70-200 f4 "wildlife"question

[loebas]

I really enjou taking photos with my D300 en 18-55 lens, as I live i a great nature area, I also encounter "not attacking wildlife". (deer, fox, pigs).
Generally they are not far away.
When out for wildlife I do this by bike, so i need not such heavy gear.

I have been reading all the reviews about 75-300 etc but as the general conclusion is reasonable, I want to start good.
So I seriously consider to buy the 70-200 f4.

I wonder if someone can show/tell me something about the wildlife capabilities of this lens (I know there is the 100-400 IS, but this is heavy, expensive and according to me not a general purpose lens were you can use the 70-200 for)
If I want more range for wildlife I can also add the converters.

Can someone give me the final input so I can decide on what to do ?

[Cadwell]

Many might consider the 70-200L a little short for wildlife and will suggest the 100-400L... or one of the slower primes but I see you've already considered this.

What can be said about the 70-200L f/4? It's superb. Sharp, light, compact... a brilliant little lens and you can use the 1.4x TC with it and still retain AF on your 300D. (You will not have AF with a 2x TC).

[RichardtheSane]

I have both the 70-200 F4 and the 100-400 L IS

I use the 100-400L for wildlife, but that said I am not in a position where wildlife i happy to hang around for any lengh of time. If you are in a position that the 18-55 lens is getting good wildlife shots then the 70-200 F4 is for you. It is lightweight, and yes, you can add a 1.4x convertor onto it to make a 280mm F5.6 that will still AF with the 300D

:D

[CyberDyneSystems]

Indeed,. it is an excellent lens all around,. and consider.. the 70-200mm f/4 with a 1.4X TC will outperform the many XX-300mm zooms Canon makes... for very littel more $$.

[lomond]

Here's a thought.
For wildlife you will almost always be at the 200 end of the zoom. So how about starting off with 200, i.e. the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM.
Incredibly sharp, fast, great bokeh,lightweight and about the same price as the 70-200f4.
You will be trading versatility for image quality and speed. The 200 f2.8L will take both the 1.4x TC and 2x TC without loss of AF.
So you would be giving up versatility for all of the above.
With both TC's you have a 200mm, 280mm and 400mm.

Just a thought,
Cameron

[loebas]

Here's a thought.
For wildlife you will almost always be at the 200 end of the zoom. So how about starting off with 200, i.e. the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM.
Incredibly sharp, fast, great bokeh,lightweight and about the same price as the 70-200f4.
You will be trading versatility for image quality and speed. The 200 f2.8L will take both the 1.4x TC and 2x TC without loss of AF.
So you would be giving up versatility for all of the above.
With both TC's you have a 200mm, 280mm and 400mm.

Just a thought,
Cameron

Thank you for thinking with me. But as I have the 18-55 I want to use the 70-200 as fill in for the gap. I dont want a super wildlife lens, but a general purpose lens.
I know its a average choice, but fits my needs better.
As i'm not a pro I first want to expercience the results of the 70-200 and when good I might consider grading up for real wildlife

[lomond]

No probs, just thinking out loud.

Cameron

[jaypie77]

may I make a suggestion:

I was in the same position that you are in. I was new to photography, had a 300D and an 18-55, and I liked the 18-55 because you could use the super-wide end to capture big scenes and you could zoom to the 55 end to capture portraits of people and use it as a general purpose lens. The next thing I bought was the 55-200 because I wanted to have the versatility to shoot anywhere from 55 to 200. Months later, when I had more time, money, and experience, I realized that most of my 55-200 shots were at the 200 end. I bought a 200 and I haven't actually needed the versatility between 55 and 200 since. The 200 is light, well-built, and has decent reach - on top of all that it is an awesome lens. When you don't want the reach, you can slap on the 18-55.

The real question I would ask is: what general purposes fall in between 55 and 200? You can wide-angle at 18mm, portraiture at 55mm, and then you could get a decent zoom at 200mm. Just saying.

[robertwgross]

For wildlife photography, I use focal lengths less than 200mm very rarely. In general, you simply can't get close enough to use a short lens without scaring the animals away.

That makes the 100-400 L lens practical, often with one or two 1.4x teleconverters. But for flying birds you need to preserve the autofocus, so you are back to fast prime lenses.

---Bob Gross---

[Citizensmith]

Seeing as nobody else suggested it and you mentioned travelling light the 75-300 IS is well worth considering. The 75-300 range from Canon takes a lot of stick, not all of deserved. The 75-300 is about 2/3 the cost of the 70-200 f/4, is smaller and lighter (not by too much though) and has better range. Optically its not the equal of the 70-200 but in low light it will still be taking photos thanks to the IS, when the other lens has given up. Additionally when shooting long and not using a tripod the IS will give you stability the 70-200 f/4 can't.

Personally I went for the 70-200 but the 75-300 IS is a really good lens and shouldn't be easily dismissed.

[Medic1]

I just bought the 70-200 f4. I was looking to get the 100-400 first, but a deal ($15 above cost for the dealer) on the 70-200 presented itself, so I snatched it up. I like it, but still want the 100-400 for the length. I would have loved to get the 70-200 2.8, either IS or not but wasn't in the budget right now.

I have read alot on both lenses and made my decision over a couple of months. Yes, the 100-400 is heavy, but when it comes right down to it, what is 3 pounds really?

[Canuck]

For wildlife photography, I use focal lengths less than 200mm very rarely. In general, you simply can't get close enough to use a short lens without scaring the animals away.

That makes the 100-400 L lens practical, often with one or two 1.4x teleconverters. But for flying birds you need to preserve the autofocus, so you are back to fast prime lenses.

---Bob Gross---

Ja and I have had problems of 300mm not being close enough! I added a 1.4x TC and this seems to have helped some. I have to look over some pics I took earlier today to see what is up. Here's to hoping! I'm shooting pics of a mountain that is over 120 air miles away. I am looking fwd to spring when the road to it opens back up and can get a ton closer.

Also, avoid the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 non APO, it is not worth your money.

[blackviolet]

there is also the sigma 70-200 2.8 ex - it's received pretty good reviews, it's faster than the 4, and it's black...

[prsast]

Since you are using a 300D then your 70-200 is effectively a 112-320mm. Which until the arrival of digital bodies was considered a fairly long lens giving good perspective and DOF for larger mammals?

With the current crop of lenses (mostly designed for full frame cameras) I feel many people are now over lensed. How many people would have dreamt about hand holding a 600mm f5.6 a few years ago but now it's very common to see people hand holding a 100-400mm on a 20D or 300D body (admittedly with some great results, also with some rather mixed ones).

I have been shooting wildlife in Kenya and the UK regularly for 6 years and during this period have made the transition from 35mm to digital bodys. I have also changed my favorite lens from a 300mm f2.8 to a 200mm f2.8 (70-80% of my shots) basically keeping the perspective and working distance the same.

Recently I bought the 100-400mm to reduce lens swapping and dust problems particularly in Kenya. I love the flexibility of the zoom however I find it a little soft at 400mm. That said I rarely use it at above 300mm and find the sharpness absolutely cracking in the 100-300mm range.

As for the 70-200mm f4, combine it with a good 1.4x multiplier and you have an excellent lens for 95% of mammal photography its also lighter and faster than it’s 100-400mm stable mate.

Andy
www.bath.ac.uk/~prsast

[antaine]

I bought a second hand Canon 300 f4 L (non IS) for around €650 (around £450) and a Tamron 1.4 teleconverter for €60 ( bhphoto.com - a friend visiting New York picked it up). This gives me 420 f5.6 and if you take in the crop effect it gives me 672mm f5.6 - and I can use it comfortably handeheld!!

It is heavy after more than 10 minutes; but just take a break for a minute or two and you are fine again. Just another option to consider, A.