need recommendations on telephoto lens

[howard b. schwartz]

<p>i own a canon 5d mark II. i want to purchase a long lens. i need some recommendations. i would prefer canon and prime, but others will do as well. the lens should be at least 200 mm or longer. it is to be used for outdoor wildlife, such as birds in flight and zoo shots. i will be using a tripod when able. also, IS would be helpful as would an "L" lens. sigma or others can also be recommended. thanks.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>For your uses there are a few options. There is the 100-400 LIS and then the various primes 200, 300, 400 etc. All big money I'm afraid. The 400 5.6 L isn't IS (yet). Sigma make a variety of 1xx-500 zooms but these all have some attribute, such as slower AF or slightly worse Image Quality, that's not as good as Canon, but they are much less costly. Zoo shots and birds in flight are different animals, so to cover these applications two lenses may be needed. For the zoo, where distances vary the 100-400 would be the best lens. For outdoor wildlife and birds in flight you will need more focal length and good focussing. Start with the 500 LIS and maybe think about the 600 LIS for these.<br>

I think this thread may raise several issues about suitable lenses and the percieved benefits and disadvantages of the Full Frame sensors for this work. I await others contributions with interest!<br>

Neill</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Long, fast lens generally = big.</p>

<p>300f2.8/400f2.8/500f4/600f4. Of the Canon range the 300 and 500 are lightest, other two heavier with the 600 probably heaviest.</p>

<p>Best all-rounder? In my opinion from owning both 300f2.8 and 500 f4, and using others 400f2.8 and 600 f4, is the 300f2.8 with 1.4 and 2x converters - giving you a stunningly sharp 300, razor sharp 420, and pretty sharp 600.</p>

<p>Its advantage is portability - you can carry it all day (not so with the others), you can easily hand hold it if needed (not so with the others - note I said 'easily' - others will disagree here, others definition of easily will vary!). Its unbelievably sharp. As it is an f2.8 its AF is extremely fast.</p>

<p>You will get many differing opinions - mines is but one! But bottom line is the lens you have with you, even if only a 300 and 2x, is sharper than the 600 prime thats at home in the cupboard because its too heavy!</p>

<p> </p>

[geoffs1]

<p>I've shot quite a bit with the 100-400mm, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, and 500mm f/4 (unfortunatly I only own the first one...).</p>

<p>I pretty much echo John's comments. The 300mm is an outstanding lens and remarkably light and manageable. The 500mm is my next choice; IMO still manageable. The 400mm is a great lens, but it is distinctly in the unmanageable category. I can hand-hold the 300 and 500 all day, but the 400 is just too heavy.</p>

<p>The 100-400mm is a remarkable lens. Quite sharp, and (realtively) cheap.</p>

<p>Brand-X lenses: the Sigma 50-500mm is well regarded (although it doesn't have IS). The new Sigma 150-500mm OS is also pretty well reviewed. Both are reasonable alternatives to the 100-400mm.</p>

[eric_washburn]

<p>Arthur Morris, recognized as a tremendous bird photographer and teacher, is increasingly using Canon's new 800/5.6--less cumbersome than the 600/4 but even more expensive. For birds in flight, he is enthusiastic about the 400/4.0, whose diffractive optics design makes it even more handholdable (if somewhat less in overall image quality) than the highly-regarded 300/2.8. As noted above, these are overkill for most zoo shots, where either the 100-400 or the 70-200 (various versions, all of which can be used with the teleconverters) will provide some needed versatility; however, since your camera is full frame (Morris, who uses a variety of Canon bodies, appreciates the 50D's light weight and its 1.6 multiplier for wildlife), you will probably find the 70-200, even with TCs, ultimately inadequate for non-zoo shots, and the 100-400 will lose autofocus with any TC on your camera.</p>

[zml]

<p>Good answers: birds in flight, wildlife, zoo all require different focal lengths. The EF 100-400 zoom covers most of it but for smaller birds and BIF you might need a 600 + 1.4 extender. Also, keep in mind that most super-tele lenses have a very long minimum focusing distance (the 600/4 - 18 feet) which may or may not matter to you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 600 <em>probably heaviest.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>400/2.8 L IS ISi and the 600/4 L IS both weight in at 12 lbs but the 400 is quite a bit smaller and therefore easier to transport, but not any easier to handhold, which to me is practically impossible for more than one or two shots: 1D3 + 400/2.8 adds up to almost 15 lbs.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I love the pics I get with the 100-400 L IS (on my 50D). It is extremely sharp and relatively easy to carry on a zoo outing. By coincidence, I just did the zoo outing today. I think it is my favorite lens when considering the various subject distances encountered at most zoos. I've heard some say they don't care for the push/pull zoom on this lens, but after a few times of use, it feels very natural. It has a friction control that allows you to set how hard/easy the zoom moves in and out.</p>

<p>I use a very lightweight monopod (Manfrotto 676B with a 486RC2 ball head) to take the load off when I stop for a pic. It helps a lot and helps with IQ as well. For small birds, I think the 400 is probably the minimum focal length needed.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Here's a pic at 400mm on the 100-400. Of course it loses a lot of image quality because of resizing to 700 pixel width, but here is a typical small bird shot from today. This is not a cropped image, it's full size, just downsized here.</p><div></div>

[ujwal]

Canon 300mm F2.8 L IS

 

also a 1.4x converer and 2xconverter (maybe)

[robert_edelman1]

<p>Canon's 300 mm f4 L IS is about $1200 new, a lot less than the 300 mm f2.8 L. A teleconveter would not work well with the f4 aperture. But with the resolution of the 5D mkII, you might be about to crop (digital zoom). You might want to rent a lens or two to try them out. Lensrentals.com is a good place to rent. </p>

[2008.]

<p>I would say the 300mm f4 plus a 1.4 extender but not using the tripod as you have a IS on the lens ! and i use a canon 5d 12 mp camera so i also crop the image which works and on the 21 mp 5d ll it will be better still ,hand holding the 300mm is not difficult and i have a bad right hand owing to a stroke ! some photographers use 400 mm but it has not got a IS! on it ! cheers.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>For birds in flight and bird shots in general you are always wishing for extra length and faster lenses. Extra length because you end up finding that 95% of the time you won't be as close as you had hoped (unless you spend your time in a blind) and the speed because you can use extenders without losing autofocus. These led me to the 300 2.8 and 500 4.0. If I had to survive with only one the 300 2.8 could do, as it is much easier to hand hold and hike with, and has the speed to work well with a 2x. </p>

<p>The next choice down for many people is the 100-400.</p>

<p>Birdforum.net has a Canon section, you can see many, many shots and opinions of these lenses, if you have never been there you will be able to read hours on this subject! You'll see the same choices over and over, 500 4.0, 400 DO, 300 2.8, 100-400. Everyone is trying to make the same decision on the tradeoffs of hand-holdability, weight, price, image quality, reach. </p>

[howard b. schwartz]

<p>i think for the versatility, i am going with the canon 100-400 is L lens. any experience with the 1.4x converter on this lens. thanks again.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"it is to be used for outdoor wildlife, such as birds in flight and zoo shots."</em></strong><br>

On a 5DMkii = EF 70 to 200F2.8L IS + EF 300F2.8L IS + x1.4Mkii + x2.0Mkii<br>

<br>

***<br>

<br>

<strong><em>"any experience with the 1.4x converter on this lens, (EF100-400F4.5 to F5.6L IS) "</em></strong><br>

<br>

No, but experience with the lens. <br>

It maxes at F5 pretty quickly, and F5.6 for more than most of the range, as I recall. I would not like a x1.4 on it. I am biased: as I am not keen on the lens at all, after about 300mm, <em>at the maximum aperture,</em> and that is the reason I did not buy it. <br>

I think you should calculate if, and how often, you might need F8 (i.e. with the teleconverter attached).<br>

On a 5DMkii I think you will only get centre pouint AF, that may or may not be a concern.<br>

WW</p>

[mrossi]

<p>The 100-400L 4.5/5.6 is excellent value, a great lens and very manageable size. I don't like using a 1.4x on it unless the subject is very still.</p>

<p>Also take a look at the Sigma 150-500, I'm pretty shocked to say but I haven't taken my 100-400 out of the case since I got the Sigma, and I'm a pretty big Canon L fan :)</p>

<p> </p>