Canon EF70-200mm f2.8 L iS USM V canon EF70-200mm f4.0 L iS USM for Wildlife shots

[GriGGerS]

Hi

I have just entered the world of digital photography and am very interested in taking wildlife shots. I have a Canon EOS 400D and im looking to buy a Telephoto zoom Lense. I understand for real wildlife photography something like a 400mm lense would be great ( if the funds were available).....
As i can't afford such a lense i am looking at the canon EF70-200mm f2.8 L iS USM or canon EF70-200mm f4.0 L iS USM.
From the reviews i understand that the f2.8 would be the better choice for moving objects, hence a good choice for wildlife?

Am i barking up the wrong tree here? Is there a better choice of lense?
The f4.0 is half the price of the f2.8 so if im going to spend out on the more expensive lense i would like to be sure that this will benefit me in shooting wildlife (along with practice and learning of course).

Thanks

Nige

[blonde]

honestly, for wildlife, i wouldn't get either one. considering the fact that the 100-400 IS is within your budget, i see no reason to get a 200mm lens which i can promise you will be too short most of the time. if you were planning on shooting in low light, than i would see a need for the 70-200 2.8 but considering the fact that you will be shooting outdoors, i simply don't think that you can beat the 100-400.

[Leorooster]

To me the 100-400L is a better wildlife lens.

[motion_projekt]

100-400 would definately be a better wildlife lens. are you looking at getting into other forms of photography...like will you need the lens for other stuff? should you dish out money for a lens that you'll use for specifically one type of photography, or should you consider getting a lens that is all around and more...versatile. you could pair the 70-2002.8 with a teleconverter...but you do lose some options...so anyway. something to think about.


just my $0.02

happy shooting.

[blonde]

well, even with the 1.4x the 70-200 will be too short most of the time and with the 2x, you are likely to loose quite a bit of IQ and lose the low light advantage that you wanted in the first place.

[nicksan]

100-400L is better suited for what you are trying to shoot.
However, if your wildlife shooting will be an occasional endevour, then you might want to look at other lenses.

The fact that you have a crop camera helps you a little here. You could get a 70-200 f2.8 IS and a 1.4 TC and stil get pretty good framing.

200 x 1.6 x 1.4 = 448mm FOV Equiv.

Which is pretty good. WIth the 1.4x you don't lose too much IQ, and essentially you end up with a 156 - 448mm f4 IS lens.

Just a thought...

[GriGGerS]

Thanks very much guys for the advice.. I will look at purchasing that lense. As i mainly intend to photograph wildlife (well at least attempt) this looks like the lense for me.
Im sure i will be back with many more questions...

Thanks

Nige

[marcus769]

I agree with others who recomend the 100-400 even though i've never used it..

Its simple..

Price $1,4xx VS $1,6xx
For the 70-200mm to = the focal length it would be another $280 on top of the $1,600 for a converter...

Bottom line.. There just isnt enough reach in 200mm to get wildlife photos as you would with the 100-400 for a cheaper price...

[The_Camera_Poser]

100-400. Just thought I'd say that, since no one else has.

You COULD go 400/5.6L and say 200/2.8L, but that'd be pretty awkward in the field at times.

[ctranter]

70-200 f/4L IS and the 400 f/5.6L are a perfect combo for me

(until I can afford a 500mm...)

[Matt P]

i love the 400 5.6 w or w/o teleconverter. I can always zoom backwards with my feet.

[tphotog]

I love my 2.8 70-200, but I use it for portraits because I really want to blur the background. For serious wildlife photography, size really matters. If you start a small business of some kind, you can turn your purchase of a long lens into a tax deduction.

Best wishes,
Bruce
http://www.better-digital-photo-tips.com/

[District_History_Fan]

Now that you know to look for a longer lens, check out the Sigma 150-500 too.