-=Top 10=- Recommended wildlife Zooms

[CyberDyneSystems]

-=Top Ten=- Recommended Wildlife Zoom Lenses

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

We move on to the best Zoom 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 Zoom 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.

[michael.luczkow]

what's up with people voting for like 4 lenses? :-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

You can vote for more than one ;)

[Longwatcher]

The 100-400L IS is an outstanding lens which gives you the range you need to catch your targets before they catch you. Short of one of the longer primes I don't see how much could compete with this one.

I also voted for the 70-200/2.8L IS as you can also get excellent wildlife shots with this lens even with a 1.4x TC on it. While it doesn't have the range, the IS is superior and will allow for lower light levels, which can make a difference at times. But for wildlife I would get the 100-400 first, then the 70-200/2.8L IS. Lastly this is a great lens for tracking dive bombing seagulls.

Just my opinion,

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh my GOD! Talk about a total massacre! None of our polls have such a dominant single lens thus far!

Thats said,. the 100-400mm was my first pic too. It is simply the best zoom lens made for wildlife except possibly for the larger Sigma beast, the 300-800mm.. which really almost belongs in the Prime catagory do to it's size and cost.

But the 100-400mm is far more flexible a tool, for many reasons but most specifically it's light weight and ease of use. It is lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS,.and has the longer reach as well as the broader zoom range. It is another Zoom lens which is capble of image quality that I would easily describe as "prime like" in the right circumstances. It's not perfect, but it seems to have the best combination of must have specs for a wildlife lens of any zoom lens made.

[Scottes]

100-400. 'nuf said.

[Anders Östberg]

100-400 all the way for me...

The Sigma 50-500 is good value, but I have to say the best 100-400 pictures I've seen on the web are generally slightly better than the best Sigma 50-500 pictures.

Tamron 200-500 is maybe a contender too.

[ijohnson]

I use the 70-200 2.8 with the TC. It is a nice combo but it is far too conspicuous. Animals see the white lens and scatter. Maybe that's just here. I want to paint the lens with Camo colors. It's either that or strap a tree to the lens hood.

[Anders Östberg]

I use the 70-200 2.8 with the TC. It is a nice combo but it is far too conspicuous. Animals see the white lens and scatter. Maybe that's just here. I want to paint the lens with Camo colors. It's either that or strap a tree to the lens hood.

There's no real indication animals or birds react to a white lens. What they do see is movement, and they also react to the human shape. The white color may make the movements easier to spot though. I've often sat very still with a much bigger white lens in front of me, and I'm just scenery to the birds. Move a little and they fly off. I think your problem is much more that you have to be too close with that lens.

[jimtfoto]

Voting for both the 100-400 (which my wife uses on her 20D) and the Bigma (which I use on my 10D).

cheers,
jim

[malla1962]

why is the sigma 135-400 not listed?not that i have one it just seems a good focal range.

[alan sh]

I voted for the 100-400 and also the Sigma 100-300. Quality is superb (from what I have seen) and you can add a 1.4x converter and still keep the autofocus on a 20D.

Alan

[IanD]

There is another lens besides the 100-400?
:):):):):)

[robertwgross]

Despite which lens is your preference for wildlife, there is an underlying message.

A versatile zoom range is about 100-400mm, or 100-300, or something in that range, depending on exactly what type of wildlife you are going after. You can shoot moderately close-in (1.8 meters), or you can reach out far on that range.

The possible exception is if your wildlife includes only small birds. Such critters tend to be shy, and you simply can't get close enough to them to fill the frame unless you have major, heavy-duty firepower (e.g. 500mm, 600mm, etc). Unfortunately, those lenses get very pricey. The Canon 100-400mm L lens is simply the most practical lens for those of us on a budget that is more modest than say, Belmondo's.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

And don't forget to check out the WildLife Primes -=TOP 10=- (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59929)

[CyberDyneSystems]

why is the sigma 135-400 not listed?not that i have one it just seems a good focal range.

What are listed are lenses that members of this forum tend to recommend regularly...

If it is not listed,. it may be because it is not recommended ;)
I know in this particular instance I would strongly suggest that people avoid that lens.

[gulogulo1970]

Mine wasn't listed Canon EF 100-300 f5.6L . An oldie but a goodie and it is a cheapie.

[Canuck]

It is interesting that the 120-300 F2.8 Sigma EX lens isn't higher...stick a 1.4x tc and you have a 420mm F4 lens. :eek:

[xuxu1]

.... and the winner is (my vote goes to):

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

I will never regret the day when i bought my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS :D

ED

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I don't see the Sigma 80-400 OS.
I would opt for that because even it's a bit sharper than the 100-400L on 400mm wide open.

Greetings,
Frank

[roanjohn]

WOW!!! A clear winner.

Ro1

[ScottE]

It just shows people didn't test before they bought.

I took test shots with a Canon 100-400 and a Sigma 50-500 before making my decision. I chose the 50-500 because it had slightly better resolution at long focal lengths and the longer focal length made a noticeable difference.

Scott

[raylks]

I think the best wildlife lens is not a zoom but a prime. At least we shall get 500mm or 600mm.
But for the vote of zooms, I will give it to 100-400mm L. It's a great lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It just shows people didn't test before they bought.

I took test shots with a Canon 100-400 and a Sigma 50-500 before making my decision. I chose the 50-500 because it had slightly better resolution at long focal lengths and the longer focal length made a noticeable difference.

Scott

Well,. I'm not sure this is true.
For instance,. I "tested" the Sigma 50-500mm for well over a year as my primary wildlife lens.. I love the lens and do recomend it...

But I now have the 100-400mmL and it beats the 50-500mm on every level except zoom range and AF tracking of small moving subjects.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the best wildlife lens is not a zoom but a prime. At least we shall get 500mm or 600mm.
But for the vote of zooms, I will give it to 100-400mm L. It's a great lens.

Ray,. we have a -=TOP 10=- Wildlife Primes poll (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59929) as well ;)

[ScottE]

Well,. I'm not sure this is true.
For instance,. I "tested" the Sigma 50-500mm for well over a year as my primary wildlife lens.. I love the lens and do recomend it...

But I now have the 100-400mmL and it beats the 50-500mm on every level except zoom range and AF tracking of small moving subjects.

My test was done in a camera shop shooting out the open door at the brick wall and signs on a store across the road. We used a tripod, mirror lock-up and a cable release. Comparing shots at 400 mm it was very close, but the Sigma 50-500 showed slightly more resolution than the Canon 100-400. This is not what the salesman expected, but that was his conclusion as well.

The difference was so slight that it really didn't matter so the real choice came down to whether IS on the Canon was worth more to me than the 500 mm focal length on the Sigma. Since I almost always use a tripod for wildlife and the instructions for the 100-400 said to turn off IS when using a tripod I chose the Sigma.

Scott

[Anders Östberg]

It's good there are different lenses to choose from, something for everyone... the deciding factor for me is IS for handholding or with a monopod, it really helps. I don't doubt your test results but wouldn't necessarily generalize them to be true for all 100-400 and Bigma lenses. Of the copies in the store the Bigma was the better lens but I've heard that sharper and softer copies exist of both these lenses. The Bigma is good value for money but overall the characteristics of the 100-400 suit my needs better.

[Bushman]

Question:

The ef 100-400 zoom which has the top pick, isn't this a push/pull zoom?

Does the push/pull feature get more dust into the camera body, and then the sensor?

Thanks!

[Jon]

Noone's ever actually demonstrated any connection between push-pull and dust inside the camera. Any zoom (and many primes) have moving elements within the body, which will act as pistons in a similar manner, and if the 100-400 were to pull in dust as you zoom long, these other lenses would be equally likely to. OTOH, if you want to believe that push-pull sucks in dust, then it'd logically pump it back out as you zoomed back to 100 mm.

[shamanjp]

I have had a Sigma 50-500 for some time now and it is a fine lens, but for wildlife shots you often must be quick and so now I have ordered a Canon 100-400IS lens. A friend let me use his for a day and I had more keepers handheld than I did with the Sigma on a monopod. I know I will miss the extra reach though. 500 seems short when photographing birds..

[E.C.Giorgio]

Now if i could just HIT the lottery to afford to buy all these great lens! As the saying goes "So many lens, So little money"!

[sixes]

For the money the EF 70-200 4.0 L is an excellent choice. Add a 1.4X extender and you have something. With the 1.6X built into the digitals it would actually be 112mm-320mm, 157mm-448mm with the extender.



At less than half the cost of the 100-400 4.5 IS you get a little more versatility (the 70-200 make a pretty good candid portrait and general shooting lens) and expandability (with the addition of the extender ring), the 70-200 makes an excellent choice for those just starting to build their canon rig. The kit lens is not very good, and for people interested in wildlife photography or sports the focal range of the kit lens is useless. Adding the EF 70-200 4.0 L lens to a body gives you a cheaper entry into a wider range of photographic subjects without compromising image quality by going with cheap glass.



Bottom line though...money not considered...for wildlife the 100-400 4.5 with the addition of image stabilization (I shoot a lot from a kayak) is a wonderful lens.

[xuxu1]

Question:

The ef 100-400 zoom which has the top pick, isn't this a push/pull zoom?

Does the push/pull feature get more dust into the camera body, and then the sensor?

Thanks!
Answer:

1) yes

2) Do you believe in fairy tales? No... then forget that "pumping dust in the camera body and sensor" story. ;)

ED

[Beerygaz]

New member to the forum and I know this is a late post to the poll, but I see the 70-300mm DO IS did not fare well at all. I'm looking to add my first second lens (does that make any sense) after the kit lens and want something that's quite easy to walk around with while being a tourist as well as having the range and IS for handheld wildlife photography.

I'd be very interested to hear some opinions on why this lens did not fare well in any of the polls?

[buze]

Well, it's a reasonably new lens, and these guys who have the 100-400 monster probably have it for years, and they all like showing off anyway ! :D
Oh, and they have 3 or 5 legs, and a disproportionaly large left arm! :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

Remember.. this poll is for "Wildlife Zoom"

Wildlife shooters in general are looking for the absolute best image quality they can afford,. and are not concerned about concealability. (ie: size is not a predominant concern)

The 70-300mm DO has ONE advantage over the 100-400mm.... it is small.
It can not compare to the 100-400mm in any other way.

If portability is the primary concern.,.. then the 70-300mm is the way to go..
But wildlife photography is not usually about small and unobtrusive. The best wildlife lenses are monstrous telephotos that require $1,000.00 tripod rigs just to hold them up.

...obviously the majority of those taking the poll did not see portability of the 70-300mm DO as being as important as the advantages that the 100-400mm has. (100-400mm for a telephoto in that range by the way is very light.)

In fact .. in my personal humble opinion.. only 7 of the 11 lenses listed should even be on the list as "wildlife zooms" ... and five of those are Sigmas.

[rklepper]

Do you really think that 58% of the people who voted actually own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS? I am really starting to believe that many who spout the virtues of this lens or that lens have never used it, but only read about it in a review somewhere. Not sure how objective this is.

[Rob612]

Do you really think that 58% of the people who voted actually own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS? I am really starting to believe that many who spout the virtues of this lens or that lens have never used it, but only read about it in a review somewhere. Not sure how objective this is.

I don't really know. Personally I voted for the 100-400 because that's what I'm going to get anyway (possibly in a few days), and I tried it extensively before.

But if you look at the sigs around here, there is a LOT of people that owns the thing, the lens had 230 votes and I've no doubt that over the Idontknowhowmany POTN members (I believe some thousands) ther ARE at least 200/300 that actually have the lens itself.

Just my 0.02, though.

[Beerygaz]

I don't think you really need to own the lens to vote for it. After all, the poll is to try and find the best lens for the task at hand, whether you own one or not. The overwhelming support for it would certainly make me consider it if I was going shopping.

Although I sure there are a number of inexperienced photographers (like myself) here in the forum, I came here to try and get some valid opinions on what my next lens should be, and a combination of the poll and the proceeding comments have certainly been helpful.

My worry is one of experience not ownership. I'd like to think that most voters voted out of knowledge rather than just because the lens "looks cool" or "chicks dig it" whther they own one of not.

[Ikinaa]

I have a little question.

I'm about to press the order button for the 100-400 L :D
To have more reach, I'd also like to buy an extender.
From what I've read, the 1.4 has nearly no loss in quality, ok, I'll loose AF (20D), but when I'll use it at the 400x1.4=560-End, I'll have it on the tripod, will be sitting in a hide and shooting ducks (or similar)
What about the 2x extender? Is the loss, (except for the 2 stops) acceptable?
Does anyone have pictures of a shot at 400 without extender and at 400 (=800 then) with 2x-extender?
As I said, the loss of AF doesn't really bother me. The only thing that would bother me would be the loss in quality.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Do you really think that 58% of the people who voted actually own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS? I am really starting to believe that many who spout the virtues of this lens or that lens have never used it, but only read about it in a review somewhere. Not sure how objective this is.

The vote is PUBLIC.. click the number of votes,.. and you can see who voted for what lens.

It was hoped that votes would be cast for lenses people had experience with.. but you could allways verify if you wanted to take the time ;)

[mikeivan]

I'd be very interested to hear some opinions on why this lens did not fare well in any of the polls?
EF 70-300mm f/5.6DO IS
I would be interested in hearing from wildlife photogs who acutally own and use this lens, the good, bad and ugly. I like the small size and light weight, how about sharpness etc?:roll:

[CyberDyneSystems]

I own it,. and I think it is a poor choice for birds anywyas.... 300mm is too short much of the time, and compared to the "L" lenses, Prime or Zoom.. it is not in there caliber.

I use it for a light portable long zoom.. so it is on my 20D a lot.. but I have yet to take a single photo with it that really excites me. (then again when the shot's important to me I usually have a better lens on the Camera)

It will be interesting to see how much better than the old 75-300mm IS the new Canon 70-300mm IS is.. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=93544
(not the DO) .. and how it compares to the DO optically...

For half the price.. it may be a tad larger.. but if it compares to the DO.. it will surely be a good buy.
We'll see I guess. :)

[Mike6158]

I'm really surprised that the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is so popular. I think that I would rather have the EF 70-200mm F2.8L, a 1.4X, and a 2X teleconverter. Actually... I already have it but only the 2X teleconverter. My lens isn't an IS. I might decide to go with the IS later but most of my shots are taken from a tripod. Anyway... the way I look at it, with this setup you get 70 - 400mm f2.8 - f5.6.

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you actually like the 70-200mm with a 2X,. well more power to you :)

I found the results usually less than perfect to just plain poor for the work I like to do,. and it's heavier and bulkier than the 100-400mm as well.

Mind you I love the 70-200mm on it's own.. just not long enough for most of what I do in the wild life dept.

[Mike6158]

If you actually like the 70-200mm with a 2X,. well more power to you :)

I found the results usually less than perfect to just plain poor for the work I like to do,. and it's heavier and bulkier than the 100-400mm as well.

Mind you I love the 70-200mm on it's own.. just not long enough for most of what I do in the wild life dept.

Well... to be honest, I can't remember the last time that I used the 2X on any lens :) but I have one. 200mm has sufficed for what I shoot (mostly scenics and some wildlife). The reality is that if I could, I would not use a zoom beyond 200mm for wildlife (though with patience and some woodsmanship it can be a very good lens). However the L series 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm lenses are each beyond my willingness to spend for now and I don't live close enough to a decent photography shop that will rent one. :D No I'm curious... Great.. another lens to add to the wish list... gee thanks...

[malla1962]

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

[Mike6158]

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

Thanks for the link. I have spent many hours on Michael Reichmann's site. In fact, his review of the EOS1Ds MKII is what pushed me over the lookee see fence to the in debt up to my arse fence. :cool:

:( Well... that article ensures that my 2X will not be used any time soon. I retract my earlier statement. The difference is staggering and very disappointing. As I said earlier, my 2X is seldom, if ever, used. I seriously cannot remember the last time that I used it.

By the way... softer images? That is an understatement :)

[Blue Deuce]

My life wasn't complete until I bought the 100-400.:)

[gmax]

I'm really surprised that the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS is so popular.

Hey, I'm not surprised .. this lens seems winning hands down ... but at what price? Much depends on how and where you want to use it ... I'm not going to say anything diminishing about this superb lens (I've just used it twice), I just add a couple of considerations:
1. if you want a versatile zoom, this can be (is) a good choice, but for those on a budget? Is it really worth the price? I personally bought the much cheaper, non IS/OS Tamron 200-500 (for which I voted) and, if you learn how to use it, it gives excellent sharp results (I know, its best results are those when using a tripod ...), good enough when hand-held though
2. the Sigma 80-400 OS may be a good competitor in terms of stabilization and focal length: NB much much cheaper but sharpness?
3. sharpness: if it's the most important thing for you, then ... choose the prime (e.g. 400 f/5.6), most tests and reviews seem to support this opinion

Conclusion: great lens but not the greatest ;)

[bdechenzio]

ok, ok, I KNOW, SERIOUSLY late here, but hey, I'm a new guy ok? Can somebody help me out? I MUST have missed something.

can someone show me ONE review, independently comared, or actual comparison, where the 100-400 beat the Sigman 120-300 2.8? Cause I've read everything I could find on the two, havning a hard time believing what I was reading, but EVERYTHING I read said that the Sigma BLEW it out of the water?... So what am I missing here?

Thanks, if anyone sees this!

Brad

[Jon]

Optical quality isn't the sole criterion that went into this poll. many of us consider 300 mm to be too short, and the 120-300 runs about 1/3 again more $ than the 100-400IS, plus weighs almost twice as much but lacks IS so it's less popular. I'm a 100-400 fan, but I'm considering the 120-300 as the least expensive practical route to 600 mm. I'm sure not going to be hauling it up and down mountains on a daily basis though, so the 100-400 will stay my favourite no matter how good the Sigma is optically.

[bdechenzio]

Optical quality isn't the sole criterion that went into this poll. many of us consider 300 mm to be too short, and the 120-300 runs about 1/3 again more $ than the 100-400IS, plus weighs almost twice as much but lacks IS so it's less popular. I'm a 100-400 fan, but I'm considering the 120-300 as the least expensive practical route to 600 mm. I'm sure not going to be hauling it up and down mountains on a daily basis though, so the 100-400 will stay my favourite no matter how good the Sigma is optically.

It's definately short, I thoroughly understand that, but from everything I've seen/read, even WITH the 1.4, the IQ ia excellent... and because of what I've seen, I'm even thinking about buying a 2x converter because of this lens. The weight... wow... BUT, hey, that's why they make all that ultra light camping gear!!! So you can carry 5lbs worh of camping gear, and this lens!! jk...

thanks for the reply
Brad

[Canuck]

Just one thing to bear in mind...the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 is 5.75 lbs alone. It isn't lightweight, but find me a 300 F2.8 that isn't. I'm really stunned by my copy! There are a few of us besides myself that have one. I can't speak for the changes that the DG version made. Mine was bought in Aug, 2003.

[grego]

It's definately short, I thoroughly understand that, but from everything I've seen/read, even WITH the 1.4, the IQ ia excellent... and because of what I've seen, I'm even thinking about buying a 2x converter because of this lens. The weight... wow... BUT, hey, that's why they make all that ultra light camping gear!!! So you can carry 5lbs worh of camping gear, and this lens!! jk...

thanks for the reply
Brad

The 120-300 isn't much of a handholdable lens. It's more a monopod/tripod lens. Great for sports and outdoor stuff, but you want that buddy with something like a monopod at the very least.

[chicodawg]

I have a Canon 20D and I purchased some consumer (Canon) lenses. One being the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM. My low-light (high school football, band and events) shots are sometimes blurry, but I'm still fairly new with tough light situations, so it is probably me. :)

That said! I see the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens was top-rated on here. Would the quality of this lens help improve my shots, or is this a problem I need to work on? I would hate to spend the extra $$ to get the same photos. My wife would kill me and death would end my photography. Hehe

This is an old post so I hope someone still checks it. Thanks!

PS: I have a gallery on Smugmug at http://chicodawg.smugmug.com

[Scottes]

Blurry from people movin, the lens moving, or out of focus?

[chicodawg]

People moving. I have had some lens/camera movement blurs and I know that's ME, but mostly the blur is from the action.

Also, I haven't experimented with ISO settings, if that would help. My first low-light (football stadium and inside an auditorium) I had it set on full-auto.

[350D_Noob]

Do you all thing that f/5.6 is fast enough? I've really been trying to figure out what to get. I was thinking 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 instead of a 100-400 4-5.6

[chicodawg]

Same here, 350D_Noob. I was looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 also but for what I've been shooting at football games (high school), my 300mm is sometimes not enough zoom. I'm not on the field either (yet). More light and a faster speed would help a lot. I need to experiment with the ISO.

[Scottes]

Yep, that's why I asked that question. Max Aperture helps with AF - in low light f/5.6 max can make things very difficult. Motion blur from action can be overcome by setting a higher ISO, but you can only go so high and it does not help AF. Camera shake can be overcome by IS. A fast AF can help with action that is very fast.

I do not consider the 100-400 to be all that great with AF speed or low-light. But the 70-200 is probably too short for football, and the 300 f/4 may be too long for close shots. Now if you had 2 cameras the combo would be excellent for field sports...

[CyberDyneSystems]

Don't forget to look at the first post in this thread for a link to the -=TOP Ten=- Sports event lenses and other top ten lists.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Bump, the 100-400mm is slipping, it's no longer more than half..

there has to be thousands of newer members that haven't voted

[dan0103]

I know that 100 to 400 is widely used by many members on this forum; but I just cannot say enough good things about the Bigma. I can tell you that I have been out with a couple of friends who have 300 and 400 L series primes; and both were jealous of the shots that I got with my hand held Bigma!

[CyberDyneSystems]

100-400mm lost another half percentage point (down to 48.61%)

What will happen when we add the new SIGMA OS Zooms? (very soon, someone remind me when they are available :)

[condyk]

Please let's have a new Poll and let's have people vote who have owned the stuff they vote for and are willing to recommend for wildlife and birdy shooting.

[CyberDyneSystems]

And how would we vet those votes? ( Or invigilate, but I hate that word)

The only option to vet the votes puts all impetus on the individuals reading the poll, ie: make it public and then people can research who voted and judge fro themselves if they were qualified to there own criteria.

This is exactly what we have done with these polls, but there is no way to prevent people from voting for whatever they want to.

[condyk]

Agreed ... and a clear request would help people realise. Ya know what the lens forum is like. People recommending stuff that they saw someone else recommending, who in turn heard from someone that something was better than something else ;-)

[gasrocks]

When do the 2 new Sigmas get added to this list?

[CyberDyneSystems]

As no one could have used them yet it would be contrary to the concept to have people voting for them now.. so when someone says " I have the 150-500mm and would like it to be added to the list " :)

[pointerDixie214]

OK, maybe the 100-400 L is the way I will go next instead of the 70-200mm... geez!

[shadowcat]

I have the 100-400L is a fair lens but it could ba alot better.

[M5Man]

First of all Im still quite new to this photography lark but try to use my camera as much as possible.
I voted the EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM as thats what i have but as we all know its a cheaper lens, so far Ive been quite pleased with it and I think the bad pictures i had the other day of a heron out of my hotel room window were down to me camera movement but now I have a tripod so hopefully should overcome momement now I used it at stonehenge on a tripod yesterday and the pics were much clearer.

I can see the 100-400 is a winner on the pole and people also liking the 70 200 with IS.

People on this thread have said about using 1.4x & 2x TC on these lense, surely that affects you picture quality?

Im not looking to upgrade yet, but what is the best way to go on a 40D hoping to get an upgrade befoe my next safari September 2010. Ive also heard the Tamron 200-500 is a good lens but dont know much about Tamron lenses.

Sorry if I waffled on a bit in a vote poll :lol:

[CountryBoy]

I think the minimum focal lenght for wildlife should be 300mm at the very least.

[CyberDyneSystems]

When do the 2 new Sigmas get added to this list?

As no one could have used them yet it would be contrary to the concept to have people voting for them now.. so when someone says " I have the 150-500mm and would like it to be added to the list " :)

I'm actually getting more and more anxious, I really want to get a new version of this up, but we HAVE to wait untill we get some of the new SIGMA's in peoples hands, we don;t want just another run for the 100-400mm.

I think we might also want to break the next round into two cost categories.

We can put all the 70/100-300mm zooms all in one poll, (ie: let the SIGMA APO and new Canon IS duke it out)

And save the other Poll for the 400mm and up, with exceptions only where aperture size dictates, ie: 100-300mm f/4 gets in and 200mm f/2.8's because of there comparable range and aperture with T-cons.

[BuzzyB]

I have a 70-300IS and a 100-400IS. At first I thought the 70-300 was actually sharper. I had to run some tests on a tripod to cinvince myself otherwise....then ....I had my 100-400 calibrated. wow. What a difference once calibrated.

Buddy

[CyberDyneSystems]

No one reminded me... ;)

New SIGMA Super-Tele zooms added! :)

[Tom Reichner]

The Sigma 150-500mm was awful. I'd always used nothing but Canon glass, but when Sigma came out with this they had me hooked - who wouldn't want a light 500mm with Vibration Reduction that they could handhold. And for under $1000 ! It seemed too good to be true. Well, it WAS too good to be true. I got it and used it right away. Took it to Yellowstone, in fact. I shot a few thousand images in the first week and a half and then when I had a chance to really sit down and examine them on my good monitor, I was displeased with the image quality. It simply didn't give me the kind of clarity and contrast I've been used to with the Canon L-glass. I lost feather detail in birds and hair detail in mammals. And everything had this very faint orangish/yellowish cast to it that I couldn't get rid of by changing white balance. Just awful! I sent it back to B&H just in time to get a full refund. This was my only Sigma purchase, ever, and I can't imagine ever trying a Sigma again. Disappointing. I wish Canon would make a 150-500 IS like this - it would be well worth 3 times the price.

[condyk]

Yeah, I felt the same about the 2x 100-400 L's that I owned. I liked the Sigma and still think It's a great lens for the money. Did you have a cheap filter on it?

Bit weird you couldn't get rid of a colour cast! I assume you shot RAW?

[DreDaze]

this thing is back from the dead...the 70-300IS is still missing from the list...also how are there so many votes for any of the 70-200's...there's no way 200mm is long enough to be a good wildlife zoom...i'm not talking zoo shots

[CountryBoy]

this thing is back from the dead...the 70-300IS is still missing from the list...also how are there so many votes for any of the 70-200's...there's no way 200mm is long enough to be a good wildlife zoom...i'm not talking zoo shots

I agree, the 70 -200's are just to short. I find 420mm lacking at times.

[_aravena]

Good for close stuff maybe. I don't think people consider that. I love my 70-200 and it's gotten me great bird shots. But if I go out into a park or something , it generally falls too short.

I'm still debating the 150-500 and 100-400L. I guess I'll just have to rent the Sigma since I've rented the Canon. Man I loved that L. But I'm curious about updated OS systems.

[bhowdy]

Since this is now the "Phoenix" thread I will add my humble opinion as well.

I own the Canon 70-200 f4L IS and it is just too short for wildlife in my opinion. I also own the Canon 100-400L IS, this was my first long lens. I used it on an XTi with a teleconvertor at times (pins taped) with moderate success. The images were always sharper without the tc. I moved up to the 40D and it was manual focus or nothing for me when using the tc. Seemed like the 40D did not like this lens and a tc, but does great without it.

I have taken many very good to excellent photos, including birds in flight with my 100-400. It is easy for me to carry and hand hold. I find that adding the battery grip to the XTi and the 40D helped the balance when using the 100-400.

I have used a "Bigma" and while it does have more reach than the 100-400 ...... please don't make me go back there! I was not pleased with the results.

Would I purchase the Canon 100-400 again ... yes, would I buy a new one if Canon updates the lens (i.e. newer IS, etc) ..... yes. This is a very nice lens, when used in it's comfort zone. No it does not do well in low light, but neither would lens such as the Canon 70-300.

Oh and I did solve my need for "more reach." I recently purchased a Canon 500mm f4L IS and added a Canon 1D Mark III. Wow what a great wildlife, especially BIF combination!

[shaftmaster]

At the risk of instant ridicule, can I ask why the EF 70-300 IS and EF-S 55-250 IS haven't been added to this poll? Also, would anyone consider using the Tokina 80-400 AT-X D for wildlife?

[Nistelrooydude]

70-200 f/2.8L IS with a 1.4x T-Con. Not the range of the 100-400L, but superior aperture and optics.

[Tom Reichner]

I think it's hard to argue that the very, very best zoom lenses for wildlife photography are not Canon lenses at all, but the Nikon 200-400 f4 and the Sigma 200-500 f2.8. I don't own either one, but I've used them both and they obviously have the little Canon 100-400 beat hands down.

[H20boy]

I found this poll, after missing it for so long, but I also think the 70-200, even with the 1.4x is going to be a little short, unless you're in a small zoo area. If you're going 'open' game, then 300 is the minimum you'll need, and even that will come up short. I've voted for the Siggy 120-300/2.8 w. the 1.4x if necessary. I've used this combo with good success in sporting situations, but have noticed it is a bit warmer in color than the Canon 70-200s. This necessarily isn't bad, and I try to do a custom white balance before shooting with it, even in the daytime. I've got a zoo trip planned in the next few weeks, so we'll see how it works out there.