70-200 2.8L or 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS for Alaska

[redneck]

Hello everyone

It would be much appreciated if you could help me out with the following question :

I am going back to Alaska for the summer and am upgrading my film (Nikon) SLR kit to digital, camera will be a Canon 20D with the 10-22 for my landscape shots. I will be visiting Brooks Camp for the grizzlies and am torn between the 70-200 2.8L with a 1.4 TC giving me a maximum 448mm at f4 with the 20D's 1.6x factor or the 100-400L 4.5-5.6 IS, this would give me a maximum of 640mm without having to use a TC but will be slower.

Has anyone been to Brooks?, I understand they can get quite close to the viewing platform but I am concerned that my shutter speeds will be too slow with the 100-400 to freeze the action. The advantage of the 100-400 will be being able to (possibly) fill the frame and even more so with the 1.4 TC although that will lose another stop of light. Also 100-400 has IS although I intend to shoot mostly from a tripod. I also understand that the 100-400 is a bit soft wide open and given its a bit slow I expect It will have to be wide open to keep the shutter speeds up with the overcast weather that is fairly frequent up there.


Thanks


Jason

[Adam Hicks]

Are you shooting at night? I wouldn't worry too much about shutter speed. To get the maximum sharpness of those lenses you won't want to shoot wide open anyways, so stick around f7.1-f8+ and just bump your ISO to 800 if needed. That's the great thing about the 20D. Excellent high ISO quality. And then there's noise reduction software which lets you cheat even more!

My .02 worth anyways. I love shooting critters with the 100-400L. Razor sharp when shot just above wide open.

Adam

[CyberDyneSystems]

I would definately grab the 100-400mm for the extra reach where Wildlife is concerned... it's lso lighter to carry.

Check out the -=top 10=- lens recommedations sticky at the top of the forum.

There is a section on Wildlife zooms lenses,. and the 100-400mm wins the catagory by a significant 75% total votes! :shock:

[RJSorensen]

I think the 100-400 is the best lens dollar for dollar and pound for pound that Canon makes. You can add a 1.4 TC to get an effective length of 896mm. Get a cable release and a tripod. I shot this eagle on Friday with my 100-400. It is about 50 feet from me, and this is cropped to increase the size as well. If you want to see and or show the things you photographed . . . you either will need to sneak up very close, or use the longer lens. I don't sneak very well, lol.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=60857

[jdbulldog]

I used the 70-200 2.8L with a 1.4x and 2x for my trip last summer to Katmai national park. (See photo trip report at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55838&highlight=alaska).

I would definitely take the 100-400. In fact I would take something longer if you can. If you are only going for a week, rent a 400 f2.8 prime or something longer. I hated the fact that the cubs were so far away at Katmai and by federal law you are not allowed to approach them, they must approach you.

You will need a sturdy monopod (tripod takes up so much room in a confined space) and a lot of patience at Brooks as it is extremely crowded. If you could change your trip to Katmai I think you will have better luck and a better time as it is more secluded. See the photo trip report for more info or PM for more details.

Goodluck,
J

[timmyquest]

100-400...no doubt.

[pencapchew]

Well i own both and i must say both are great but the 70-200 loses some quality with a converter and never seems long enough for wildlife. If i were you i would go with the 100-400.

[JaertX]

I will be visiting Brooks Camp for the grizzlies and am torn between the 70-200 2.8L with a 1.4 TC giving me a maximum 448mm at f4 with the 20D's 1.6x factor or the 100-400L 4.5-5.6 IS, this would give me a maximum of 640mm without having to use a TC but will be slower.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but with the TC, I believe the 70-200 will actually be about the same speed. 2.8 X 1.4 = 3.92 max aperature??

[Adam Hicks]

Another option that I really like is to rent a 300 2.8 and the 1.4tc. It's a fairly light lens for what it does, and nothing compares to the image quality (in reviews AND my dreams :) )

Otherwise the 100-400 is such a versatile package and shoots great images to boot. I've found that my 10-22, 28-75 and 100-400 make for a perfect trio of glass without 'completely' breaking the bank.

Adam

[ssim]

Without a doubt take the 100-400. The 20D can handle higher ISO if you are in overcast weather to compensate for the higher minimum f-stop.

Adam certainly raises a good point on the 300 f2.8. It is a wonderful lens but having trekked around with mine, it is heavy 5.6 lbs. vs 3 for the 100-400. It you could rent one of these it would be worth it if you are ok with the weight.

[shaun3000]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but with the TC, I believe the 70-200 will actually be about the same speed. 2.8 X 1.4 = 3.92 max aperature??
Not sure about the exact factor but the effective max aperture is definitely smaller when using a televonverter.

[LouDawg]

You don't multiply the aperture (2.8x1.4 == incorrect). Rather, using the 1.4x reduces the effective aperture by one stop to f/4 due to the ratios.

[Persian-Rice]

The 70-200 f2.8 is the fastest telezoom you can get. Both AF and aperture. The biggest advantage is that it is very nice for indoor sports.

The 100-400 is the ultimate for outdoor shooting. It's pretty usless for shooting indoors.......... For you the 100-400 is the best bet. RJsorensen forgot to tell you that a 1.4x wont work on the 100-400 on the consumer dSLR cameras. There is a tape trick you can use, but I have heard on many occassions that the focus hunts alot, especially if its not very bright outside, sometimes to a point where it doesnt even focus. It also puts substantial wear on the focusing motor.

You could also get the 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6 primes which are better in image quality and in AF, they are cheaper too.

[kfong]

You don't multiply the aperture (2.8x1.4 == incorrect). Rather, using the 1.4x reduces the effective aperture by one stop to f/4 due to the ratios.
2.8X1.4=3.92 IS correct.
Using the 1.4X does not reduce the aperture, rather it increases the f/number by increasing the focal length.
Remember f/number = focal length/diameter of the objective. Since the diameter doesn't change, the f/number is proportional to the focal length.

Ken

[redneck]

Thank you for all your replies.

Some interesting and valuable advice. I AM actually very concerned about shutter speed as I shot photos of bears in Alaska (Wrangell) last summer with a cheapish 70-300 and a cheap 1.4 tc on my Nikon film camera with 400 speed film - shutter speeds where too low to capture the bears and the leaping salmon sharply or even when the bears where just walking!!!. and that was with the lens as wide open as I could set it, conditions where typical for SE Alaska - overcast and drizzly. I would rather not invest the money in a 100-400 4.5-5.6 lens if it wont freeze the action in typically low Alaskan light. IS won't matter a damm for this as it is there to reduce the effects of camera shake. Sticking the lens on f8 will reduce s/s even further, yes I hear ISO 800 is useable on the 20D but would obviously rather shoot at 400 or below if poss. Adding a 1.4 t/c will make the lens even slower although with the 1.6x factor the lens will give me 640mm without the t/c.

I have read the review on the comparison with the 70-200 2.8L with a 2x t/c and the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS, the 100-400 wins hands down.

To put it in perspective a 400mm 2.8 with say a shutter speed of 1/1000 is going to be 1/250 on a 5.6 - big differance!!!.

The idea of renting a 400mm 2.8 sounds like a good idea.

Thanks again and please feel free to add to the above comments - all opinions appreciated.


Jason

[sparker1]

Are you also going to Denali? If so, you will appreciate having as much reach as possible, whether you rent or buy. The same is true if you plan to take a boat tour, the puffins, eagles and other birds beg for the longer lens. Alaska has many large, open spaces where you might see wildlife very far away. The 100-400 AND a TC makes sense to me.

[jdbulldog]

If you decide to rent a lens make certain that it is insured. A friend of mine was on a boat shooting bears in Alaska last summer. He had it mounted on a tripod and had what he thought was a firm grip on the tripod. He was switching cameras and the boat struck an underwater log. The 400 f2.8 went right over the side. One of his buddies caught the tripod but not before the lens was half way in the water. Needless to say he had to use his back up lens (70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 x). The bill for the lens was almost $4500 and his insurance picked up the tab minus a small ($500) deductable.

Just a helpful piece of advice with such a valuable piece of glass.

J

[redneck]

Thanks again for all your replies.

Stan - I was at Denali last autumn, thankfully after the smoke had cleared. We saw lots of grizzlies - 18 from the VC up to Wonder Lake campground!!, we also got to to see wolves feeding on a caribou carcass by the bridge at the east fork of the Tolkat river - incredible as it was only 50 yards from the bridge.

I will be going back out into the wilderness hiking so a 300 f2.8 @ 5.6Ibs is way too much.

JDBulldog - What part of Katmai NP where you in? - where you watching the browns feeding on the sedge?, if you had a good experiene with a particular company I would appreciate any info, I have booked Brooks Camp in Katmai NP for 10-13th July. Good advice on the insurance :shock:

Having checked a fair few reviews I am undecided on the Canon 100-400, it seems as though most examples are quite soft at 5.6 and with the bears moving around I don't know how practical it will be to shoot at f/8 - will the shutter speeds be high enough? - at $2000CDN it could be an expensive mistake although it would be great for compressed landscapes. Add in the fact that the 10-22 will not be useable on full sensor cameras and for a $1000CDN is not an 'L' lens I am beginnig to doubt my choices!!!!.

I had planned to place the whole order on Friday and was looking forward to it.

Thanks


Jason
:confused: :cry:

[Jon]

Get the 100-400. Soft (and this is a relative term) at 400 mm/f/5.6 is still better than not having that 400 mm available at all. What are your alternatives? The 70-200 and 1.4x TC gets you to 280 at f/4 or f/5.6 depending on where you start. The 2xTC on the 70-200 will give you f/5.6 or f/8 (DOWYS again) at 400 and be worse than the 100-400. And the 70-200 f/2.8 will be about as heavy and bulky as the 100-400 (a tad better without IS, a tad worse with).

[Phil Hall]

I would go with the 100-400mm AND the 1.4X converter. The extra range is always useful when shooting wildlife.

Phil Hall

[timmyquest]

I would go with the 100-400mm AND the 1.4X converter. The extra range is always useful when shooting wildlife.

Phil Hall

The problem is that only 1 series bodies will AF at f/8

[Jon]

Better manual focus than "You can't get there from here".

[timmyquest]

Todays zoom lenses are very hard to manually focus becase the two actions have been seperated. I miss the old pushpull-twist lenses...i realize the 100-400 is a pushpull, but it is my understanding that the zoom ring is not easy to use while zooming.

[Jon]

I have one - not a problem. Just dampen down the zoom with the locking collar and you'll be able to focus without the framing shifting in the process.

[jdbulldog]

I used Hallo Bay who runs a camp not far from Mount Douglas across the Shelikof Strait from Kodiak Island. (This map shows hallo Bay: http://www.kodiakwilderness.com/kodiakmap.htm). Here is the link to Hallo Bay Bear Photography (www.hallobay.com). If you call ask for Clint, he is the owner and took great care of us. If I had the money I would go back again in a heart beat and stay 4 or 5 days.

We viewed bears clamming on the coastline as well as eating in the sedge at the edge of the coast. We saw twelve bears up close and personal. In fact one got within 15 feet of us (Inside the 3 m focus of my 70-200 L). The guide was AWESOME and took care of the situation by frightening the bear off with rocks and a log thrown at its feet. Even my stingy father-in-law loved the trip and has stated over and over that it was the highlight of the trip north.

If you call, Clint can also arrange flights from the bear camp to other parts of Katmai. They run a top notch service. In fact National Geographic's IMAX on bears was filmed at this camp. I am sure you have seen the footage of the cub walking up and sticking its nose on the camera. Our guide was the one who led NG around. If your there overnight you might even get a shot at the pack of wolves that runs through the area. (You will definitiely need a 400 2.8 for that to happen.)

PM if you want more information and check out the pictures of bears on my website.

http://ajgrizzle.com/Fine_art_photography/bear_images/index.htm

Image 3797 was the bear that got too close for comfort.

Good luck,
Jerry

[timmyquest]

If he's only going to be using the 400mm end of the lens then why not get the 400mm f/5.6

[sparker1]

Jason, I gotta tell you how envious I am that you saw so many bears in Denali. On our bus tour, we saw three white spots the driver called grizzlies. I couldn't tell. We did see wolves and a wolverine, but it was overall a disappointment. However, we had good luck in Hyder. If you haven't been there, try it in late July or August. Lots of bears up close.

[SkipD]

You sometimes can't have your cake and eat it too. If I was going to Alaska (knowing what I know now after having owned so many great Canon lenses including the 100-400, 500f/4 300f/4 400 5.6 and 300 2.8) I would not care much about a little extra weight. If you want the best package for the job, rent the 300 2.8 and buy a POTN neck strap in our products section. You will have a 672mm at f/4 and 480mm at 2.8 for low light. Best friggin lense I have owned hands down. The neck strap will take alot of discomfort away from your neck. Yes it is heavier than a 100-400, but you will be more than happy with the outcome when you return home.Did you realize that you were replying to a post that was a year and a half old? ;)

[wiselion]

Did you realize that you were replying to a post that was a year and a half old? ;)

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :D :D :D :D This is why I should not post when I get home at 11:30 p.m. from work.;) I wonder how it got to the front page though.

[xuxu1]

100-400...no doubt.
yep... thats the way to go.

Even though it´s an old posting... all others asking should know by now. :D :D :D

ED

[SkipD]

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :D :D :D :D This is why I should not post when I get home at 11:30 p.m. from work.;) I wonder how it got to the front page though.Reply to any message and it jumps to the top of the heap.....

[wiselion]

Reply to any message and it jumps to the top of the heap.....

Thats wierd. It was already on the front page before I replied. I just thought it was a new post. HMMMMMM.:?

[J T]

Thats wierd. It was already on the front page before I replied. I just thought it was a new post. HMMMMMM.:?

And what happened to your post that Skip replied to? It goes right from Stan's from March of '05 to skips with him quoting your current post. hmmm

Anyway, thanks for bumping it as I found it an informative read.

[wiselion]

And what happened to your post that Skip replied to? It goes right from Stan's from March of '05 to skips with him quoting your current post. hmmm

Anyway, thanks for bumping it as I found it an informative read.

I deleted it. Ask me why? I don't know.:confused: