Wildlife Lens

dlplumer

I currently have a Canon XSi , a 70-200 4 L and an 18-85 IS. Should I buy the 300 IS L prime, a 1.4 x, or the 100-400 IS Zoom. I do not have steady hands, and from what I have learned thus far, I think the 300 IS L prime would give me the best results. I would appreciate your advice.

Thanks much

ziggy53

dlplumer wrote:

I currently have a Canon XSi , a 70-200 4 L and an 18-85 IS. Should I buy the 300 IS L prime, a 1.4 x, or the 100-400 IS Zoom. I do not have steady hands, and from what I have learned thus far, I think the 300 IS L prime would give me the best results. I would appreciate your advice.

Thanks much

What wildlife?

For example, birds-in-flight might be better suited by one lens than would roosting birds or many land animals.

What is the level of shakiness?

The amount of image stabilization and shake reduction varies by lens.

dlplumer

I am a newbie Ziggy, but yes, I would like to shoot birds, and I plan on doing the African Safari thing as well. Yes, I would like to learn to shoot birds flying, hummingbirds, and anything else I can find in Tucson AZ.

I have a monopod, and I notice that even with that I have some difficulty in holding a 200mm view very still. No problem with fast shutter speeds, but I believe the IS on the 300 should help me. I know I will need a tripod to use wihout the IS as well.

Robinivich

Well, I don't have any hands on experience with either, but have been mulling the same decision for quite a while. The 100-400 is THE safari lens. I've read a lot of threads on other forums (that shall remain nameless ) and it's practically the only lens reccomended for safaris. 400 is also apparently the beginnings of serious bird photography. I'd say it's a slam dunk.

jonh68

I use the 300 f4 with a 1.4 converter for most of my wildlife shots these days. It's light and portable. However, it's not great getting the focus of a bird in flight unless it takes up most of the frame. It does hunt for AF. However, I feel the the portability of these lens overcomes AF shortcomings.

Here's an example with the 300 and 1.4:





PS I am using Canon equipment from work. The Nikon gear in my sig is personal gear.

dlplumer

Fabulous shots. How do you like the 1.4?

Tee Why

I think a supertelephoto zoom like the 100-400mm IS may be a good idea as they are cheaper and more versatile.

jonh68

dlplumer wrote:

Fabulous shots. How do you like the 1.4?

I like it. I also use it on the 70-200 2.8 and get pretty good results. I think you would like the 300 paired with a 1.4 extender. For wildlife of the type you want to shoot, I don't think you need flexibilty in the lens. You already have the 70-200 f4. When I go out specifically for birds, wildlife, it's the only lens I will use. Having a 300 with a 1.4 is flexible in a way as you have 300 and 420mm reach.

A 100-400 would be more beneficial if you don't know what you are going to run into. I have found while wildlife, I have the lens at full reach anyway if I use a zoom.

dlplumer

Very helpful. Thank you all very much. I am leaning towards the 300 prime.

jwear

there are reasons that folks use the 100/400 on trips like that ,keep in mind it is a problem traveling with your gear and having the most versatile equip. is smart

Cuong

jonh68 wrote:

I like it. I also use it on the 70-200 2.8 and get pretty good results. I think you would like the 300 paired with a 1.4 extender. For wildlife of the type you want to shoot, I don't think you need flexibilty in the lens. You already have the 70-200 f4. When I go out specifically for birds, wildlife, it's the only lens I will use. Having a 300 with a 1.4 is flexible in a way as you have 300 and 420mm reach.

A 100-400 would be more beneficial if you don't know what you are going to run into. I have found while wildlife, I have the lens at full reach anyway if I use a zoom.

I second john68's suggestion. I have the 300 f/4 IS and 1.4x TC and I use that combo almost every time I touch that lens. As john68 already mentioned, you want full reach and even more when you're out shooting birds or wildlife. Performance wise, the 300 + 1.4x combo is even better than the 400mm f/5.6L and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L at 400mm. Heck, the combo even gives you an extra 20mm reach. Check out the lens performance on photozone.

Here's my example shot with the 300+1.4x combo:


Cuong

claudermilk

Can you rent the lenses? I've been looking at longer glass for a while now & have rented the 100-400. I found the push-pull zoom and associated oddities annoying for me. Largely because of that I'm looking more at the 300/4L (either version) now. It's also cheaper, and photozone's tests show it being sharper at 300mm & on par with the zoom when the 1.4 TC is on it.

dlplumer

I've been looking at your photos Jeff...very impressive. What lenses do you use for your wildlife, and particularly birds?

Thanks

dlplumer

Cuong wrote:

I second john68's suggestion. I have the 300 f/4 IS and 1.4x TC and I use that combo almost every time I touch that lens. As john68 already mentioned, you want full reach and even more when you're out shooting birds or wildlife. Performance wise, the 300 + 1.4x combo is even better than the 400mm f/5.6L and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L at 400mm. Heck, the combo even gives you an extra 20mm reach. Check out the lens performance on photozone.

Here's my example shot with the 300+1.4x combo:


Cuong

Love this shot. We have lots of Quail here in Tucson. In fact, I have a mother sitting on her eggs right now in my back yard. Appreciate your advice and I am leaning exactly in that direction.

howard

Hi Dan, if you plan on shooting birds it's safe to say that even on a 1.6x crop body it's not often that 300mm is enough. Humming birds bay be the exception as I've seen lots of shots taken very close up. One guy even uses an extension tube so he can fill the frame with his 300/4 IS.

I Think you really need to have at least 400mm and with Canons own lenses there are three main options.
1) the 400 f5.6 prime. Generally considered to be the sharpest but doesn't have IS. Focus is blazing fast and it's the best option for birds in flight. Make a good pair with your 70-200.
2) the 100-400 zoom gives you IS and the flexibility of zoom. About as sharp as the 300/4 with a 1.4x but mine focuses a little faster. Focuses closer that the 400 prime so better for your hummers.
3) the 300/4 gives you IS and is very sharp, add a 1.4x and the sharpness equals the zoom. Closest focus of all and great for large butterflies. Even good for damsel flies with ext tubes. Slower focusing for BIF, probably because of the different distance on the focus limiter.

All focus fast enough unless you are trying to catch a fleeting moment or a fast flying bird and that's where the 400 prime beats the others. It's worth mentioning that not all lenses are created equal even for copies of the same model. My comment relate to my own copies of these lenses. Of all of them the 400 prime is almost universally respected and the other options get more mixed views. All three are more capable than most users I'd say

Howard

dlplumer

Thanks Howard. So, would the 300 prime with 1.4x be a good combination? I wouldn't want to go without the IS again, so the 400 prime you mention does not sound too good, and the zoom is very heavy I hear and I'm not sure it's flexibility (given what I already have) is necessary. mmm......tough decisions.

Harryb

In my wildlife photography I haven't found VR to be a major issue. You will need a fast shutter speed to capture a moving subject such as a hummer. If your hands aren't steady then a tripod would be much more effective than VR or IS.

I would consider the 300mm f/4, the 100-400mm, or the 400mm. In Nikonland I've been very happy with Nikon's 300mm f/4 with TCs. The 300mm is also a faster lens (w/o a TC) than the other options. I used to use the Nikon 80-400mm VR frequently until I realized that 90% of my captures were at 400mm so I rarely used the zoom all that much. Since then I've been using the 300mm f/4 over the 80-400.

howard

dlplumer wrote:

Thanks Howard. So, would the 300 prime with 1.4x be a good combination? I wouldn't want to go without the IS again, so the 400 prime you mention does not sound too good, and the zoom is very heavy I hear and I'm not sure it's flexibility (given what I already have) is necessary. mmm......tough decisions.

If you want IS the 300/4 is good. It's only about 200g lighter than the zoom which I don't really notice but if you want to cover a bigger range of focal lengths you end up with more weight from carrying more lenses. I bought the zoom used at a good price intending to sell my 300/4 and 70-200/4 but I may keep the 300 for butterflies and the like, I'm finding it hard to sell. It takes a 1.4x very well although the focus speed takes a bit of a hit. I've also used it with a Canon 2x when you have to use manual focus. It's not my favourite combo but it is usable if you don't print too big.

If I can remember how to link I'll add some samples of what I've used it for.

This was handheld, wide open, ISO400, 1/200th I couldn't have got this without IS



1/250th, ISO400, f8 and I think a monopod



Handheld 1/125th, f8 DOF challenged



With 1.4x 1/320th at f5.6




1/180th f4 ISO3200



with th 2x 1/350th, f8 ISO400



bare lens



With tubes f13 ISO400



It's a horrible lens, I don't know why I keep it!

unknownphotography

I was just about to post a thread with a similar question. I too am looking for a long lens, without much sacrifice in quality. As a graduate student i have a VERY limited budget. What im getting from this thread is that the 300 f/4 + 1.4x is more versatile and out performs the 400 mm 5.6. The combo of the 300mm lens and the extender is not that much more expensive then the 400mm.

My only other good lens is the 70-200 f2.8IS. Anyone have any experience with this lens paired with the 1.4x?

Now my last question is for a zoom lens recommendation that covers a decent range <70mm. Mostly to be used for landscape photography.

I know this was a pretty loaded post but any information is helpful. Thanks<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif" border="0" alt="" >

Manfr3d

howard wrote:

1) the 400 f5.6 prime. Generally considered to be the sharpest but doesn't have IS. Focus is blazing fast and it's the best option for birds in flight. Make a good pair with your 70-200.

True, I had the chance to try a 400mm/5.6 for a day and holy cow what
a sharp fast and nice handling lens! I also have a 70-200/2.8L and tought
that those two lenses would make a perfect combination (thats why I tried
the 400). But I quickly realized that I needed to switch lenses all the time.
Thats where a 100-400 comes in handy, .. or a 2nd body for the other lens.
My wallet and brain are still debating which lens to put on the buy list.

dlplumer

So another option would be to sell my 70-200 and buy the 100-400. The clarity of the 300 prime however just blows me away, but to be honest I don't know if I would see a difference in clarity between the zoom and the prime.

Manfr3d

Checkout this comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

howard

dlplumer wrote:

So another option would be to sell my 70-200 and buy the 100-400. The clarity of the 300 prime however just blows me away, but to be honest I don't know if I would see a difference in clarity between the zoom and the prime.

OK just to add confusion here a few from the 100-400

400m, 1/500th, f5.6, ISO100


160mm, f4.5 ISO400




260mm 1/250th, f8, ISO400


160mm f5.6 ISO400


330mm, 1/500 f8 ISO400


scratch

ziggy53

howard wrote:

OK just to add confusion here a few from the 100-400

400m, 1/500th, f5.6, ISO100



160mm, f4.5 ISO400


260mm 1/250th, f8, ISO400


160mm f5.6 ISO400


330mm, 1/500 f8 ISO400


scratch

Sorry your images do not show.

howard

ziggy53 wrote:

Sorry your images do not show.

That's Ziggy, hopefully I've corrected it. Sorry all

dlplumer

Manfr3d wrote:

Checkout this comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

That is very cool. It reafirms what I have heard: that the 300 prime is sharper than the 100-400 zoom albeit it slight. Yes?

dlplumer

What I really notice is the difference in clarity and sharpness between the 300 f/4 and 300 f/2.8, but I really do not want to spend $4000.

howard

dlplumer wrote:

That is very cool. It reafirms what I have heard: that the 300 prime is sharper than the 100-400 zoom albeit it slight. Yes?

I still think that the 300/4 is sharper without a 1.4x but with a 1.4x it's about the same as the 100-400. I'll try one zoom image again, I'm tech challenged today



Just incase here's a link to sample from my first couple of weeks with the lenshttp://www.pbase.com/howards/canon_ef100__400_samples

dlplumer

So bottom line everyone: given my current equipment, should I buy the 100-400 or the 300 plus a 1.4x?

ziggy53

Unserstanding that I don't have any of these lenses (yet), I think I could surmise from this thread that the Canon EF 300mm, f/4.0L IS USM is a superb lens, that the 1.4x teleconverter does not degrade the quality too much, and that combination is hard to beat, unless you need the range versatility of the Canon EF 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

I would not discount even a Canon EF 400mm, f/5.6L USM on a Wimberly mount or somesuch.

Rental would allow you to quickly determine if a particular combination is right for your usage.

dlplumer

I did look at the 400 prime, and it is superb, but lacks IS and limits me to tripod only. Am I missing something?