Telephoto/zoom lens

[james_gilchrist1]

<p>I have a Cannon EOS 400D and wish to get better close-up images of wildlife, especially birds. On a safari I

found that my current "all purpose" Sigma 18-200mm lens did not really quite fit the bill. I would like to travel again wi

th the most powerful lens (possibly with image stabilization) I could reasonably expect to hold without a supp

ort. I would <em>like</em> a lens with a zoom facility too but recognise this may be asking too much. Advice m

[jim_mcdonald3]

<p>James, please give us an idea of budget and likely shooting distance. If the sky <em>really</em> is the limit, I'm licking my lips - but only virtually of course.</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>The 100-400L IS is the obvious choice. At 3 lbs it can be hand-held, although holding it all day is tiring. I hand-hold it shooting flying birds or at places that won't allow mono-pods or tripods.</p>

<p>I suppose a monster like the 500 f4 at 8+ lbs could be hand-held by a strong person. </p>

[morten_lohmann]

<blockquote>

<p> I would like to travel again wi th the most powerful lens (possibly with image stabilization) I could reasonably expect to hold without a support</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What you can or cannot shoot handheld, is quite difficult for us to guess. Some are supremely good at hand holding large telephotos and others need IS just to keep a 50mm. still.<br>

If you don't know what your current limit is, you should try out different lenses to find out.</p>

<p>That being said, the 500mm 4L IS II would be a good choice. A 1.4 or 2.0 extender would give you a bit more reach, and (sort of) compensate for the lack of zoom, since they are easier to carry than 2 extra lenses.</p>

<p>If zoom is important to you, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS might be the lens for you. </p>

<p>But as Jim said, it will be easier to give you useful advise if we know your budget.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>The 100-400 is a reasonable length zoom that doesn't cost the earth, the 300/4 is also worth thinking about. If cost isn't a problem, the 600/4 Mk2 is about to be put on the market with a price tag of around 11k GBP.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>The 100-400mm is your choice if you really want a zoom, however I opted for the 400mm f/5.6L prime since I would hae the zoom pegged at 400mm 99.9% of the time anyways for birds, and the prime will yield better results with a 1.4x teleconverter. The drawback...no IS. The 300mm f/4L IS + converter would be a choice too. Keep in mind, a 1.4x teleconverter on either 400mm (zoom or prime) won't have AF capability unless you use a 1 series body.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As they, especially Morten, say.</p>

<p>Individual differences in ability to hold a long lens are massive.</p>

<p>Practice helps, but something like a <strong>monopod</strong> is a half-way step between the convenience of hand-held work and the solidity of a <em>good</em> tripod. Flimsy tripods are not worth the trouble as a rule once you get up there in focal length.</p>

<p>Someday, I'll get the EF 100-400 IS lens, or its replacement, I think, but it has a decent reputation. There is a new EF 200-400mm f/4 L zoom with a built-in tele-extender ( see http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20030810-264.html ), but it may well strain even the "sky's the limit" price.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I'm happy with my <strong><a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/canon-lens-reviews/">Canon 100-400L. ( my review)</a></strong></p>

[matthijs]

Sigma of course has zooms that go to 500mm.

 

By the way, in what way does your 18-200 disappoint? Aperture, length, sharpness?

[martin-s]

<p>James,<br>

you might also be interested in what’s been discussed in the <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00YIUE">Wildlife lens</a> thread.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I'm happy with my 300 f4 IS, and sometimes include the 1.4x. If you need zoom go with the 100-400 as mentioned.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>It'll be late this year, but the new EF 200-400mm f/4L IS Extender 1.4x might be worth waiting for. Basically, it'll be a 200-560mm at f/4 and f/5.6, including IS and a lighter weight. Hopefully the IQ will be up to Canon's top standard.<br>

I own the 500/f4 and the 70-200/f4 and I'm anxiously awaiting the 200-400mm. That could be a real game changer. I now do 90+% of my wildlife shooting with the 500mm, but the 200-400mm might religate it to 20-30%, when I "need" 700mm or more, using TCs.</p>

[AlRohrer]

<p>Another consideration is the recently released 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. I've only had mine a little over a week but the focus and IS are awesome, hand holdable at shutter speeds well below what I've ever been able to achieve before. Not cheap though, costs close to what 100-400 costs. It's compact, shorter than most of the other telephotos, but not cheaply made, feels rock solid in your hand and on the camera.<br>

The 100-400 is blessed by many and cursed by some. I have no real experience with it but my brother has one and has had it for many years and it is tack sharp and the IS works good. Only drawback I see to the 100-400 is it is an older design but if it is what I wanted, I wouldn't let that bother me.<br>

I also have the older Canon 300 f/4L (w/o IS) and while you can't hand hold it at lower shutter speeds, it is super sharp.<br>

Al Rohrer</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>100-400L is the one to get, then make sure that the 400D and the 100-400L are focussing correctly. The 400D has no MA so if you find it Front/Back focussing both will need a trip to Canon for calibration. The 100-400 takes a bit of learning, but it's useless if the focus is not spot on.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>What Neill says about the 100-400mm is true of any long lens. It must focus accurately and you must know how to use it.</p>