70-200 f/4 and wildlife?

[Anteros]

I was wondering if anyone has had any success using the 70-200 f/4 for taking Wildlife pictures (with or without a 1.4x teleconverter) on a 1.6 focal multiplier camera.

Here's my situation. I am saving towards a Canon 100-400mm lens. I don't have a long lens at all right now (longest is 28-135mm). I can probably afford a 70-200mm sometime in May, but I will probably have to wait a few extra months (maybe as far as Christmas) before I can afford the 100-400mm. I'm thinking I may buy a 70-200mm f/4 used and sell it when I get the money for a 100-400.

I will probably use the long lens in other situations, but mainly I want to try out Wildlife photography.

Any opinions on this or are there any people who have done any Wildlife captures with the 70-200 f/4?

Thanks for your input.

[cc10d]

Generally speaking, anything less than an effective length of 400 is disapointing for wildlife. Now if you are only shooting larger animals and/or can get close, 200 with the 1.6 effective 320 will work OK. The 100-400 you are saving for is Great, the effective 640 potential is nice especially with IS for hand held. The zoom gives you effective 160 - 640. Nice, I enjoy my 100-400. There are situations where I use the 200 f2.8 L prime lens with great satisfaction and same for my 300 f2.8 L, but if I only had one lens it would be the 100 -400 L IS.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's a perfect Zoo lens!

It really depends on the size of the "wildlife" and the distances involved.

It is not really ;long enough for birds usually,. (though it certainly can be if you get close enough somehow)

But for horses,. and other larger animals it will do very nicely.

[condyk]

My conclusion of using 70-300 APO, 70-200 L and old 400mm 5.6 APO lenses, over the years I've been into and out of photography, is that the 400mm is the minimum useful length for general all round wildlife and, if close enough, birds.

Of course, if you have a bird table or feeder near your back door then it's a different story :lol: but I am really talking about WILD wildlife of different sizes .. not just Elephants.

I have just sold my 70-300 and am waiting longer term to afford the 400mm L canon prime for use alongside my 70-200 L and (a sooner to buy!) 1.4 extender. Extender and crop factor, according to my quick maths, makes the 400mm into a 896mm. Ooooh, missus, that's bigger than I thought! I think this is a great combo and weight less of an issue than some other options.

There was a fab bird website I found a few days back where her default lenses were Sigma 300-800mm and 800mm prime. Most of her shots where taken at 800mm and simply stunning. Of course, cost is the reason we don't all go to these 'lengths' :lol: and maybe weight.

[Andy D]

I have both the 70-200f4 and the 100-400. The following was shot with the 70-200 at my local Raptor Centre; it's great for this sort of wildlife, not sure how it will compare to a "safari" type of situation....

[funpix]

Andy how close were to this bird? And how much cropping did you have to do?

[mdr]

Got the 70-200mm f4 L and 1,4x TC. Took some fantastic shots of Little Egrets in flight in Egypt last week. Will post a shot, if I remember.

Of course I would want a longer lens, and the 300mm f4 L is on my shopping list.

[Andy D]

Andy how close were to this bird? And how much cropping did you have to do?

I was around 6 feet away and this is 100% of the image i.e. no cropping!

[KenE]

Here's my very first attempt at taking any kind of wildlife photo. It's not perfect, but pretty darn good mostly from 1) luck, 2) relatively tame wildlife and 3) decent light.

http://130.94.161.162/Images/Exploring2005/bend-ducks-2.jpg

My second attempt didn't work out too well. I was off on settings, not experienced with the kind of light I was working with (and what it would do to shutter speed), didn't have enough reach at the long end of the 70-200, and just generally not focused from being in awe of the huge volume of birds in the area that had taken a break from their migration.

http://130.94.161.162/Images/Exploring2005/Burns-March/album/

For being a complete noob at this sort of thing I was pretty satisfied at what I got.

[loebas]

I have the 70-200 f4 and no converter. I use it for wildlife but it is too short.
I a zoo it is a great lens or for portrait and family being outside etc.
If you want to get nice wildlife photos you have to get close to the wildlife.
This requires a lot of patience. Attached two photos i took of real wildlife wiht 70-200

I think about saving for a 100-400 or a 400 5.6.
As I don't wait for wildlife to come but walk/cycle around to trace them I tend to opt for the 100-400 IS. It has more flexibility and IS helps in case of low TV. and situations in which you have to react fast.
What bothers me is the push and pull zoom function that seems to work well but seems to attract dust.

[Anteros]

Thanks for the input folks. I'll probably end up getting the 70-200 f/4 temporarily until I can afford the 100-400.

[Medic1]

Thanks for the input folks. I'll probably end up getting the 70-200 f/4 temporarily until I can afford the 100-400.

If you get the 70-200 f4 and the TC that'll give you 280 plus 1.6X for now. Look at the 300 f4 prime, then you can use the TC with it as well retaining AF and giving you 420 plus 1.6X. I think you'll find you'll be at the long end of the 400 anyway for most of the kind of shooting your talking about.

I was looking at getting the 100-400 myself, but am slowly starting to fall in love with the 300 f4's results.

[condyk]

After much research, as usual, I have just ordered 1.4 and 2.0 x KENKO Teleplus Pro 300 DG teleconverters for use with the 70-200. They are half the price of the Canon and Sigma alternatives, but receive better feedback from users via one of the big comparison sites. feedback via various forums has also been excellent.

Uses Hoya glass and seem like a bargain. I will sell the 1.4 if the 2x produces the goods, or the 2x if it doesn't and keep the 1.4. I got both as was concerned about people's comments re. the Canon 2x so hedging my bets. I will try and post some shots when I get a chance, but find UK uninspiring generally for wildlife, as have been spoilt by more exotic locations :-) I don't really like sitting in hides either! maybe a few of Bath city centre ... could be a great cost effective way to go with the 70-200 and, later for me, the 400mm L.