Zoom VS Prime Lenses for Nature Photography?

I currently own a 10D and a couple of primes. My next purchase is

going to be a telephoto lens of some kind for nature photography.

Since I do not own any telephoto lenses or zooms I am wondering which

would be the best for nature photography? I can see how zooms would

benefit because you do not have to constantly move and possibly scare

off the subject and they are very verstitle. But on the other hand

primes have excellent image quality. I am torn on which one would be

good for nature photography. I know that it is an individual choice

but I do not want to make the wrong one :)

 

I was originally looking at the zoom lenses, partically the Canon

100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. But during my

research today I stumbled up the Canon 300 f/4L IS and boy am I

impressed! It takes excellent pictures. I will be taking pictures of

wildlife from big to small. In may I will be going on vacation and

whale watching, which is what sparked this hunt for a telephoto lens.

Since I live next to a state park, live in a pretty wooded area and

have always had an interest in nature photography I figured this would

be a good time.

 

So, I guess my question is, do you own a zoom or prime telephoto lens

for you nature photography? And why did you choose that particular one?

 

Thanks,

Jennifer

The reasons to go with a prime are optical quality and aperture speed...

 

But a 300 f4 on a digital camera is equivalent to about a 450mm focal length on a 35mm camera. That requires a shutter speed of 1/500 just for still shots when not using a tripod or other support. And 1/500 and f4 calls for a lot of light...

Thanks for the answer :) I do have a tripod and monopod. But not sure if I could use the 300mm on a monopod. I was also looking at the 400mm f/5.6 but I can see it having problems in lower light.

 

On a good note, it seems that hubby is getting a job bonus and he said I can get two lenses! But he didn't say how much I can spend :) So now I can narrow it down to two. I was thinking about the canon 70-200 f/2.8L Is and the 300 f/4L Is with the 1.4x tele converter but I will have to do some more thinking.

 

Thanks,

Jennifer

Jennifer,

 

I would think you would be very pleased with either the 70-200 2.8L IS zoom or the 300 f/4.0L, both very high quality lenses. I've owned the 70-200 2.8L, non IS and considered it possibly the best CanonL lens. I've also owned the 300 2.8L and the 500mm 4.5L, both extremely sharp lenses. I especially liked the fact that I got very fast target acquisition with these lenses.

 

You can see some of these at www.billproudphotography.com/draft

 

cheers,

"today I stumbled up the Canon 300 f/4L IS"

 

If I owned Canon that would be the first lens I would purchase, plus a matching 1.4x teleconvertor. -Greg-

I have the Canon 75-300 F4 IS lens and it works beautifully for a range of subject sizes and distances, great for travel due to light weight and small size, and the IS really allows you to lower the shutter speed, Canon says equivalent of 3 stops, but I think even more if your are careful to brace the cam or put it against tree or other object. One problem is it is not compatable with the Canon tele-converters, or at least that is what Canon tells me after I emailed them with this question. I don't know why that is, and would like to know if anyone has used the 75-300 F4 IS lens with a tele-converter. From pure optical perspective, a prime can better correct for chromatic and spherical aberation, since it has fewer elements, but from practical perspective, it means one lens can serve many purposes and will be on the camera at the time you need it, and you may be less likely to miss the shot while changing lenses.

Hi Jennifer,

I have the 100-400L zoom lens, and 70-200 f/4 L lens.

I think (but of course is just my opinion) that 100-400 is very sharp and it's a very high quality lens in general. Probably a prime lens like 300 f/4 L will produce better images, but, for nature photography i think that versatility is important.

If you take pictures of nature in general, i think that best choice can be 100-400L.

Good luck

I use my 300 f/4L IS all the time hand held, and can get sharp pictures at 1/60th and

1/30th consistently.

Since you seem to be most interested in absolute sharpness, you should check out the Photozone web site, since he has tested most of the Canon lenses. BTW the 70-200 non-IS tests out as having much higher resolution than the IS version, but IS is indispensable if you plan on handholding--a tradeoff.

I made the same decision you are considering two months ago. My 75-300 IS was just not producing the quality of images I was looking for. It did work with a non-Canon teleconverter, but only manual focus, and I found the this was impossible for me with the 20D. Even when used on a tripod with a non-moving subject the resulting image was too contrasty to be used.

 

I too considered the 300 F4 L IS lens, but I decided to go with the 100-400 instead. I tested both in a shop side by side. The prime is slightly smaller and lighter, a consideration if you are hiking, but not really enough to sway the decision, I felt. I decided on the 100-400 because of its versatility (I can get away with carrying only two lenses in my backpack), and because of the longer reach. My better half pointed out that if I was a little unhappy with the reach of the 75-300, I should go for longer, not the same length.

 

I used the 100-400 on a recent trip to Hawaii and I am delighted with my images. I am new to nature photography, and birds in particular, but this lens has made a big difference.

 

Hope this is useful,

 

Louise Heusinkveld

<p>I have owned the 300/4L IS USM for a few years. It's a very fine lens, and if it suits your focal length need, it will be an excellent choice. It's sharp, even wide open, and gives nice shallow DOF with good background blur. It's not a lightweight, but I find it comfortable enough for handheld use. It works very well on a monopod; the combination of IS and a monopod can get you sharp images at surprisingly low shutter speeds, as long as your subject isn't moving. Most (but not all) of the pictures on the first half of <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/animals/" target="_blank">this page</a> were taken with this lens, sometimes with the 1.4x II teleconverter, on a 20D at the Toronto Zoo; I've left the EXIF tags in the photos so you can check if you like. It also takes nice <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/friends_and_family/1563Dee.jpg" target="_blank">portraits</a> if you have enough working distance.</p>

 

<p>That said, I'm not keeping the 300/4. It was great on a film body, but with the cropping factor on my 20D, it's now too long too often. But I'm not shooting in the wild; most of the animal photos I take are in zoos, so there's not a lot of distance between me and the animal. I've bought a 70-200/2.8L IS USM to replace it. I like the convenience of zooms. If Canon had a 100-300/4L IS USM, I may well have bought that instead of the 70-200, but they don't, and when I tested the 100-400 before buying the 300/4, I didn't like its mechanics (but that's a personal preference, so do try it out yourself before deciding).</p>

You don't say what you other lenses are it would be nice to know how big of a jump the 300mm would be if you go that route.

Sorry that I wasn't more clear. What I mean by "nature viewing" was photographing wildlife. I will be using this lens for wild animals and zoo animals. The longest lens that I own right now is the Canon 100mm macro.

 

Thanks for everyone's replies :)

 

Jennifer

I use the 80-200mm focal length a lot for my nature widlife photography and it is

probably my most-used lens for that type of work, but I saw your comment about the

300mm and wanted to add my 2-cents worth. I also own the 300mm and use it a lot, but

find it's value more as a tele-macro than a real wildlife lens, even when on a DSLR. I shoot

mostly smaller critters, so that's fine for my needs but if you're considering small birds or

distant mammals, then I think you might be disppointed with a 420mm focal length. I

know that the times I have used my 300mm, even with a 1.4 converter, to try and get a

bird image or some distant creature, I end up saying to myself, "Man, I really could have

used a 400mm or 500mm for that".

 

Of course, that's just what works for me. You might consider renting a long prime and

trying it out for a weekend. I borrowed a 400mm f3.5 once and while it did what I wanted

it to do, the tripod and head I owned at the time were a different story, so there would

have been that invest to factor in, too, should I have decided that it was a focal length I

could use a lot.

 

My current small wildlife kit consists of a 17-35mm/ fast 50mm/ 80-200mm/ 300mm

f4.0 + 1.4 converter and a few tubes. That solves most issues for my style of work. If I

were shooting distant mammals and birds, the 300mm would get replaced with a 500mm

f4.0. Good luck, whichever way you go.<div></div>

Jennifer,

 

I use the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 IS for bird photography. I think it is pretty sharp and I like the versatility of a zoom. That said, if 400mm isn't long enough, this lens can't use a teleconverter unless you go to manual focus. You can, however, use a 2x TC with the 300mm f/4 that you are looking at.

Jennifer: the 100-400 is indeed very versatile and pretty sharp (very sharp at the short

end of the zoom range). It's one of my favorite landscape lenses. But for most mammals

and birds, you'll be using it at 400 mm nearly all the time (unless you are unusually good

at getting quite close to wildlife). And unfortunately, 400 mm is the least sharp end of

the 100-400's zoom range, at least with my example.

 

For a lens of roughly 400mm, there is considerable argument on this thread, the EOS

thread, and elsewhere, but I think the balance of opinion is that the 300/4 + 1.4X

(=420/5.6) is a bit better than the 100-400. And there is a pretty good consensus

(although not universal agreement) that either of these are better than the 70-200/2.8 +

2X converter. So I guess I'd recommend that if you are MAINLY interested in animal

photography, go with the 300+1.4X (those two items will cost about what the 100-400

costs, and substantially less than the 70-200 IS + 2X). The 300/4 also has the advantage

of very close focus, making it quite useful for big insects (butterflies, dragonflies, etc.).

 

Canon also makes a 400/5.6 lens that many users like (especially for photographing flying

birds), but it is not an IS lens and doesn't focus very close -- both of which are big

disadvantages for many kinds of nature photography.

 

Disclaimer: I have a 100-400, but not the 300/4 IS, 70-200 IS, or 400/5.6. I've seen

results from all those lenses, however. Any can provide excellent images when used

skillfully.

What focal length is needed for the zoo? I just found the lens Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and now I am confused about which lens to get. Decisions decisions......

 

Thanks for all the replies :)

 

Jennifer

<I>I just found the lens Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM and now I am confused

about which lens to get. Decisions decisions......</i><P>

 

I don't have that lens but it's almost a given that a hyperzoom (wideangle to tele) is not

going to be as good optically as a more moderate-range telezoom, or a prime lens.

Typically, such zooms are at their worst at the long end of the zoom range, where you will

probably want to be for most of your wildlife images.<P>

 

As for photos of zoo animals, the most useful focal length will be highly dependant on

how the animals are housed (cages/enclosures), how close you can get, whether you want

to do portraits (head only), etc. etc. FWIW, I almost always use focal lengths > 300 mm

when photographing zoo animals. Long focal lengths help isolate the subject in a shallow

depth of field and can 'blur out' distracting backgrounds. Sometimes you can even shoot

through netting, and the netting will be blurred to invisibility while the subject remains

sharp. This is much harder with a short focal length.<P>

Jennifer,

 

I would really advise you to consider the older 300mm f4 non IS Canon lens -- it will save you $$ and is both sharper and has more contrast wide open than the IS version. Either one will blow the 100-400mm EF-L IS out of the water at 300mm and at 400mm using the 1.4X converter.

 

The 70-200 f2.8IS is a great lens but there is a less expensive alternative -- the 70-200 f4.0 EF-L. At about 1/3 the price of the f2.8 lens you will find that it is as sharp as a tack and lighter too (often a consideration!!!!).

 

IS at 300mm and beyond is less useful than you might think as subject motion becomes a real issue there -- it is helpful, no doubt, to have the IS but you are just beginning so I would opt to use a non IS lens....

 

Grover Larkins<div></div>