While I certainly like IS, i can push the ISO up as needed with the 6D to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or higher when using the 400 5.6. For BIF I don't think the lack of IS is an issue.

 

[Steve]

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?

 

[sanj]

I would disagree with the use without IS. When you are shooting wildlife you are probably shooting fast enough to make IS void.

70-300mm L is a really nice lens. The 400 F5.6 is probably the best bang for buck. More important is the understanding of the animal you are shooting.

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…

 

[mackguyver]

I would disagree with the use without IS. When you are shooting wildlife you are probably shooting fast enough to make IS void.

70-300mm L is a really nice lens. The 400 F5.6 is probably the best bang for buck. More important is the understanding of the animal you are shooting.

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…

IS is great and as sanj points out, many shots are taken well below 1/focal length, but IS isn't necessary. I made do with the 400 f/5.6 for many years. I had to use a tripod in low light, well most light, but it's a great lens. Tough, top notch USM autofocus, light, sharp and with great color and contrast. Take a look at the sample thread to see lots of examples, including a few of mine.

 

[Steve]

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.

 

[Bob Howland]

Which Sigma lens are you talking about? Both the C and the S are DG OS HSM. Also, if there are no images from either of those lenses, how are we supposed to have a valid opinion about them?

 

[NancyP]

Oh, great - a recommendation for a good curated European bird photography site! I haven't been to Europe, I know nothing about the bird species, this must be a good site to learn from.

I bought my birding set-up 3 years ago - EF 400mm f/5.6L no-IS, used on my 60D. I also had (and have) a 70-200 f/4 L IS and a 1.4x TC II, so there's some broad focal length coverage. I might have gone for the 100-400 if I didn't have the 70-200 already. The 400 was therefore strictly aimed at bird photography, where maximum possible focal length is ideal. I wanted to do bird-in-flight photography, and the 400 f/5.6 was highly recommended for that due to fast AF and feather-light weight of 1.25 kg. I was willing to accept the steep learning curve of shooting without IS. I had thought that IS would be completely useless for fast shutter speeds, but it turns out that even shooting at 1/2000 and higher requires excellent (learnable with a little practice) panning skills to get a tack-sharp BIF. I don't know if IS would have helped me get good shots earlier on. For stationary bird shots, I developed some better lens hand holding technique, and started using a monopod for "stake-out" shots.

If I were to start now, particularly without a pre-existing 70-200 f/4L IS, I would definitely be looking at the Tamron 150-600 (1.95 kg), and maybe the upcoming Sigma Sport (2.86 kg) or Contemporary (less than 2.8 kg, more than 1.9 kg, I presume - weight not shown at B and H page). However, I love my featherweight "toy lens" - it is so well balanced, it is a pleasure to use, and I can hike all day without it feeling heavy. I have put in the sweat learning this no-IS lens, so I feel attached to it. Next purchase will likely be the 7D2 body. My attitude about ISO is, push it as high as you need to, and don't worry about noise. Better noisy than motion blurred.