Tele zoom for travel and wildlife

[King Damager]

Ok, so with 105mm being my current maximum length, I've been looking towards investing in a wildlife lens, and something with general a longer focal length for a while. I'm also heading off to the States at some point to visit family, but won't massively be doing any 'city' stuff like NY. I may either be going to Arizona, possibly Grand Canyon, and LA/San Diego or doing more Florida. This will require some wider stuff for landscapes and things 24 has me covered, and some wildlife and such like (this is where I feel I'll need longer)

So, what I currently have:
24-104L
Sigma 50 1.4

I think I'll take both of these with me anyway, but, I'm still looking something that will primarily be a travel lens (as that's now more of a major need) as I may invest in some longer primes (135/200) and extenders (1.4/2) in the far future. At the moment, the monies not there, nor do I want to carry all of that. This leaves me with:

70-200 F4 IS - 2.8 would be better, but f4 is supposed to be sharper. The only problem is I don't feel it's long enough.
70-300 (non L) - this is the budget option. Given future potential investments, it may be the cheap, easy, 'it'll do' option. Not perfect, but given price, it may be the way forward.
70-300 L - A good investment, great travel lens size, and a better version of the non L. My biggest gripe with this, is that down the line I couldn't add any extenders. I'm also not sure if 300 is truly long enough.
100-400L - The king of wildlife teles, if money was no object, nor was size, this would be the item on my list. Given travel however I'm not so sure. I may get this down the line though if I really want that length. As such, it may be worth getting the non L 70-300, as its not a massive outlay right now.
Sigma 120-400/50-500 - these were originally on my list, but size means they simply don't work for travel.

Overall I think the 24-105 clearly has me covered for walkabout, but the longer length is also something that I want.

What are people's thoughts (preferably from those who have experience)?

6D for anyone who feels its needed (hence no crop factor)

kd

 

[D.P.]

On Full Frame, for wildlife, 100-400 as an absolute minimum, or the 30mm f/4.0 IS with a 1.4xTC.

70-200mm is a nice length on FF for landscape and architecture, but is typically far too short for wildlife even if you can get really close, which normally you cannot (it is both illegal and dangerous to approach wild animals).

I commonly use a 70-300mm on crop when I go lightweight and it is often sufficient for many animals if you have patience and luck. When I purchased a 300mm f/4 + 1.4xTC (~630mm FF equivalent, no coincidence that the 600mm f/4.0 is the lens of choice by for wildlife pros) my wildlife photography came to a whole new level, it was actually feasible to photograph things like birds.

On a FF, if you are serious about photographing animals and birds in the wild (and game animals like Elk/Bear/Moose/Beaver, not the scrub jay/ground squirrel that will eat out of your hand) 400mm is a minimum IMO.

 

[Phal]

Despite the issues I've had with my recent acquisition of my 100-400mm lens, it has definitely made me appreciate that even 400mm isn't that long lol

I love my 70-200 F4L as it's super sharp and fine for birds or stuff you can get close to and you can crop a lot with it because of how sharp it is but as far as proper wild animals it just won't cut it.

If you want wildlife then the Canon 100-400mm or the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500mm lenses would be my choice regardless of size. If size is a problem then you might as well forget about wildlife since anything suitable for that kind of photography seems to be large!

 

[D.P.]

If size is a big issue then i would suggest to buy/rent a crop camera like the 7D combined with a 70-300 (but yeah, if you are serious then I would at least go 100-400 on crop...)

Another option for small setups is a Nikon 1, FT1 adapter and Nikon 70-300mm VR, this will give you 800mm FF equivalent with remarkably fast auto focus, great IQ in a very small package for a tenth of the cost of doing that on a FF camera. Other mirror-less setups wont give you the AF performance of the Nikon 1.

 

[King Damager]

Hm, feel like I might pick up a cheap tele lens then for travelling. 70-300 non L, or maybe a 70-200f4 of some variation, and the 100-400. Longer term can add a 1.4 or 2x extender.

I'm not going to bother getting another camera! It's not safari, or national park level of wildlife, and is still more a hobby and only part of a diversified portfolio. So it won't be a major factor. Hence not investing in huge amounts. 100-400 will be my first proper wildlife lens I guess, it'll just be a question of when.

kd

 

[a1ex2001]

I use an ancient 70-210mm f4 on my 5D mkii and it does a good job with wildlife as long as you can get close. I rented a 100-400mm L for a trip to Ranthambore in India and that was a great choice for shooting the tigres and other stuff.

 

[-Ad-]

Just need to weigh up your personal options and thoughts, it's a hard choice though.

I love taking photos, but realised it could all become about having the best kit for that 1 time you require it, and my what an expensive time that will turn out to be. Consider how much you'll actually use it for wildlife at the longer ranges.

I got the 70-300L and couldn't be happy. Great range, fits easily in my TT Retrospective 7 whilst attached to my 5DIII and is stunning across the range. In the end, the 5DIII has excellent noise handling at higher ISOs and even if you did by one of the 70-200mm and a 1.4x TC with it, you'd have spent more than the 70-300L and have something that's more hassle to carry around.

Remember that the 100-400 would just be your first wildlife lens and after that you'd probably start looking into primes, which is a dangerous thing for your wallet.

Enjoy taking photos, but don't live your life through the lens!!!!!

 

[D.P.]

Hm, feel like I might pick up a cheap tele lens then for travelling. 70-300 non L, or maybe a 70-200f4 of some variation, and the 100-400. Longer term can add a 1.4 or 2x extender.

I'm not going to bother getting another camera! It's not safari, or national park level of wildlife, and is still more a hobby and only part of a diversified portfolio. So it won't be a major factor. Hence not investing in huge amounts. 100-400 will be my first proper wildlife lens I guess, it'll just be a question of when.

kd

So a 70-300 is a fine lens, I highly recommend them as bang for buck and lightweight. On FF it will be a good lens for landscapes, grab details of the Grand Canyon etc.

But this post contradicts your OP which is why you received the advice you did from me. You specifically said you won't do city stuff, you mentioned Grand Canyon which is a National Park (expect mule deer, coyotes, vultures, hawks, eagles, mountain lions are present but very bar to find), you mentioned Florida so I was thinking Everglades National Park = alligators and amazing bird life.
You mentioned the 100-400, conditioned on whether that length was necessary to which I strongly suggested that length is a minimum for a FF camera and wildlife, especially birds.


One last point, you cannot use a TC on the 100-400.

 

[Andy90]

One last point, you cannot use a TC on the 100-400.

What on earth are you on about.

Yes you can.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM can be used with the Canon 1.4x Mark II, the Canon 2x Mark II, the Canon 1.4x Mark III and the Canon 2.0 Mark III extenders.

There are some things to bear in mind though regarding Autofocus.

The Canon 5D Mk III (with the recent firmware upgrade) can now autofocus with the 100-400mm + 1.4x extenders. I have this combo and it works.

With the 2x extenders you're limited to manual focus (unless someone tells me otherwise).

The 1 series cameras can also autofocus with the 1.4x converter.

There is also a trick you can do with the 1.4x converter where you cover some of the contacts with a bit of tape. It works on some Canon cameras such as the 50D. The link can be found at

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/taping_the_pins.htm

As with all things the more glass you put between your subject and the sensor, the more the quality will degrade. Putting a 1.4x extender will soften the image slightly on the 100-400, the 2x will soften it even more. A prime lens such as the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM and Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM will produce better images than the 100-400 at those respective lengths and better images when fitted with the extenders. The trade offs are that the 300mm isn't long enough sometimes for small animals, whilst the 400mm whilst long enough doesn't have IS. As a result the 100-400 is seen as a respectable compromise (plus it also covers the 100-300 range as well).

 

[King Damager]

So a 70-300 is a fine lens, I highly recommend them as bang for buck and lightweight. On FF it will be a good lens for landscapes, grab details of the Grand Canyon etc.

But this post contradicts your OP which is why you received the advice you did from me. You specifically said you won't do city stuff, you mentioned Grand Canyon which is a National Park (expect mule deer, coyotes, vultures, hawks, eagles, mountain lions are present but very bar to find), you mentioned Florida so I was thinking Everglades National Park = alligators and amazing bird life.
You mentioned the 100-400, conditioned on whether that length was necessary to which I strongly suggested that length is a minimum for a FF camera and wildlife, especially birds.


One last point, you cannot use a TC on the 100-400.

Grand Canyon is more likely to be the Canyon itself rather than the animals, although the birds sound interesting, which is where I guess I'll need to 400 length.

Florida, I'm not too sure exactly what it'll be, but we will probably spend a day or two in the national park if we go there. That said, the holiday isn't specifically for either of these reasons, hence I'm thinking the 70-300 may be the better choice of lens.

What on earth are you on about.

Yes you can.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM can be used with the Canon 1.4x Mark II, the Canon 2x Mark II, the Canon 1.4x Mark III and the Canon 2.0 Mark III extenders.

There are some things to bear in mind though regarding Autofocus.

The Canon 5D Mk III (with the recent firmware upgrade) can now autofocus with the 100-400mm + 1.4x extenders. I have this combo and it works.

With the 2x extenders you're limited to manual focus (unless someone tells me otherwise).

The 1 series cameras can also autofocus with the 1.4x converter.

There is also a trick you can do with the 1.4x converter where you cover some of the contacts with a bit of tape. It works on some Canon cameras such as the 50D. The link can be found at

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/taping_the_pins.htm

As with all things the more glass you put between your subject and the sensor, the more the quality will degrade. Putting a 1.4x extender will soften the image slightly on the 100-400, the 2x will soften it even more. A prime lens such as the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM and Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM will produce better images than the 100-400 at those respective lengths and better images when fitted with the extenders. The trade offs are that the 300mm isn't long enough sometimes for small animals, whilst the 400mm whilst long enough doesn't have IS. As a result the 100-400 is seen as a respectable compromise (plus it also covers the 100-300 range as well).

6D rather than 5d3, although hope they release an updated firmware for focussing. The 100-400 is the compromise that I've been considering for wildlife. I like prime lenses, but feel that as its neither my job, not probably the thing I'll take pictures of the most it isn't worth buying the primes at that length. They may be future primes, but at the moment lens focus is on buying zooms to cover a good range, and then I'll add a bunch of primes in down the line I suspect at the my more commonly used lengths.

kd

 

[Andy90]

Canon Ef 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM zoom manual can be found at

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/7/0300003647/01/ef100-400f45-56lisusm-en.pdf

page 9 lists the cameras where IS still works with the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders.

page 14 gives you the specifications of the lens when using the extenders and the Cameras that can autofocus with the 1.4x (you can obviously now include the Eos 1D-X and the 5D MK III with the recent firmware since they were not released when the manual was released).

It would be nice for the 6D to have the same ability - hope your wish comes true

 

[D.P.]

What on earth are you on about.

Yes you can.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM can be used with the Canon 1.4x Mark II, the Canon 2x Mark II, the Canon 1.4x Mark III and the Canon 2.0 Mark III extenders.

There are some things to bear in mind though regarding Autofocus.

The Canon 5D Mk III (with the recent firmware upgrade) can now autofocus with the 100-400mm + 1.4x extenders. I have this combo and it works.

With the 2x extenders you're limited to manual focus (unless someone tells me otherwise).

The 1 series cameras can also autofocus with the 1.4x converter.

There is also a trick you can do with the 1.4x converter where you cover some of the contacts with a bit of tape. It works on some Canon cameras such as the 50D. The link can be found at

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/taping_the_pins.htm

As with all things the more glass you put between your subject and the sensor, the more the quality will degrade. Putting a 1.4x extender will soften the image slightly on the 100-400, the 2x will soften it even more. A prime lens such as the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM and Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM will produce better images than the 100-400 at those respective lengths and better images when fitted with the extenders. The trade offs are that the 300mm isn't long enough sometimes for small animals, whilst the 400mm whilst long enough doesn't have IS. As a result the 100-400 is seen as a respectable compromise (plus it also covers the 100-300 range as well).

You may be able to physically attach a TC, and you may even get some limited AF, but you wont get any significant increase in quality even with the 1.4TC versus simply uprezzing in photoshop. The 100--400 i hardly the sharpest lens at 400mm wide open as it is, adding a TC wont give critical sharpness without stopping down and if you are at f/8 already and you stop down to f/11 then good luck trying to get a photo without camera or subject blur. TCs rob a large amount of resolving power, if the lens is not out-resolving the sensor (rare except with good primes) then a TC wont gain any move resolution, as in edge acuity and detail of the fur/feathers.


Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[D.P.]

Grand Canyon is more likely to be the Canyon itself rather than the animals, although the birds sound interesting, which is where I guess I'll need to 400 length.

Florida, I'm not too sure exactly what it'll be, but we will probably spend a day or two in the national park if we go there. That said, the holiday isn't specifically for either of these reasons, hence I'm thinking the 70-300 may be the better choice of lens.



6D rather than 5d3, although hope they release an updated firmware for focussing. The 100-400 is the compromise that I've been considering for wildlife. I like prime lenses, but feel that as its neither my job, not probably the thing I'll take pictures of the most it isn't worth buying the primes at that length. They may be future primes, but at the moment lens focus is on buying zooms to cover a good range, and then I'll add a bunch of primes in down the line I suspect at the my more commonly used lengths.

kd

Don't be surprised to see animals where you are not expecting them, even if you are not going out of your way to see them. E.g., you could be driving to the Canyon rim for a sunrise session and that is when you will likely see a Coyote or even a bear. You often find Elk and deer by the roadsides and carparks because the clearings often provide more grass and the ruminants feel less threatened by humans than the predators. Saying that the closest I have got to a bear was at the carpark, 30ft from where I parked. I had a holiday in canada and spent every morning getting up before sunrise and driving for a few hours to find a moose. Day after day for well over a week I spotted nothing. then one day I did long hike got back to the car in the hot sunny afternoon where in theory yours odds a lowest and low and behold walking across the hotel carpark between the tour buses was a young moose.

You will find with long lenses that there is rarely a need for a zoom as typically you need as much reach as you can get, and you can also predict what kind of length is needed. There are exceptions like safaris where animals are often far away because they get spooked if you drive too close, but sometimes lions etc. will come right up to the car.

I went from using a 70-200 with 1.4x TC to a 300mm f/4.0 prime and never missed the zoom capability at all. Also it is not like you get screwed if some how you are lucky to get really close, you just have to change the framing. E.g., instead of the Stag shown in its surroundings if somehow you were very close with a long tele you can make portraits of the head+antlers etc. Plus it is easy to back off to make more space, it is not easy to get closer than an animals personal safety zone.

 

[Andy90]

You may be able to physically attach a TC, and you may even get some limited AF, but you wont get any significant increase in quality even with the 1.4TC versus simply uprezzing in photoshop. The 100--400 i hardly the sharpest lens at 400mm wide open as it is, adding a TC wont give critical sharpness without stopping down and if you are at f/8 already and you stop down to f/11 then good luck trying to get a photo without camera or subject blur. TCs rob a large amount of resolving power, if the lens is not out-resolving the sensor (rare except with good primes) then a TC wont gain any move resolution, as in edge acuity and detail of the fur/feathers.


Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Don't fudge the issue D.P.

You specifically gave advice that said you cannot use teleconverters with the Canon 100-400mm L.

You were wrong.

I will agree though, as I have said previously, that adding TC's does soften the image. The 1.4x less so than the 2.0

 

[D.P.]

Don't fudge the issue D.P.

You specifically gave advice that said you cannot use teleconverters with the Canon 100-400mm L.

You were wrong.

I will agree though, as I have said previously, that adding TC's does soften the image. The 1.4x less so than the 2.0

yes I was wrong, I am not that familiar with intricacies of Canon gear but the aperture and image quality issues is why I said it is not possible, regardless of the physical possibilities. On Nikon lenses and TCs there is a plastic tab to prevent you mounting a TC to a lens that is not going to deliver appropriate results. So what I should have said is "You cannot use TCs on the 100-400 and achieve critical results"

 

[Andy90]

yes I was wrong, I am not that familiar with intricacies of Canon gear but the aperture and image quality issues is why I said it is not possible, regardless of the physical possibilities. On Nikon lenses and TCs there is a plastic tab to prevent you mounting a TC to a lens that is not going to deliver appropriate results. So what I should have said is "You cannot use TCs on the 100-400 and achieve critical results"

Eh? "The aperture and image quality issues is why I said it is not possible" what are you going on about? There isn't an aperture issue and as for the 'image quality issues' they're minimal.

As for 'critical results' is this from the same phrasebook as 'nervous bokeh'? It is a subjective term.

Sure if you're looking at printing your pictures at billboard size or want it on the front of a glossy magazine then yes, you will want the shot to be as sharp as possible - but bear in mind some of the most mindblowing shots of all time aren't actually that sharp - they're brilliant because of lighting, composition or subject - sharpness isn't the be all and end all of a good photograph.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me about the little plastic tab on certain Nikon lenses that stop you from mounting teleconverters. Is this more of a case of the lens design really doesn't lend itself to having a teleconverter attached to it with the associated risk of grinding two lenses together as you try to mount them or is it really a case of Nikon saying 'we don't want you to compromise your photograph by making it a little less sharp?"

 

[D.P.]

Eh? "The aperture and image quality issues is why I said it is not possible" what are you going on about? There isn't an aperture issue and as for the 'image quality issues' they're minimal.

As for 'critical results' is this from the same phrasebook as 'nervous bokeh'? It is a subjective term.

Sure if you're looking at printing your pictures at billboard size or want it on the front of a glossy magazine then yes, you will want the shot to be as sharp as possible - but bear in mind some of the most mindblowing shots of all time aren't actually that sharp - they're brilliant because of lighting, composition or subject - sharpness isn't the be all and end all of a good photograph.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me about the little plastic tab on certain Nikon lenses that stop you from mounting teleconverters. Is this more of a case of the lens design really doesn't lend itself to having a teleconverter attached to it with the associated risk of grinding two lenses together as you try to mount them or is it really a case of Nikon saying 'we don't want you to compromise your photograph by making it a little less sharp?"

Why are you trying to be so argumentative.
The aperture issue is shooting a telephoto lens at f/11 (1.4xTC and stopped down a little) is going to be nigh on impossible, the IQ issue is that unless the lens is greatly out-resolving the sensor then adding a TC will do no more than simple up-scaling in Photoshop would achieve so is a waste of money and time, and would actually be detrimental because it would decrease aperture and increase shutter speed for little or no gain.


You may not care about Image quality at all and are happy with soft smudged images with no acuity but most people dislike a blurred mess for very good reason, and paying customers would certainly not appreciate ugly artifact ridden blurs. As for Bokeh, I have no idea where you are pulling this out form, I didn't mentioned any such thing in this thread??? TCs have minimal impact on Bokeh.

Nikon TCs have a plastic tab to ensure they only fit on compatible lenses that will provide suitable IQ and performance. Compatible lenses have a slot for this tab. Almost all zoom lenses apart from the 70-200s and 200-400 don't allow mounting a TC because the IQ would degrade too much and users would complain that the IQ is bad when they are simply using an unsupported combo. You can snap off the plastic tab if you want but it defeats the point. Putting a 1.4xTC on a lens like the 70-300 will give equal or worse results than simply up scaling an image in photoshop.
I believe Sigma have a similar setup so you can't mount TCs on unsupported lenses like 70-300.

 

[2StepSteve]

Your key word here is travel. You are restricted by it.

The 70-300L is a perfect compact size and it produces stunning images. 300mm should be enough reach for most. If you are shooting wildlife then I would say it's enough. You just need patience to wait out the shot, it will eventually come.