Wildlife lens.

[Gerry316]

I'm due to retire in July and would like to do more wildlife photography. I have a Canon 7d with a 70-300 L zoom, at the moment,so, should I trade up to the new 100-400L mk11 ( but cost may be an issue) a 400F4 prime, the Sigma/Tamron 150-600. So many options! Your thoughts and advice please. Thanks Gerry.

[TobyMac]

I have the old Canon 100-400 and it's a super lens, love it. I picked it over the Tamron just because its build quality felt better to me and the image quality of an L lens is always amazing.

[Shadowman]

You can capture a semi-stationary subject with any of the lenses listed; including the one you currently own. Add quick moving, minimal lighting, and skittishness or ferocity of subject and then focal length/fast lenses are in order. What do you plan to photograph and under what conditions?

[NorthernFocus]

What do you plan to shoot and where? And will you be sticking with the 7D?

[tclune]

I find shooting with a long lens a completely different experience than shooting with anything else. My view on things to consider includes:

1. First and foremost, long lenses for wildlife have to get where they're going to be used. The weight of the lens matters, as does the weight of the support system you need for getting a decent photo once you've gotten to the site. Make sure you're willing to hike with the equipment. There's no point in having the best optics if you can't get to the place you want to use it. I really like monopods for long lenses. They aren't as stable as a tripod, but I can use mine as a walking stick when I'm hiking instead of having one more dead weight item to lug on-site. And, when used properly, monopods are very useful, both for lessening movement and for holding that heavy lens more-or-less on-target while you wait for the right time to click the shutter. So get the best lens optics (or lens/TC combo) that you're willing to carry, not the lens with the best optics at any weight and price. And plan for the overall system to use the equipment.

2. You'll probably want to crank up the shutter speed to avoid motion artifacts, both from the subject's motion and from shake. Paying for super optics makes no sense if you don't get the benefit of them. The first thing that happens with these lenses is that the photo looks a bit less contrasty than it should. That's more likely because of motion than because of less-than-perfect optics. Shooting with a long lens is VERY demanding. I have begun to shoot shutter-priority with my long lens, where I usually shoot aperture priority otherwise. My (mediocre) Sigma 150-500 has a lot more IQ to give than I typically get out of it, because of my sloppy technique. Pay attention to the really sharp shots that you get -- those are what the lens will do for you if you learn how to use it. I don't know Canon, but with my Nikon I've started to use auto ISO to allow my shutter speed to stay where I need it to be -- the higher noise of noticeably upped ISO is less detrimental to IQ than motion from too-slow shutter speeds with these lenses IME.

3. Just when you think you've got it figured out, you'll lose shots because the bird or animal is too close to you. So having a zoom that can focus close and zoom wide will sometimes be just what you want for the most memorable shots. After having struggled to get some shots of puffins that were almost climbing into my blind, I have come to appreciate the virtue of the Bigma, which always struck me as a stupid lens until then.

FWIW

[JR1]

Remember Crop sensor lenses will not work on FF, I have cropped and FF cameras but have never ever bought crop lenses.

Horses for courses, asks, you don't say "what" you will be shooting, wildlife can be from a mouse in the garden to Lions.

I do have and have had since it's release the Sigma 150-600, used for sports, it is a stunning lens suited 90% of the time to a HEAVY duty tripod.

I also use 80-400, 70-200, 28-300 all suitable for wildlife

As for prime, perhaps, once, but today zooms are so good why.

By the way GIMBAL head all the way, I use the Benro GH2C

[chauncey]

I'm due to retire in July and would like to do more wildlife photography

A point to consider is economics...IMHO, you might be better choosing a 300 f/2.8 and a 2X TC
and...a new 7D MkII. They are my top combo...on a tripod due to my being retired.

[cuilin]

the older 100-400mm L lens is the lens i miss most from my canon setup, mainly because fuji doesn't have an alternative yet. i also looked into the 400mm prime lens, but in the end decided that i was getting the 100-400mm zoom lens so that i could still use it when i was shooting animals at a closer distance without changing the lens.

here's one taken with the 100-400mm L lens, there are a couple of moose shots too i could post.

[Gerry316]

Thanks guys for the replies. I forgot to mention aviation as well. I have a manfrotto 055xpro tripod but no monopod, I would like to shoot birds at wetlands etc also animals at zoo's/parks. I was thinking about going for 7D mk11 and poss the 100-400 mk11 as a combo though I'll have to check the finances closely.

[NorthernFocus]

...I was thinking about going for 7D mk11 and poss the 100-400 mk11 as a combo though I'll have to check the finances closely.

Certainly if you're on a tight budget, a zoom lens makes more sense than a prime simply due to being useful in more situations. In which case the newer body capable of better ISO performance (theoretically) is a good idea. With a cropped sensor and 400mm you've got pretty good reach for most stuff.

I'm at a similar point in life and having to evaluate the camera kit one last time before my financier closes my line of credit

[JR1]

A point to consider is economics...IMHO, you might be better choosing a 300 f/2.8 and a 2X TC
and...a new 7D MkII. They are my top combo...on a tripod due to my being retired.

The benefits of zoom to me 100% outweigh fixed, when a subject moves closer you zoom out when it moves away you zoom in, and converters work with good zooms also

[Krawuntzel]

I'm due to retire in July and would like to do more wildlife photography. I have a Canon 7d with a 70-300 L zoom, at the moment,so, should I trade up to the new 100-400L mk11 ( but cost may be an issue) a 400F4 prime, the Sigma/Tamron 150-600. So many options! Your thoughts and advice please. Thanks Gerry.

Hi Gerry
first, congratulations (and envy) that you have from July on more time for going out to take pictures (or so the saying goes ).
My considerations (assuming that you want "longer reach"):
- take Tom's practice-oriented advice as a starting point;
- two friends of mine have either the 100-400mm MkII or the Tamron 150-600mm on their Canon-Cameras. They are both satifsfied with the results;
- I, myself own the Tamron 150-600mm (on a Sony) and I am very pleased with the results - exceeding the expections I had for such a "cheap" and "light" lens.
Anyway; whatever lens you buy - YOU as photographer have to make the best of the possibilities.

Erwin

[rpcrowe]

I have a 300mm f/4L IS and a 400mm f/5.6L. I like both of these lenses however, in the interest of generally cutting down the weight/bulk of my gear, I have recently been thinking of selling both lenses and buying the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Mk.ii lens.

I shoot with a pair of 7D Mk.i cameras and plan on remaining with these bodies.

[Nate]

Don’t know if this helps or not but I'm in a similar situation – currently shooting a 7D Mk1 with 70-200 f4 L + 1.4 TC and looking to add more reach. I've been kicking around the same lenses and hope to stay around the $1k price point.

My thoughts/concerns on each:

Canon 400mm f5.6 - From all the research I've done this seems to be the premier "cheap" Canon birding lens. However, since I'm shooting more than just birds, image stabilization and Zoom are invaluable to me.

Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L Mk1 - Gives me the zoom and image stabilization I want but price is outside my budget (i.e. my better half would not be happy). Used ones can be found within my budget but I’ve recently been burned buying used and am a little gun shy.

Tamron 150-600mm – While I’m concerned about the reports of softness and the need for good light beyond 400mm, it has the zoom and image stabilization I’m looking for and hits my price point.

I’ve seen enough good shots from the Tammy that I’m leaning toward the 150-600mm, however, I might try and hold out to see how the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens compares.

[William W]

I'm due to retire in July and would like to do more wildlife photography. . .

Don't know if it is a typo, but one can only read the meaning as written on internet forums:

The first step I suggest is to look at the work you have already done and also recount the shooting scenarios that you have been in and couldn't make the shot, to establish what Focal Length and what Focal Length range that you have used and to where you need to extend.

What first smacked me when I read that you have a 70 to 300L and were thing to trade to a 100 to 400 L was "this could be a mistake" . . . Let me explain:

Irrespective of what 'wildlife' you were shooting and irrespective of what camera your were using, the consideration of trading from one L Series Zoom to another and the significant difference being a step from 300mm to 400mm maximum reach -

If (A) you have already established that you don't have enough reach because you ONLY need 400mm SOME of the time, then the difference between 400mm and 300mm is minimal enough to crop for those times.

If (B) you have already established that 300 is way too short most of the time: then 400 will not be a significant improvement.

On the face of it and as a starting point 300 on an APS-C has quite a bit of reach; if the exposure is good the file form a 7D can be cropped significantly, so if lack of reach is the main issue that you want to address, then I doubt that the small increase to 400 will do it for you.

In any case I think that you need to address this situation by FIRSTLY quantitatively answering "what FL do I NEED" . . . (bigger) wildlife in a zoo could be mostly all be done with 300 I'd reckon, because most zoos allow one to be close and if one has patience, the animal will move around closer to the observers; birds from an hide is a different matter, depends how close one can creep, but in this situation, if 300 is way to short, again I make the point that 400 is not a great deal more reach.

WW

[BJ Denning]

I had the 100-400 MkI. I really didn't like the pump zoom, but once I adapted I got great photos. I recently sold my 100-400 and picked up a Sigma 150-600 Sport. It has a really solid build and the extra 200mm is nice. According to DXOMark the Sigma has better performance than the 100-400 mkI. I'm sure the mkII will be stellar, it is a rotation zoom, and effective the same cost as the Sigma (but still 200mm shorter).

All in all, it might be a budget issue. Get what your budget can suffer. If you have the ability, perhaps rent one to see if it works with your shooting style.

[IzzieK]

You mention ...aviation as well..." will this mean shooting on the ground or from an airplane 30,000 feet away? During the start of June to late Autumn I shoot air shows and flying events at least 4 or 5 times a year. I used a cropped camera at the time, a D90 and a D300s and no matter how much research you do, it is not advisable to use more than 300mm on aviation shots. On air shows, the most reach I use is my 200mm to catch most of the action on frame. Static displays is the same but I rather use an 18mm, 50mm or 70mm. Now that I have a full frame, this year's shots will be more interesting...

[WanKie]

Hi Gerry,
I do wildlife photography, and use a Nikon D700 and Sigma 150-500 mm.
The sigma is an affordable lens, but softens beyond 400mm. I agree with Izzie, aviation is usually a mix of combined action letting you use focal lengths around 300 mm..... (FF).
I picked my Sigma up for 800 euro new.... Have not regretted the purchase

[Ken MT]

Could you consider a 100-400 Canon mark 1. Looks that UK price is in range of 700-900 pounds vs 2000 for a Mark ii. (Sorry my keyboard hasn't pound sign). Bought mine a few years before a trip to South Africa, and ,'am still very happy with it. Will use it with a 2x converter, although must use manual focus, but that's not all bad.
Photo of African sea eagle, taken on Velva slide (100 ISO), so that dates me.

[terrib]

Hi Gerry,

First I concur with William W's post. A little more evaluation as he suggests may be in order.

But I'll give you my experience with some of the equipment you mention. I am primarily a wildlife shooter. I shoot with a Canon 7d (last year's version) and I also own the Canon 100-400 (also last year's) and the Tamron 150-600 which I've had since last May. I also have the manfotto tripod and a Jobu Jr Gimbal head for wildlife work.
I had the 100-400 first and LOVE that lens, but I was finding myself too far away in many circumstances so I bought the Tamron.

I believe the Tamron is a very good lens for the price and that is why I still have it and it is currently my primary lens. Here are a few issues.
1. Consider carefully if your primary subjects will be birds. The Tamron (at least the release that I have) falls way short of the Canon with birds in flight. It is slower to acquire and keep focus on moving subjects. The difference is enough that if I know I'm going to be shooting BIF, I choose the Canon.
2. In my experience, the Tamron got out of adjustment faster than the Canon, requiring me to go through the micro adjustment around 6 months after having it. My Canon still seems good after over 2 years.
3. I use a tripod when practical but a lot of my wildlife shooting is done handheld. The Canon is lighter and easier to hold steady although I've gotten better with the Tamron. If I'm hiking a long distance, the Canon is easier to haul around.
4. The push/pull vs the twist zoom is a personal preference. I think you'll get used to either. I had the Canon first so it tended to be what I preferred. Seems faster and easier for my small hands.
5. Really consider what type of shooting you are doing and whether you are able to get closer to your subject rather than relying on a longer zoom. As I've progressed as a wildlife photographer, I've learned to "know my subject" and try to find ways to be closer. No matter how long a lens you get, you'll always be in situations where you think you need more. Learn to get happy with what you have. We have a bird photographer here on the forum (Joe) that has done excellent work with 300mm. If you figure that out first, then adding a longer lens will be for icing on the cake. But I don't know your situation. For some, health reasons or other things limit options.

As far as sharpness, I am not one of those that evaluates that scientifically like some here do so I can't get too technical about it. But just general experience, the Tamron has performed very well for me. I get what I consider to be very sharp images with it. This is from an amateur who does limited printing. There's probably no question about the sharpness of the Canon.

I hope that helps. That's all I can think of at the moment.