-=Top 10=- Recommended wildlife Primes

[CyberDyneSystems]

-=Top Ten=- Recommended Wildlife Prime Lenses

The Third in a series of -=Top Ten=- recommended lens lists.

We move on to the best Prime lenses for wildlife photography.

We broke Wildlife lenses into seperate "Prime" and "Zoom" catagories,. as we could not fit all our favorites into one group of ten.

Here in the EOS forum some of the most often asked questions are what lenses work best for a specific task.

After research into dozens of past threads and some further discussion,
...these are the lenses that were selected by our forum members as -=Top 10=- Recommended Wildlife Prime Lenses


Please vote,.. feel free to add to the thread why you like the lenses you do in the list,. and or add in an additional lens if it is not on the list and say why!

-=More Lens Polls=- (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86975)

F.Y.I. This is a Public POLL. This means that if you click on one of the numbers in the poll,. you will be able to see who voted for what lenses. This may or may not seem helpfull to you. But it may be a benefit for various reasons.

This "Thread" is a forum informational thread and subject to extreme editing and deleting. Any OT discussion, issues etc should be taken via PM or another thread.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Reminder, you can vote for more than one! ;)

[Arsonist lolol]

Thanks so much for posting this CDS, I plan on doing wildlife in college, and for career. I've been hoping for something like this so I can ideas as to what glass to buy! Hoping to get rid of this 75-300 and move to an L...guess I'll have a better idea of what to look for when I see some poll results hehe. But so far it looks like it's just going to be the most expensive ones :lol: Hah, oh well.

[Scottes]

400mm f/5.6 L - small and light so very portable and easily hand-held. Wickedly fast AF, sharp enough to handle the addition of a TC for extra reach.

600mm f/4 - just because it's probably the ultimate wildlife life lens on a tripod.

[scottbergerphoto]

400mm f/5.6 L - small and light so very portable and easily hand-held. Wickedly fast AF, sharp enough to handle the addition of a TC for extra reach.

600mm f/4 - just because it's probably the ultimate wildlife life lens on a tripod.
I agree with the 400 f/5.6 As to the 600 f/4, I'll just have to wait for the Lottery. I've been very happy with the Sigma 500 f/4.5 EX APO HSM. On a Wemberley it just floats.
Scott

[Jon]

Misread one. I clicked on the 200 f/2.8 instead of the 300 f/2.8 I'd intended.

[foxbat]

400mm f/5.6 L - small and light so very portable and easily hand-held. Wickedly fast AF, sharp enough to handle the addition of a TC for extra reach.

The 400mm f/5.6L is a fantastic chunk of focal length for the cash, I bought one and am very impressed with the results. Fits snugly in my microtrekker 200 and then there's the built-in hood, perfect!

...and can you all please stop voting for the 600mm, I know you've all never owned one! :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

...and can you all please stop voting for the 600mm, I know you've all never owned one! :lol:

:lol: ROFL

This is why I voted for the 500mmL instead,. that one I have at least SEEN!

[Scottes]

I've had 3 chances to use a 600mm, and passed on every one. As well as the two chances to use a 500mm L, and the Sigma 500mm.

I am just too darned afraid of liking them so much that I'd buy one. ROFL!

While I *could* purchase any one of them it would be a stupid thing for me to do. As CDS and I say, "I have room on the credit card for one." And if that's the only way to afford one then it would be a bad thing to do...

[MDJAK]

Other than zoo and aquarium pictures, I've never had the pleasure to shoot "wild"life. A friend at work recently went on a safari in Tanzania. She had only a point and shoot.

If I had my druthers, and the dough, I'd want the 500 or 600.

[pcasciola]

I like the 300/4L IS over it's big brother, the 400/5.6L only because the IS makes the lens a little more versatile, and it's by far the most inexpensive IS lens on the list. On a 1.6x crop camera (10D/20D/300D/350D), the smaller sensor gives you a more of a crop making this lens feel even longer. You can add a 1.4x TC to the 300/4L and get a 420/5.6L with IS, and not give up much sharpness, and on a 1.6x crop camera you are talking about a 672mm apparent FOV with IS, for about $1300 including the TC.

[Anders Östberg]

For wildlife I voted 300/4 even though I own the 300/2.8. Reason being weight for handheld shots. I personally would still buy the 2.8 again as it's a beautiful lens and primarily a sports lens for me, used from a monopod.

On the longer end I chose the 500/4 over the 600/4, again because of weight (and price too). It's so much more useable to me - I can handhold it briefly, use a monopod, or crouch down and support my elbow on my knee. I can't see myself doing that with the 600mm. I'll work on my stalking skills to make up for the shorter reach.

If I only could have one wildlife prime it would be the 500/4 or 400/5.6, but only if I also could keep the 100-400 for the wider focal range. Otherwise I'd go with the zoom only.

[Andy_T]

I haven't used any of the lenses featured in the poll.
However, I voted for the Sigma 500/4, because I've seen the great examples that CDS and Scottberger have posted here and think that it's a real bargain in this lens lineup (if you work out regularly :lol: ).

Best regards,
Andy

[radar-eclipse]

I bought the 500mm f/4 because it's a few pounds less than the 400 and 600mm plus around a grand less. The 200mm 1.8 on a 20D is a dream (320mm 1.8); if you are close enough to what you are shooting.

[mikeivan]

I voted for the 400 f/4 DO, because it is my dream lens, to replace my 300 f/4 IS, which is a great lens for what I do, hand held birding, but I am just never quite close enough, even with my 1.4 TC. I have seen some big young guys hand holding the 500 and even 600, but not for me. However, I have read some criticism of the DO, lack of contrast etc. Some feedback would be great, I am selling some stuff to raise the dough for the DO.

[Anders Östberg]

I don't have first hand experience but know of discerning photographers who have tried and then traded the 400 DO. The low weight and small size is great, but there is a penalty in image quality. Many pictures I've seen look fine, but then you get the occasional one with weird OOF highlights, and ugly backgrounds. It also doesn't take teleconverters quite as well as the "normal" tele primes, in one case the 300/2.8 with 1.4x was the preferred combo over the 400 DO. It's mostly hearsay though, I would like to try it myself but I don't have a good reason (or the money) to buy one. I wouldn't mind owning one for the times I don't care to lug around the heavier lenses.

[mho01]

I voted for the 600 f4 IS L as after using one for a few weeks the gains over the 500 f4 IS L for me were very good, the extra weight was not a problem (due to the fact i'm a very large fella). And the extra length / picture size increase is worth the extra ££$$ ( just found a superb deal on a 3 month old one).
So I will be saying goodbye to my 500 f4 IS L very soon and making way for the 600 f4 IS L.

cheers

Mark

[Sprout Crumble]

I'd like to see the Sigma 300/2.8 EX on the list. A simply fabulous and vastly under-rated optic.

[birdstrike]

I don't have first hand experience but know of discerning photographers who have tried and then traded the 400 DO. The low weight and small size is great, but there is a penalty in image quality. Many pictures I've seen look fine, but then you get the occasional one with weird OOF highlights, and ugly backgrounds. It also doesn't take teleconverters quite as well as the "normal" tele primes, in one case the 300/2.8 with 1.4x was the preferred combo over the 400 DO. It's mostly hearsay though, I would like to try it myself but I don't have a good reason (or the money) to buy one. I wouldn't mind owning one for the times I don't care to lug around the heavier lenses.

I've had the 400mm DO for about a year now. I carry it often enough so that I think it qualifies as my "walkaround" lens. Weight, size, and transportability all figured into my decision. I travel as far as I can and as far away as I can. Weight is a premium.

This photo was with the DO and a 1.4x (JPEG, right out of the camera)

http://www.batnet.com/bogart/3252FullSize.jpg

[brimac]

I have the
300mm 2.8L
400mm 5.6L
500mm 4.5EX
600mm 4L
And i would say 600mm f/4, just for shear power and ability to be 840mm f5.6 with the 1.4x and 1200mm with the 2x with good results too.


www.brianmcgeough.com

[PetKal]

I must say 180L.
Also, 35L.

[bettyn]

Am purchasing a 400mm 5.6L tomorrow. As for the 600mm.......maybe I can rent one somewhere some time.

That's the only way I'll ever get to use one.

[photographicsafaris]

This is a general poll so I am generalising, for many circumstances, the 400 f2.8 is the dogs Kahuna's.

FretNoMore- i am very similar to you, though i had the 300 f4L IS but I think the 300 f2.8 is the Ultimate wildlife lens because it is awesome with the 1.4x as a 420 f4 and very very good with the 2x as a 600 f6 lens, in one small package.

Problem is the lens's price sucks bigtime, and I just cant afford it.

In point of fact I am actually deliberating getting the 300 f4LIS or a 100-400 LUIS its a tough one.

[dpastern]

I like the 300/4L IS over it's big brother, the 400/5.6L only because the IS makes the lens a little more versatile, and it's by far the most inexpensive IS lens on the list. On a 1.6x crop camera (10D/20D/300D/350D), the smaller sensor gives you a more of a crop making this lens feel even longer. You can add a 1.4x TC to the 300/4L and get a 420/5.6L with IS, and not give up much sharpness, and on a 1.6x crop camera you are talking about a 672mm apparent FOV with IS, for about $1300 including the TC.

I'd have to agree with this! Mind you, I do want to get a 500mm f4 one day ;)

Dave

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

I voted for the 600mm f4L I.S. While I've never had the privilege of using that particular lens, I HAVE used a 600mm f4 lens before, and it is just amazing. It's too hard to put into words the "feeling" of power you get. Not only that, but the way the lens "separates" or isolates the subject from the background is incredible. Can't wait to get one of my own.

[phaleesy]

FretNoMore- i am very similar to you, though i had the 300 f4L IS but I think the 300 f2.8 is the Ultimate wildlife lens because it is awesome with the 1.4x as a 420 f4 and very very good with the 2x as a 600 f6 lens, in one small package.


I currently have a 70-200mm 2.8 IS and have been using it with a x2 converter. But I am finding that 400mm is still not enough! I am thinking of getting a 100-400mm now for camera 1, and a longer prime (500mm? 300mmx2?) for camera 2. I have two options now.

1. Buy the 300mm F2.8, use it as a 300mm and also as a 600mm F5.6 with a x2 converter; or
2. Buy the 500mm F4.

Option 1 is about $2000 cheaper. I get a F2.8 at 300mm and a longer range. But how much quality would be affected with a x2 converter?

I came across this post in the other thread and am rather concerned. :(
You will find that the 70-200f2.8 and a 2x tcon will give you softer images than the 100-400.:D
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

[CyberDyneSystems]

Quality will drop substantially with a 2X,. and will not compare well with a 500mm prime on it's own.
You should have some idea of this already if your using it with the 70-200mm...
That said, the 300mm f/2.8 will take the 2x better, better than any other lens made most likely... so if you are satisfied with the results on your Zoom, you will be happier with it on the 300mm f/2.8

BUT! Your looking for more range, I'd go with the longer lens for sure!

Both lenses work VERY well with the 1.4x T-Con...


FYI, I shoot the 500mm f/4L IS and the 100-400mm on a 2nd body.

[phaleesy]

Thanks for the quick response, CDS.

Another two major differences between the lenses - size and weight. The 300 mm is a lot more palatable!

Out of interest, how do you carry the 500 mm, 100-400mm, assorted lenses, flash and two camera bodies when 'walking around' and 'on the plane'?

Many thanks!

[justaf IREMAN]

Where's the 200L F2?

[CyberDyneSystems]

...

Out of interest, how do you carry the 500 mm, 100-400mm, assorted lenses, flash and two camera bodies when 'walking around' and 'on the plane'?

Many thanks!

If it's a long trek, I usually carry only the 500mm on a 1D with tripod or monopod.
If it's short, I will also often sling another body with the 100-400mm over a shoulder.

On a plane, I spent about a year perfecting how I would get all my Photo gear to Africa in a carry on.
I ended up doing what a pro wildlife photog suggested...

I Bought a decent rolling carry on the exact correct size ( "Swiss Army" @ Wal-Mart for about $50.00 )
I can strap the 500mm down the middle to the rails that run down the back fro thr collapsing handle, and then pack everything else around it.
Lighter, and far more carry able than most photo specific rigs, and costing in many cases about 1/6th - 1/10th the cost of the best.

For carrying the 500mm rig alone, or with a few accessories, look at the Kenisis dedicated long lens bags. With the add ons, they will carry the 500mm, a body attached, a 2nd body and all your T-Cons/ or small wide prime, and flash stuff.
The Kenisis bags are the absolute "low weight" leaders.. they are feather lite.

More info in this set of links for 500mm gear;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5134868&postcount=9

[CyberDyneSystems]

Where's the 200L F2?

that and the 800mm did not exist when the list was made, and no one nominated the 200mm f/1.8 oddly.. heck I even used the 1.8 for wildlife on occasion.

I'll ad them now, but they will be very far behind on votes of course.

[butterfly2937]

I would have the 300mm f2.8 and a 500mm f4 if I could have it all! Right now I am still saving for the 300mm f2.8!

[justaf IREMAN]

that and the 800mm did not exist when the list was made, and no one nominated the 200mm f/1.8 oddly.. heck I even used the 1.8 for wildlife on occasion.

I'll ad them now, but they will be very far behind on votes of course.

I didn't realize how old this thread is, I'm voting for the 200 f2. It's the sharpest lens I've ever owned and a thing of beauty to boot. It also takes both TC very well so technically I have a 200 f2, 280 f2.8 and 400 f4.

[jvanmil]

Defenitely the 300 f/2.8 IS for its portability and its versatility with the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. The EF 500mm f/4L IS will come in second for birds and the weight, compared to the 600mm.

In the affordable range these two have their counterparts in the 300mm F/4 IS and the 400mm F/5.6.

Jan

[sanjeedbd]

As per poll results; EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM came out first. Obviously, as this is the undisputed king of this segment.

However, the pleasant info is that; EF 400mm f/5.6L USM is second. Unglamorous, without IS but like a sweet obedient girl friend whose only aim is to make her man happy. Moreover, it beats all on the globe in BIF on being convenient for handheld shooting.

Let's give a big hand for her and wish her long life. If replaced; it's not gonna be the same - let alone getting better.

[windpig]

An improvised poll provides nothing, but it is interesting. Fact is that the 3rd in the top 3 cost less than 1/4 of the runner up.

18.07%
EF 500mm f/4L IS $6400

20.18%
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS $7500

17.97%
EF 400mm f/5.6L $1300

[sanjeedbd]

I own the 400mm f/5.6L USM. Nothing like it.

[albion14]

i agree with foxbat!

how can you vote on something you have'nt used?

and my 400 prime L,is so,so fast!

Oh,i had a sigma 120 to 400,not sure if its in poll.

it was absolutly awfull!,i would'nt recommend it to anyone

[ScatterCrSport]

I vote for the 400 2.8L II on a 1D4

[That_Fox]

I'll stick with what I know and use for wildlife, the Canon 300mm ƒ/2.8L IS. (with or without the 2x extender) I've owned the 500mm before, but I actually like the 300mm better.

[johnf3f]

I use the 600 F4 L IS and cannot fault it except for one thing - it's weight!
Looking to save for a 300 F2.8 to go with it or possibly a 400 DO if I can ever find a used one at a sensible price!

[butterfly2937]

I'll stick with what I know and use for wildlife, the Canon 300mm ƒ/2.8L IS. (with or without the 2x extender) I've owned the 500mm before, but I actually like the 300mm better.
+1 I love mine!

[rjb0765@gmail.com]

I'm buying a sigma 150 - 500 os lens to go with my 7d. I notice this lens isnt mentioned much. am I making a mistake? thanks.

[Billginthekeys]

Well seeing as this is a thread about prime lenses, not zoom lenses, I wouldn't expect to find any information about that lens ;). You should be able to find plenty of info searching on the forum though. I have never used one but people on here seem to like it.