best canon wildlife lens? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

11/23/2007 11:06:21 PM · #1

Looking to invest in a Lens to take wildlife picture with. Looking for some recomendations (would rather not get a prime but would consider) was looking at 100-400, are there any other good lenses I should take a look at?

thanks

PhotoDave

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/23/2007 11:36:41 PM · #2

the 100-400 would prob do you good, I know I have been quite satisfyed with my 70-300IS lens for wildlife but there has been the rare occasion I have wanted a little faster lens like the 70-200 F2.9 IS lens

-dave

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/23/2007 11:43:13 PM · #3

The only trouble with the 70-200 f/2.8 lens for shooting wildlife, is that it'll feel really short. The 100-400 will do better. But then ... the trouble with the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is that it's a pretty slow lens (aperture wise). So even though you're not interested in primes, you might still want to take a longer lens... for example, the Canon 400/2.8 lens. Throw a 1.4x extender on it during the day and you have 520/4.0. Then when the light goes down, take the extender off and you still have the full 400mm available at a nice 2.8 aperture.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/23/2007 11:49:27 PM · #4

100-400 would be my first choice, but

MattO has a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for sale here, and an aperture like that with a tele-extender might offer more flexibility.

11/23/2007 11:56:58 PM · #5

Originally posted by dwterry:

So even though you're not interested in primes, you might still want to take a longer lens... for example, the Canon 400/2.8 lens. Throw a 1.4x extender on it during the day and you have 520/4.0. Then when the light goes down, take the extender off and you still have the full 400mm available at a nice 2.8 aperture.

yeah I was looking at the 400 primes but the f/5.6 model doesn't seem to be that much greater then the 100-400 at 400mm and the 2.8 costs 6.5k on b&h and thats a little too pricey for my bank.

11/23/2007 11:57:16 PM · #6

Wow... I hadn't heard of that Sigma 120-300/2.8 lens. It looks interesting.

Now ... if you're going to consider Sigma, how about the one at the bottom of this article, the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 lens. Now *that* is some serious length for shooting wildlife! :-)

fotomann_forever

11/23/2007 11:58:19 PM · #7

Originally posted by scalvert:

100-400 would be my first choice, but MattO has a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for sale here, and an aperture like that with a tele-extender might offer more flexibility.

I would definitely agree.

11/23/2007 11:58:25 PM · #8

Originally posted by bradshaw:

the 2.8 costs 6.5k on b&h and thats a little too pricey for my bank.

Yeah, I don't think I'd buy it. But I'd definitely consider renting it. :-)

11/24/2007 12:04:01 AM · #9

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by bradshaw:
the 2.8 costs 6.5k on b&h and thats a little too pricey for my bank.

Yeah, I don't think I'd buy it. But I'd definitely consider renting it. :-)

I'd be to afraid of dropping it... sweaty hands

I'm not really a fan of sigma i'm always sorta diapointed with it in the end I'd rent one before i'd ever bought one...

fotomann_forever

11/24/2007 12:32:59 AM · #10

Originally posted by bradshaw:

I'm not really a fan of sigma i'm always sorta diapointed with it in the end I'd rent one before i'd ever bought one...

I'm sure MattO would give ya some 100% crops, if ya wanted to sneak a peak.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/24/2007 02:58:51 PM · #11

okay new idea how about a 70-200 f/2.8 IS witha 1.4x TC??? think that would be good for some wildlife pics? or would the 100-400 be a safer bet?

Message edited by author 2007-11-24 15:08:22.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/24/2007 03:14:21 PM · #12

280mm is probably not going to be long enough. You'd be better off with the 100-400 if you want to do wildlife only, and it would be cheaper too. Another option is the 300mm f/4L IS with 1.4x TC to make it a 420mm f/5.6L IS but that would end up being the same cost as a 100-400mm and also being faster at the 300mm end. If you've really got some cash, there's the 300mm f/2.8L IS for around $3900ish. Add the 1.4x or 2x to that and you'd be set.

sailracer_98

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/24/2007 03:33:43 PM · #13

Originally posted by bradshaw:

okay new idea how about a 70-200 f/2.8 IS witha 1.4x TC??? think that would be good for some wildlife pics? or would the 100-400 be a safer bet?

Go with the 100-400. I originally got the 70-200mm f/2.8 (non-IS) for bird and wildlife photography. While I got some great shots with it, it just didn't have enough reach and I felt like I was missing a lot of great shots. I got a 2X teleconverter and was not happy with the results. Too much loss of image quality and contrast, not to mention the hassle of dealing with the converter. I then got the 100-400 and am thrilled with it.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

11/24/2007 03:55:33 PM · #14

As others have mentioned, the 100-400mm would probably suit your needs best, but do consider the primes. The 300mm f/2.8L IS and it's bigger brother, the 400mm f/2.8L IS are insanely expensive, but oh so worth it. The 300mm being a lot less in cost, and add a Canon 1.4x to it and you have a fast 420mm lens with out a lot of the cots AND weight (the 400mm is a beast, especially hand-holding it for a while. A 30D + grip + 400mm = 12.5lbs. - ugh).

Here are a couple examples of just how sharp the 400mm is hand-held:

Then with a 1.4x converter hand-held (560mm worth of reach):

This is a good example of one of the shots above:
As shot, 30D, 400mm f/2.8L IS, ISO200, f/7.1, 1/1600, Program Mode,
Exposure bias -0.33, default values in DPP RAW conversion, resized and saved for web under 250k (97%)

Here is a 100% crop section of that shot, again straight out of the camera, saved for web at 97%:

The big Canon primes command a high price, but their quality is second to none.

Message edited by author 2007-11-24 16:21:46.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

11/24/2007 04:52:34 PM · #15

This one

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

11/24/2007 04:57:41 PM · #16

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

This one

Wow... impressive that it's an f/5.6 lens!

Interesting .. looking at a DOF calculator, it would have 1" DOF at it's closest focusing distance of 46 feet!

amandakk

Canon EOS-40D

11/24/2007 05:09:19 PM · #17

I have a question for some reason I cant write my own post so just wondering how , can anyone help me please. i am a dork sorry .

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

11/24/2007 05:19:37 PM · #18

Originally posted by amandakk:

I have a question for some reason I cant write my own post so just wondering how , can anyone help me please. i am a dork sorry .

go to the forum page under community select a topic and click new topic

Message edited by author 2007-11-24 17:22:25.

Jedusi

11/24/2007 05:21:24 PM · #19

Originally posted by amandakk:

I have a question for some reason I cant write my own post so just wondering how , can anyone help me please. i am a dork sorry .

Sorry - do you want to try asking that one again? I got a little confused. Are you saying you want to open a new thread ?

amandakk

Canon EOS-40D

11/24/2007 05:35:19 PM · #20

thanks I did figure it out , I get ahead of myself sometimes// thank you :]

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/24/2007 06:04:21 PM · #21

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

This one

Yours for what, something like $90000?