Wildlife Photographers lens choice for EOS

[RobertCrow]

I am pursuing nature/ wildlife photography and getting a EOS 20D, I have a few questions regarding lenses.
I am trying to decide between a fixed 400mm or a 100-400mm zoom for bird & wildlife and also plan to do alot of close up work as well.
I read some threads in here and on person mentioned he liked the 100-400 for butterflies and dragonflies, ect.
My question is if you think it would be better suited to have a fixed 400mm with the use of a 1.4x tc (for birds ect), and a seperate macro lens like the 100mm macro along with tc, or extension rings, would this give you greater distance
or would it be better to have the 100-400mm zoom for your birds, as well as larger moving insects, and the 100mm macro?
Also I imagine a 400mm fixed works better with the 1.4 tc then the zoom?
Curious what you nature photographers would choose out of these for your weapons. Thank you for any advice.

[DaveG]

I am pursuing nature/ wildlife photography and getting a EOS 20D, I have a few questions regarding lenses.
I am trying to decide between a fixed 400mm or a 100-400mm zoom for bird & wildlife and also plan to do alot of close up work as well.
I read some threads in here and on person mentioned he liked the 100-400 for butterflies and dragonflies, ect.
My question is if you think it would be better suited to have a fixed 400mm with the use of a 1.4x tc (for birds ect), and a seperate macro lens like the 100mm macro along with tc, or extension rings, would this give you greater distance
or would it be better to have the 100-400mm zoom for your birds, as well as larger moving insects, and the 100mm macro?
Also I imagine a 400mm fixed works better with the 1.4 tc then the zoom?
Curious what you nature photographers would choose out of these for your weapons. Thank you for any advice.


Everything you mentioned has its place and its problems. A zoom is going be be very useful to compose the picture in situations where the subject is non-cooperative. A fixed long lens like a 400 would be a lot less flexible but possibly faster. Macro is something unto itself and the 100 macro is easily the best decision there.

In a lot of ways I'd be looking at a shorter but faster zoom, the 70-200 f2.8L. With the 1.6 conversion of a 20D this is a 320mm f2.8. With a 1.4 extender it's a 450mm f4. Will this lens be long enough? Not for everything, but then again, a 600mm with a 2X extender wouldn't be either. What the 70-200 will do is give you lots of reach (and on a full frame camera you'd be looking at a 300mm f2.8 to give you the same look) and it'll give you speed, so you can use that extra shutterspeed or lower ISO.

[robertwgross]

For fast autofocus on flying birds, the long fixed focal length lenses are best (400 or 500). For close work, then 50 or 100 macro lenses are best, or else a similar length lens with an extension tube. For overall flexibility with a wide variety of animals, the 100-400 is very good. No lens here is perfect for everything.

If you know what kind of wildlife you are going after, it makes it easier. If you know what kind of distances you need to cover, it also makes it easier. It takes a different lens to go after an African elephant at 100 feet than it does to go after a hummingbird at 100 feet.

---Bob Gross---

[Scottes]

I am trying to decide between a fixed 400mm or a 100-400mm zoom for bird & wildlife and also plan to do alot of close up work as well.
I read some threads in here and on person mentioned he liked the 100-400 for butterflies and dragonflies, ect.
This may help - a comparison of the Canon 100-400 vs Canon 400. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436
I was probably the butterfly/dragonfly person. You may find some info/answers in that review - if not, post back.

I've found a 100mm Macro to be sufficient for BFs in the field, not so much for DFs which seem to be more skittish, just move more often, or maybe I just don't have enough experience chasing them. I'm pretty used to chasing BFs. Personally, I'd love to have either a 150mm macro or a 100-400mm with some tubes. I think a 100mm macro is just a little short for BFs or DFs. If you're a better stalker than I am you may find a 100mm to be perfect.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Also I imagine a 400mm fixed works better with the 1.4 tc then the zoom?


Yes, definitely!

[RobertCrow]

Scottes, yea it was you. I was more conviced on the 100-400mm by alot of your post I've read, as well as alot of your work I've checked out, Nice work by the way. Thanks all of you for such quick responses too.
I have to remind myself I'm just getting started here, and IMO I think the 100-400mm lens would be a nice addition to any amatuer/ pro alikes camera bag would you agree?
As well as a 100mm macro lens, I think this would make a good amatuer outfit to take into the field, along with some tc's & ext. rings, to get me started taking decent wildlife images.
Perhaps as the passion grows I could someday go for a 400mmIS 2.8 (WOW!) or better.
I just want to make the best educated decisions getting started by guys & gals that been down that road already and taking the shots they dream about.
Thank all you for your tips an advice

[mvonditter]

For me the 35-350L or the 100-400L IS is the way to go. Since you can't have sex with your 20D this to me is the next best thing. :-) Put my 1Ds or a 1Ds MKII behind the lense and you might have to re-think my earlier statement.......no wonder my wife looks at my gear strangely somethimes.:o

[Scottes]

I have to remind myself I'm just getting started here, and IMO I think the 100-400mm lens would be a nice addition to any amatuer/ pro alikes camera bag would you agree?
As I've said many times - and I guess you've read - that if I had only one lens it would be the Canon 100-400 L IS. So I obviously agree.

I'll add that unless you *know* you'll want true 1:1 macros then buy the 100-400 with a set of Kenko tubes and give it a month, then re-think the 100mm Macro.

I'll also add that a 1.4TC with the 100-400 is not so great, but usable in a pinch. I wouldn't even bother if you have a DRebel or 10D - I never had any luck with the 10D + 1.4 + 100-400.

[robertwgross]

I will second what Scottes just wrote.

Prior to 2004, I used about five different lenses on my camera. For wildlife, I was never quite happy with any of them. Then in 2004, I got the 100-400 lens, and it has been on my camera about 90% of the time ever since. It's not that it is the overall perfect lens for all wildlife, but it is the best compromise lens for 100 to 400 mm. At first, its mass will put you off a little, but you get used to that.

---Bob Gross---

[Scottes]

Bob, you - considering that you shoot a lot with TCs - should give the 400mm L prime a try. With a TC the 400 prime is in a totally different category than the zoom.

[robertwgross]

Bob, you - considering that you shoot a lot with TCs - should give the 400mm L prime a try. With a TC the 400 prime is in a totally different category than the zoom.

Yes, I could not agree more. Either a 400 or a 500. However, there are budget constraints.

When I have my stalking shoes on and lots of patience under my belt, I can get the damned bird with 300 or so. Too many birds see me coming at 800 though. <sigh>

I was sneaking around my favorite regional park about two weeks ago, trying to snap some birds. I was lugging my D60, the 100-400 lens with two 1.4x teleconverters on, all on a tripod. Then I had a bag of ten pounds of stuff over one shoulder. Let's just say that it was good exercise. Then this other Canon shooter passed me. All he had was a 20D and a 300mm lens on a monopod. I think he was getting more than the limit.

---B.G.---

[RJSorensen]

Bob . . . are you using two Canon 1.4 TC's . . . stacked together? I was unaware this could be done.

On the Canon 100-400L IS . . . I have nothing but good to say for it. I think this should be the second lens most of us get. After a good general carry lens, I use the 17-85IS for short use.

[Adam Hicks]

My vote for the 100-400L as well. The Lens Test Guide gives it a "3.94 (5) = very-good"
while they give the 400 f5.6 "3.56 (3) = good" So interestingly enough the 100-400L is typically rated higher. The 400 f4 DO is even worse.

Every time I go to the Zoo I'm so glad I have this lens! (Gratuitous samples from this weekend with the kids follow)

http://www.golilm.com/Zoo/FortWorthZooFeb1305007.jpg
http://www.golilm.com/Zoo/FortWorthZooFeb1305010.jpg

And if you made it this far, here's the lens test guide link so you don't think I was pulling that info from my buttocks. http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel

[robertwgross]

Bob . . . are you using two Canon 1.4 TC's . . . stacked together? I was unaware this could be done.

No.

One Canon, one non-Canon.

---Bob Gross---

[ScottE]

I compared the Canon 100-400 and a Sigma 50-500 and ended up buying the Sigma 50-500 for wildlife photography. Sharpness was about the same in the two lenses I compared with maybe a small advantage to the Sigma at longer focal lengths and to the Canon as short lengths. IS was an advantage for the 100-400, but I do most of my telephoto shooting from a tripod. I found that the 500 mm focal length fo the Sigma was better than the 400 of the Canon for most wildlife situations.

I have used the 50-500 with a 1.4x teleconverter. It is manual focus, but can get some prettry good shots if the light is decent. Using a 2x teleconverter with the 20D and the 50-500 is tricky. I have made a few decent shots using a remote release and mirror lock-up. Keeping the camera rock steady is the main problem when shooting with a lens combination that long.

For macro shots of small plants and things I use a Sigma 105 macro lens. The Canon 100 mm USM macro had not been produced when I purchased, or I would probably have gone for that with the optional tripod mount. Either lens is incredibly sharp.

For macro shot of butterflies and dragonflies I usually use the Sigma 50-500 and a set of Kenko extension tubes. Use the zoom ring for quick focus. I have even got sharp photos of flying dragon flies using that technique.

The other lens I use a lot for nature is a Canon 17-40/4 that I use a lot for landscapes. This summer I will probably add a Canon 10-22 for wider angle landscapes. (Sigma has just announced a 10-20 HSM DG EX. I will have a look at that before deciding for sure on the Canon 10-22.)

[sjprg]

I'll second ScottE recomendation of the Sigma 50-500. It is an amazing lens for the price.
http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/snowbirds
http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/northern_california_delta

[Adam Hicks]

So far I've found the lens test guide to be pretty true to the perceived and tested sharpnesses of the various Canon mount lenses, and they list the long zooms as such:

Tele zooms -400/500mm Optical Quality
-----------------------------------------------
Canon EF 4.5-5.6 100-400mm USM L IS 3.94 (5) = very-good
Sigma AF 5.6 300-800mm EX 3.50 (2) = very-good
Minolta AF 4.5-6.7 100-400mm APO 3.35 (5) = good
Sigma AF 4.5-5.6 80-400mm EX OS 3.32 (2) = good
Sigma AF 4-6.3 50-500mm EX RF 3.20 (3) = average
Nikkor AF 4.5-5.6 80-400mm ED IF VR 3.03 (3) = average
Sigma AF 4.5-5.6 135-400mm APO Asph. RF 2.86 (4) = average
Sigma AF 5-6.3 170-500mm APO Asph. RF 2.78 (4) = average
Tokina AF 4.5-5.6 80-400mm AT-X 2.39 (4) = sub-average
Generic AF 4.5-6.7 100-400mm 2.31 (4) = sub-average
Tamron AF 5.6 200-400mm LD 2.10 (5) = poor

So if you find this information credible (which like I say, I've found it to reflect everything I've seen across all the lenses) then the Canon has the Sigma beat handily in sharpness. The addition of IS made it a no-brainer for me... plus the Sigma is pretty heavy, esp. for a non stabilized lens - and at 500mm IS would be more than handy.

Now the Sigma 120-300 2.8, by contrast, was rated slightly HIGHER than any of these lenses "Sigma AF 2.8 120-300mm EX (HSM) 4.05 (3) = very-good "

Adam

[RobertCrow]

Those pics with the 500mm, are pretty good, gues I've heard to many stories in these forums bout guys eventually pawnin it off for a Canon later, lol. I wanna try to make sure I start out with lenses I'll wanna keep long-term. I think if I get the 100-400mmIS if I choose to upgrade later I think this still be a great lens to have.

By the way Adam those where Great Zoo pics thanks for sharing

an Scottes thats a good Idea on the kenko rings for awhile 1rst, do you use them when you shoot Bflies & D'f's, I'm sure I'll certianly get a macro when ready, but thats a good tip to start out with.
Oh an I think Sharp images of Dragonflies in flight would definitly be cool! Post'em if ya gottem please! lol

I imagine the 18-55mm or the nicer 17-85mm with the Canon 20D purchase will be my main wide angle (landscape portrait lens) to start out with.
I also thought the 100mm macro later will not only act as my nature/macro lens, but because of its sharpness be one of the better lens for people portraits, right?
an one more thing, Robert Gross mentioned (putting on his stalking shoes), thats my favorite thing to do. I bet like you said if I have to I'll get that bird with a 300mm lol. I'm definitly going with the 100-400mmIS. Thanx guys.

[Scottes]

Oh an I think Sharp images of Dragonflies in flight would definitly be cool! Post'em if ya gottem please!
One day I went out with the 100-400 to see what birds I could get at a local NWR. Geese and ducks and lotsa dragonflies. I ignored the birds and chased the DFs for a couple hours.

2 pics, 100-400 only: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40368

Note the quote from LazyPhotographer: "...ya gotta love the 100-400!" I don't think this day would have been possible with any other lens.


I went back the next week with the 100-400 outfitted with some tubes:

5 pics, 100-400 + 36mm tube: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40850

As I mention in the second thread, the 36mm tube on the 100-400 really dropped the light a bit - I had problems with AF and contrast in the pics. A 20mm tube probably would have been better if I had thought about the light loss, but I was only thinking about the magnification of the 36mm.

I think that DFs in flight with the 100-400 would be very tough - it doesn't like to AF on small flying things. It's a general consensus around here that the 100-400 is not a great flight lens.

[RJSorensen]

I borrowed the Sigma 50-500 BigMa for about three weeks from a friend. He paints in the winter (oils) and only likes to shoot in good weather, which we do not have in Jan/Feb. I shot the guts out of it. The shots were ok. Some things were very good, but I could never hand hold it. I could never pan it. It hunted focus in low light all the time. I had to buy a cable release for my 20D to shoot it from my Bogen 3033 tripod. With enough light and a steady hand I got my good shots. The price is more agreeable with my bankbook. However the time spent in the field . . . the Canon 100-400 whips up on it big time. It is 1.1 pounds lighter I can hand hold it, and get good results doing same. I can pan it on geese and get good shots. The color is better, the photos sharpness is better. My wife can hand hold it and shoot it. A big plus on a what is to me an expensive lens. I would not go back to the 50-500, although sometimes I do miss being able to back out to 50, lol. But that is it.

If your time in the field has value to you, if your shots mean something more than a day out with the boys, if you worry about the number of 'keepers' one can secure in a days shoot. Go with the Canon.

[bentzenb]

Thanks for all your helpful information! I'm in the same position as Robert Crowe, trying to decide what investments are needed to take good birding photos. It's quite a learning curve to go from my present point-and-shoot Olympus D460 zoom at 1.3 megapixels!

Is there a kind soul who can help me out? I've gone to 3 stores and decided on the D20, but ... lenses confuse me: I think one lens is going to be needed for normal shots and for birds closer to me - The D20 is sold separately or with an 18-55mm lens as part of a kit. One person told me to get the EF 28-135 mm instead, while another said the 17-85 was nicer. If I am getting the 100-400 IS lens for most birding shots, what am I missing if I get the 18-55mm lens?

Now I'm really going to show my lack of knowledge: I don't know what a 1.4x teleconverter does and how that comes into the picture...

:rolleyes:

[rssfhs]

After intensive research into this subject, I have personally have decided to purchase the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. It's obviously not as versatile as the 100-400mmL IS but the image quality and auto focus seem to be better. It's also a bit lighter and IS is not necessary for most wildlife shots since the subject itself moves and slower shutter speeds would end up blurring things. The few hundred dollar savings is also an important consideration.

[robertwgross]

First of all, the 20D might be sold with a lens in the kit, but that won't be a birding lens.

I wouldn't even think about going after birds with anything shorter than 300mm unless the bird is sitting at a feeder outside your window (in which case, 100-200 would do).

Many serious bird photographers start with 400mm, and some go with 500mm. Most of my bird photography has used 400 to 800mm.

If you are starting, you may choose an inexpensive lens like the 75-300mm one. That is OK for starters, but you will tire of it soon and go after a sharper lens that costs a lot more money.

---Bob Gross---

[RobertCrow]

Thanks,

Scottes those where Great Dragonfly images. Really show me just how versatle the lens is.
Also LazyPhotographers gallery was excellent, wonder how many those shots where taken with the 100-400mmIS? lol

Another website I enjoy going to has many Great samples, (probably even from some of you guys), of the 100-400mm & with the EOS 20D combo-

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vg1