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

 

[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

 

[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