Help me choose my next wildlife lens please

[tom_madigan]

<p>Please help with choosing my next lens set up <img title="Smilie" src="http://forums.photographyreview.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" /><br /> <br /> Hi Everyone!<br /> <br /> I was just wondering if i could get some advice on what my next wildlife/bird watching lens/setup should be. I'm currently toying with three options in my head for my Canon 7D.<br /> <br /> Option 1. A Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM with a 2x EF Extender III. Total Cost = $1,600<br /> <br /> My Views,<br /> <br /> Pros: I like the thought of having a more everyday lens like 70-200mm as it is alot lighter and portable than the 100-400mm.<br /> <br /> Cons: I need the reach to 400mm for safari and bird watching but im not 100% sure what i have to sacrifice by adding on a x2 teleconverter. (AF and a F Stop)<br /> <br /> Option 2. A Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5- 5.6L IS USM. Total Cost = $ 1450<br /> <br /> My Views,<br /> <br /> Pros: Its got the reach i need with out any sacrifice to sharpness!<br /> <br /> Cons: Its Massive heavy and I'm not sure if i want to carry that on 4 day treks let alone through an airport and on the plane!,Weird push pool zoom (dust magnet)<br /> <br /> Option 3. Canon A EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM with a 1.4x EF Extender III. Total Cost = $1750<br /> <br /> My Views,<br /> <br /> Pros: I assume by adding a x1.4 TC instead of a x2 i sacrifice a lot less<br /> <br /> Cons: Its also Quite a big lens, and i heard its not great in low light<br /> <br /> Whats Important For Me.<br /> <br /> I do most of my shooting early early morning and late afternoon, so lighting is more often than not generally quite low.<br /> I dont want it to be to heavy and cumbersome unless its the best option by far.<br /> I go to Africa every year for safari (so that will be one of the main purposes of this lens)<br /> <br /> Also<br /> <br /> If any one has any of these setups if you could show me some pictures especially the two setups with teleconverters at full zoom that would<br /> be so helpful.<br /> <br /> Thank youall so much in advance.<br /> <br /> Cheers</p>

[danield]

Tom, I'm afraid I have bad news for

you. Your only option is the 100-400

lens. The other two will not autofocus

on your camera (the TC's create f/8

equivalents).

 

Look on the bright side - the 100-400 is

optically the best zoom lens a mortal

can afford in that range.

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Not just AF would be a victim of the TC route. Unless you expect all your shooting to be from a rock solid tripod and of non-moving subjects, either TC on either of both shorter zooms sacrifice some sharpness compared to the 100-400 at pixel peeping level, due to combined effects of the add-on optical magnification and smaller wide open apertures. Because of the latter you'll have to make more compromises between slower shutter speeds or shooting closer to wide open more often. Plus, the TCs will also magnify any chromatic aberration that occurs.</p>

<p>But take heart, 3 lbs really is not that heavy for a long lens... 6 lbs and above, now that's what you can call heavy! ;)</p>

[peter_e]

<p>Or you wait for the EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM with built in Extender 1.4x.<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

[stemked]

<p>Tom,<br>

I'm not a Canon person, but at your price I would consider the Sigma 150-500mm f?-6.8. True its a bit slow, but it's not bad and I have caught a few flying birds with it. You'll need a good tripod and head though. So the lens is around $1000 (new), a good ball head in the $300 range and maybe another $300 for a good tripod.</p>

<p>Just a thought. You'll appreciate the reach anyway.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>There are a few misconceptions about the 100-400. The weight isn't too much different from your other options. It being a dust magnet is grossly overstated. I have the lens, used it in several African places and never noticed dust problems. Remember, all lenses have moving lens groups so most of them will take in some outside air. The weight of these lenses can't be ignored. No problem during short walks but later this year I'm planning a hike in the Himalayas, the 100-400 will stay home. I'm not going to carry 1.5 kg over passes with a height over 5000 meters. In your case I would seriously consider the 100-400 but YMMV.</p>

[eric merrill]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Option 3. Canon A EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM with a 1.4x EF Extender III. Total Cost = $1750</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the 70-300L. It's a great lens. It is not compatible with the Canon extenders.</p>

<p>The 300/4 IS might be another contender. The 70-300L focuses significantly faster, but the 300/4 will take a 1.4x extender. That slows the 300/4 focus down considerably, though. (I was never happy with mine with the 2x, though.)</p>

<p>What lenses do you currently use? Are you happy with what you get shooting at f/5.6 at that light level? If so, I can recommend the 70-300L. But if you need a longer focal length, this isn't the lens for you. 300 is really on the short end for most bird photography.</p>

 

[SteveH]

<p>Think about the Canon 400 mm DO IS F4 lens. Some folks are a bit leery of the DO part, but I've found it to be a great lens. It's much lighter than conventional lenses; it's light enough to hand hold for birds, and it's plenty sharp. Of course, price is a consideration, but I've gotten many good years out of this lens. For me, the 100-400 is off-putting because of that back and forth maneuver you have to do to zoom. Just a thought.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Tom,<br>

Some really good advice and considerations given already!</p>

<p>I have had my 100-400 for a few years now and often use it with the 1.4X TC on the Canon 50D, EOS 3 and Elan 7e, and have just a few comments as follows;<br>

1.) I've not noticed any unusual/abnormal dust problems.<br>

2.) IMHO, most long lenses are a bit cumbersome, . . . just something you learn to live with.<br>

3.) When seeking "sharpness," there is a bit of a learning curve with the 100-400, but IMHO, no more so than with any other lens & body combination. BTW, the 100-400, or at least mine is less sharp fully extended to the 400mm. I obtain the sharpest images at just over 300mm whether using the TC or not.<br>

4.) The IS on the 100-400 is pretty good. and I have taken many hand-held shots at Air Shows and even some of my Wildlife and Birds in Flight are hand-held, but a tripod and ball-head are always better when trying to obtain the sharpest images.</p>

<p>If you care to look through my gallery here on PN, I usually display what lens I have used, and often include details on many shots. I most commonly use the 100-400 on the Wildlife, Aviation and even some at the Car Shows that I attend.<br>

Should you decide on the 100-400, I will be glad to share any experience's I have had with this lens.</p>

<p>Cheers & Best Wishes,</p>

<p> </p>

[ljwest]

Of those choices, the 100-400L is really the only viable option. Note that it will accept the Canon tele extenders, unlike the 70-300L. Of course, you lose AF on the 7D with an extender on that lens.

 

As for having something smaller, well, the lenses are interchangeable for a reason! I also have the Tamron SP 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VC lens, which I use when I don't need the reach of my 100-400L. At under $500 (about the price of a Canon extender), it's tough to beat.

 

About the only other viable option would be the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II with the 2x converter, but that combo is a lot more expensive, and the 70-200 F/2.8L (without the converter) is as heavy and bulky as the 100-400 is.

 

For that price, get the 100-400L and a 24-105 f/4L and have continuous coverage...

[greg s]

<p>If it was me, I would go with a 300mm f/4 IS lens + 1.4x TC<br>

Actually, as a Nikon user, I have drooled over the Canon folks access to that lens. :) -g-</p>

[stp]

<p>It's not in your short list, and it's not as versatile, but for IQ and portability, you might also consider the 400mm f/5.6. It's a favorite among bird photographers. I have the 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4, and I'll often opt for just the 400mm f/5.6 simply for convenience on a day trip.</p>

[l_j_cappleman]

<p>I would have to agree with Greg S- the 300 w/1.4 extender. I have the 70-200, the 300 and the 500 for wildlife. I have also used the 100-400. Before I got my 500 the 300 was my most used lens for wildlife. The 70-200 is a very versatile lens but is just too short for most of my wildlife shooting. I found the 300 to be much sharper than the 100-400 at the 300 setting. It seemed to me that my 300 w/1.4 extender was slightly sharper than the 100-400 at the 400 setting. Nearly all my lens are f4 with IS. Perhaps I have been lucky with my lens but that has been my experience.</p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Hi,<br>

You might want to try the canon 400mm f5.6 lens. I use it for bird and wildlife photography. shorter end covered by 100 - 300 lens. A 1.4 extender with the lens, is awesome , and EOS 3 gives autofocus.</p>

[tom_madigan]

<p>Thank you all so much for your responses and advice, i have been mulling it over for a while now and think I'm going to go with the 100-400 as i need the length and and shortness it offers as i do to much walking and trekking to want to worry about having two lenses.<br>

Now for my last question where is the best place tu buy this glass? Im going on a business trip to NY in early march and was thinking B&H would give me a good price and a bit of safety with the warranty. does anyone have any places they prefer to buy their lenses wether it be online or in a store?<br>

Thanks again so much for all your advice and help<br>

Cheers</p>

[birdladync]

<p>Tom, something to consider too, you can rent lenses to try them before purchasing. This is a good option for lenses you would not use on a regular basis but may need for a special trip. Please spend the extra to get the insurance(not much). A friend of mine did this to check a lens he was considering buying and dropped it. Luckily his wife got the insurance.</p>

[wildworlds]

<p>Hi to throw my two cents worth in.... I have just joined the forum so joined this discussion a bit late, but I think that you have made the right choice in going with the 100-400. I shoot wildlife in Africa and I tend to consider that as my “standard” lens. The zoom range is just about right for 90% of subjects and if closed down a stop from wide open it is razor sharp. I thought that the push pull zoom would encourage dust, but even travelling in open vehicles, so far it’s not been a problem. The disadvantage I find of the push pull, is that if you forget to lock it, then carry the camera, it can slide forward at an alarming rate! I also find that the quality of the lens hood fitting to be poor. Certainly for shooting on safaris as I do, I find it just about perfect. As Paula says find a supplier that does try before buy. I have found that many of them will offset the rental cost if you then buy.</p>

<p>G</p>