400 5.6, 100-400, 75-300 for small wild life ?

[Paul_Mc]

Which would be the better lense for capturing closeup photos of small
wildlife, such as frogs that are easily frightened, birds, etc. ?

I know that the 400 5.6 is great for birds in flight and small birding as well. But I want my lenses for more than just birding. Reptiles, insects, etc. Oh, and I am getting a macro lense, so this isn't about macro photography as much as it is closeup (if you know what i mean)

Aside from strictly birding, would the 400 5.6 be good for frogging? If i'm at the edge of a pond, about 15" away or so, and i see a frog, would the 400 5.6 be great for this moment? So many frogs jump when i get near them (I can't even imagine getting close enough for macro photography!)

Should i get the 400 5.6 and then get the 75-300 ? Is this a good combo?

Or should I get the 100-400? I'm not worried about IS really, I plan to get the most out of my gear so i'll be buying a tripod. But the 400 5.6 is sharper.

I just want to TRY and make my mind up soon (haha SOON - i have gone over this in my mind so many times over the past month!)

So if anyone owns these lenses, and shoots wildlife more than just birds with them, please share your photos or galleries and your advice/knowledge/experience because i'd sure appreciate any help i can get in busting this deadlock of mine between which lense and yadda yadda

I know i hardly ever get within the minimum focusing range of the 400 5.6 when i'm outdoors so i can't see it being a problem. But I can say that i saw a yellow warbler and i was about 8 feet from him and he paid me no mind (although all the frogs jumped away at my closing in)

THANKS!

[CyberDyneSystems]

I would say 100-400mm definately in this case.

One of it's advantages over the 400mm prime is it can focus closer.. a good deal closer. For birding this often does not matter... as yiou can;t get so close.. but it deos happen.. and with other little critters like frogs etc.. chances are pretty good that you'll be MUCH better off with a flexible zoom.

Check the EOS Sticky for reviews.. as well.

[Scottes]

100-400 definitely.

And you'll want a set of extension tubes for focusing closer than 6ish feet. Kenko has a set of 3 for about $120. If you have a Canon fetish then the 25mm is what you want IMHO.

[defordphoto]

As an owner of both, in this case I definitely recommend the 100-400.

[khiromu]

How about 300/4IS?? It has very good minimum focus distance.

[Adam Hicks]

An other vote for the 100-400. Sure it's 5.6, but in some of your nature shots you'll like the IS feature for buying yourself a couple extra stops. It really works well. It's not cheap, but it's so friggin' versatile and the images are fantastic. I can put it in it's case on my belt, stick my 28-75 2.8 on the 20D and I can cover just about anything that comes my way with two lenses.

Adam

[defordphoto]

Originally Posted by khiromu

How about 300/4IS?? It has very good minimum focus distance.

Great lens, but in this particular case a fixed lens severely limits capabilities.

[Jon]

100-400 definitely.

[ron chappel]

75-300 + 400/5.6...let's see-a just barely 'ok' lens that *sometimes* gets good pics + an awsome razor sharp tele that will frustrate you because you won't have it attached every time you need it

OR

100-400 a pretty awsome very sharp zoom that does everything

easy descision

[jukas]

Paul,

If I am understanding correctly, you are comparing the 75-300 non L to the 100 - 400 L or did you mean the 70 - 300 DO ?

Personally I would say it would depend on your budget and your style of shooting. You can get the IS version of the 75- 300 f/4 - 5.6 non L for $414 new (and around $300 used) compared to the 100 - 400 IS L for $1400. the 100 - 400 L is undoubtably a better quality lens, however I've shot tack sharp images with the 75-300 IS and once you've used it, you'll absolutely love the IS feature!

Fred Miranda's forum has a couple of review, which I've linked for you below.

100 - 400 f/4-5.6 L

75-300 f/4-5.6 IS

I can attest to the slower focusing on the 75-300 however I still found it very usable. When I needed really fast focusing I'd simply switch it to manual and do it myself. Also keep in mind many of the 100 - 400 L users have complained about dust getting sucked into the lens from the push/pull design.

Hope this helps.

[cmM]

the 100-400 is ideal, but I think the 75-300 is useable. It's much better than

Originally Posted by ron chappel

a just barely 'ok' lens that *sometimes* gets good pics

[boomer1959]

I've got a question concerning this.
Will the 100-400 work on larger animals such as deer, moose, elk etc.

[Scottes]

Originally Posted by boomer1959

I've got a question concerning this.
Will the 100-400 work on larger animals such as deer, moose, elk etc.

Of course. The 100-400 has a very short minimum focus distance, so if a moose ever thumps you in the chest with it's nose you'll still be able to get the eye in focus.


Seriously, the IS on the 100-400 is nice for the low-light situations when you'll most likely get moose and deer. However, it's f/5.6 and this isn't the best lens or max aperture for auto-focus in low light. It's a trade-off here. The 100-400 will work, but it isn't the best lens for those large, low-light animals.

If I were going after deer and moose and I had the cash then I'd probably go out with a 300mm f/2.8 L IS and have a TC in my pocket. However, that's a $3,900 lens. Canon has a 300mm f/4 with IS for $1,150 but that limits the use of a TC.

[Paul_Mc]

The 100-400 seems to be the way to go, but i did find out about the Bigma and that's tempting. I;ve seen lots of shots from both lenses. But the bigma does lack IS.

Today I went for a walk at Ridley Creek State Park in PA and as I traveled a paved roadway for bikers, walkers, etc., I came up alongside the creek and on the other side in the foliage but in an open area sitting up on the bushes (about 15 feet high) was a great blue heron! I was in the shaded part somewhat under the canopy of trees (well at least they were blocking the sun but the GBH was in sunlight. He must have been.... well about 50-80 feet away. On the other side of a 25 foot wide creek.

Then as I walked farther on, grumlbing over not having any photography equipment yet, a woodpecker (with red head) came into sight on a tree about 20 feeet away and about 20 feet high as well.

Nature is playing with me, it's just not right! Oh and 2 weeks before a very small brownish frog jumped into my path as i took a shortcut through a wooded area.

Of course my soon-to-be-owned macro camera would have been great.

[Lamium]

Originally Posted by jukas

Paul,

Also keep in mind many of the 100 - 400 L users have complained about dust getting sucked into the lens from the push/pull design.

Altough I (ab)use the 100-400 L extensive on my hikes exposed to all elements, I have never experienced any dust in the lens