For wildlife: Good lens to supplement telephoto?

[FlyingSquirrel]

I have a 400mm telephoto lens and will be getting a bigger lens shortly. Question is, for all around wildlife work, what single other lens would be the best to add to the arsenal to complement the 400? I use Canon. I was thinking a good zoom with IS would be a smart choice, but not sure what mm range or whatever. I've seen some articles and what not on the internet, but as usual I like to also get the input from folks here that have the experience as well and can offer up to date opinions/experience. Also, a quick search on the forums here didn't yield what I was looking for.

[chauncey]

Matt...you fail to mention which 400mm that you now have or which zoom you want.
A quick peruse of Canon's MTF Characteristics shows that there are vast performances differences.
http://software.canon-europe.com/fil...Book_10_EN.pdf
That is my go-to source for Canon glass.

[Polar01]

Matt also something is it a full frame or a c-crop camera?

Cheers: Allan

[inkista]

I have a 400mm telephoto lens and will be getting a bigger lens shortly. Question is, for all around wildlife work, what single other lens would be the best to add to the arsenal to complement the 400? I use Canon. I was thinking a good zoom with IS would be a smart choice, but not sure what mm range or whatever....

If you're looking at Canon lenses, and longer than 400mm, there are no zooms; they're all primes. Just FYI. And (in US$) you're probably looking at five-figure price tags. If you don't have a budget that big, then you're probably looking at a Bigma or Bigmos (Sigma 50-500 or Sigma 150-500) or a mirror lens.

Also, you weren't planning on handholding this lens, were you? A lot of the great whites require a gimbal head and heavy-duty tripod.

The Canon great whites are a completely different proposition from most other lenses, and very few have a lot of experience with them (I surely don't. My 400/5.6L is as far as I'm going). Suggest you view this video by Roger Cicala of lensrentals to see what the big guns are like:

[Dave Humphries]

I know I'm a mod and should know better than to swear but .... "tele-converter"?

There, I said it, but bear in mind I shoot with Nikon and have no idea which TC, if any, could be used with your 400mm.

... and will be getting a bigger lens shortly

All this assumes that, like most wildlife shooters, you actually want a longer focal length?
Not a wider aperture? (which would make the lens bigger)

Apart from not mentioning whether you were looking for a crop sensor or FF (and which 400mm you have), you also didn't mention budget. For me, Nikon telephoto lenses beyond the 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 I have are all too flippin' expensive or too flippin' heavy
i.e. your choice will be made for you I suspect - esp. if not considering s/h - you didn't say that either

Just having a little fun there in last para. - please don't take it personally or be offended.

Cheers,

[jprzybyla]

Hello Matt, can't help you with a secondary lens choice... I only use one lens Nikon's 70-300 (105-450 FFE) as Dave wrote anything larger is just to darn heavy to carry and hand hold. Actually my dream lens would be Nikon's 200-400 but my pockets are not deep enough to justify it.

[Manfred M]

Frankly, a 400mm lens on a full frame camera is generally more than adequate for most wildlife shooting. It you feel you need something longer, chances are you are too far away from your subject. The angle of view is tiny and the DoF will be razor thin with any long glass, and while I have gotten some good shots with both a 400mm and a 500mm focal length on both crop frame and full frame sensors, something longer is going to be "challanging" to get good shots with.

We own three long lenses that we picked up when heading off to remote places for wildlife work. The Sigma 150-500mm and the Nikkor 80-400mm for the DSLRs and we also have the Leica Telyt 400mm for film work.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Thanks guys for the fast and helpful responses. I actually need to apologize for my confusing post - after reading my original post, it has become clear to me that I wrote it in a horribly confusing way. When I wrote it, it made sense in my mind, but now it occurs to me how it could have been misunderstood. Not only that, but I left out some key info as you noted such as camera being used, and use of the lens (I should know better by now!). So, let me clarify:

- The camera being used is the 1.6 crop Canon 7D.

- The 400 lens I have now is the Canon 400mm f5.6L (BTW Dave, this lens with a TC does not allow AF to be used except on PRO body cameras. i.e. I can't use AF with this lens + 1.4tc on my 7D)

- And now the confusing part, clarified: I really should not have mentioned the "getting a bigger lens" because that is where I drew your attention. The bigger lens is already coming (yes, it probably is what you think....and yes I realize how big and heavy it is...and yes I have a beefy tripod and wimberley...). Birds and small wildlife are the primary target with a monster lens, as well as potentially dangerous wildlife and situations where getting closer is not an option.

- So really, the focus of the question, had it been written properly, should have been on a smaller zoom lens UNDER the telephoto mark. i.e. Something under 400mm that covers a good range which would be used for "general" wildlife, larger subjects, environmental portraits, etc. There are all kinds of options, which is why I am not sure where to go with it. To show the variety, a few off canon store: 55-250, 28-300, 70-200, 70-300, 100-400...

Please accept my apology for the poorly written OP; however what you've replied with is still valuable information. Hopefully the question is more clear and you might have some input on the smaller zoom options which might work best. Thanks

[chauncey]

I know I'm a mod and should know better than to swear but .... "tele-converter"?

Funny that you should mention that...cause I just bought another one http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
to use on my 300mm f/2.8. Just finished the micro-adjusting process and I'm noticing about a
5-10% reduction in IQ along the frame edges which is mentioned on the MTF link.
I can live with it. One thing I've learned, you need to keep the SS up...way up.

[NorthernFocus]

Hey, Matt. Based on the explanation in your second post, it seems like the 100-400 would be ideal for you. If I shot Canon that would surely be in my locker. For larger wildlife I shoot the Nikon 200-400 on a full frame body and also carry a 70-200 with a 1.5 crop body attached. With 100-400 I could eliminate the second body/lens combo.

Now you DO realize, don't you, that when you get the new lens you are immediately going to want a second body so you can cover the whole gamut without changing lenses. And so it goes...

[inkista]

...The 400 lens I have now is the Canon 400mm f5.6L (BTW Dave, this lens with a TC does not allow AF to be used except on PRO body cameras. i.e. I can't use AF with this lens + 1.4tc on my 7D)

Actually... I used a 1.4x tc with the 400/5.6L on a dRebel (XT/350D) and had autofocus. I use an older non-reporting Tamron tc, so the camera doesn't know the max. aperture of the lens is at f/8. But it probably still wouldn't be what you wanted. It's usable, but on my 50D, I still get some AF "chatter" as it tries to lock. Performance is definitely not fast enough for BiF, but decent for perched birds. But optical performance was definitely hit.

... a smaller zoom lens UNDER the telephoto mark. i.e. Something under 400mm that covers a good range which would be used for "general" wildlife, larger subjects, environmental portraits, etc. ...

Ah gotcha. Well, once you've gone L, it's pretty hard to go back, so the two most-likely suspects are going to be the 70-300L and the 100-400L. The 100-400 is probably the more versatile and useful for wildlife, but the 70-300L is smaller and has a newer optical/stabilization design, so if small size was a main concern, that might be a better choice. The EF-S 55-250 IS has no USM, so AF performance probably isn't as fast but this one has the lowest pricetag and is the smallest/lightest option, and the 70-300 IS USM isn't as sharp as the 70-300L @300mm, so you need to stop down for sharpness.

The most versatile but expensive option might be to get the EF 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM and a 2x tc III. But not only is this pricey, it may no longer fall under your definition of 'small'.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Hey, Matt. Based on the explanation in your second post, it seems like the 100-400 would be ideal for you. If I shot Canon that would surely be in my locker. For larger wildlife I shoot the Nikon 200-400 on a full frame body and also carry a 70-200 with a 1.5 crop body attached. With 100-400 I could eliminate the second body/lens combo.

Now you DO realize, don't you, that when you get the new lens you are immediately going to want a second body so you can cover the whole gamut without changing lenses. And so it goes...

Dan, thanks for your valuable advice. Considering the 500mm I will soon have, it does make sense that the 100-400 would nicely fill most of the lower range of mm coverage. I've heard that perhaps that lens is not the most sharp (even compared to other zooms) but I could probably rent it and see how I feel about it. Come to think of it, I guess I could rent a few of the zooms and see how I like them. Sorry, thinking out loud.

I recently picked up a 2nd body (now I have two 7D bodies, both are refurbs and are fantastic). It was a great price and I thought it would be smart to have a backup and/or a complementary body. So here I am, with a crap ton of [insanely] expensive gear. Luckily I am smart enough to also have just set up an insurance policy to cover a lot of it. When the 500 comes, I am locking a body on and not taking it off unless absolutely necessary! Until I get a zoom, the 2nd body will be attached to my macro lens indefinitely.

Scary but exciting

[FlyingSquirrel]

Kathy, thank you for your in-depth analysis and knowledge regarding the Canon lenses! That was REALLY helpful