Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Jan 2011 (Sunday) 08:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Decision needed: 100 mm more reach VS 2 stops faster for wildlife lens

 
dlwalke
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jan 23, 2011 08:23 |  #1

I can afford either the EF 70-300 IS f/4-5.6 lens or the EF 70-200 IS f/2.8.

Foreseeable uses include a whale watching boat in Maine, a moose tour in Maine, and birds in backyard. I'm using a Rebel with an APS-C sensor (so not as fast vs full frame).

Would love to hear your comments, thoughts, advice, etc.

Thanks,
Dave




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sp1207
Goldmember
1,835 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Right Behind You
     
Jan 23, 2011 08:26 |  #2

The 70-200 IS 2.8 (even the mark I) is an amazing lens. The 70-300 is pretty terrible at any price over 200$.

IMO it's easy, get the 70-200, and if you need more range grab a teleconverter and you'll have more range and still be faster than the 70-300.


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 592
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 23, 2011 08:31 |  #3

At the price range you are considering, you should also have the 100-400L under consideration.

For wildlife longer = better.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Jan 23, 2011 09:01 |  #4

JeffreyG wrote in post #11697212 (external link)
At the price range you are considering, you should also have the 100-400L under consideration.

For wildlife longer = better.

+1

100-400 is a great lens for all wildlife if you don't want to spend megabucks.

No kidding. When animals see your lens, they immediately move farther away! ;)

Long focal length is ALWAYS better for animals and wildlife. The 70-200 2.8 works and plays well with both my TC's (1.4x and 2x), so that may an option for you as well.


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mk1Racer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,735 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Flagtown, NJ
     
Jan 23, 2011 09:05 |  #5

richardfox wrote in post #11697332 (external link)
+1

100-400 is a great lens for all wildlife if you don't want to spend megabucks.

No kidding. When animals see your lens, they immediately move farther away! ;)

Long focal length is ALWAYS better for animals and wildlife. The 70-200 2.8 works and plays well with both my TC's (1.4x and 2x), so that may an option for you as well.

On a limited budget, that will give you the most flexibility with very little trade-off. I went from a 70-300 to a 70-200 f/4L + 1.4x TC to a 70-200 f/2.8L + 1.4x TC and 2x TC.


7D, BG-E7, BGE2x2 (both FS), 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS (FS), 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk I, 70-300 f/4-5.6L, 550EX, Kenko Pro300 1.4xTC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pennington
Senior Member
Avatar
280 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Northeastern PA
     
Jan 23, 2011 09:22 |  #6

More reach will serve you better than faster glass at this point, and I speak from experience. A 70-200mm lens just isn't long enough to capture wildlife most of the time. I started shooting birds with one and was constantly frustrated by the lack of reach - and adding a teleconverter only made things worse, not better.

The 70-300 IS was my second wildlife lens and was well worth the money. Be prepared to shoot at about f/8 for improved sharpness, which will be difficult in low light, but otherwise it does a good job. The IS is invaluable and it's relatively small & light, which is something you'll miss if you ever upgrade away from it.

Even at 300mm you'll wish you had more reach, but the same is true at 400mm or 500mm. But it's still enough reach to make getting the shot possible much of the time. And given the uses you mentioned wanting it for, I think it's the best place to start.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,402 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Jan 23, 2011 09:51 |  #7

For wildlife particularly birds in your backyard, which are mostly small, I would go for reach, my weapon of choice is the Sigma 150-500 and even that is too short sometimes.


Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 524
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Jan 23, 2011 11:25 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

100-400L is good. Want something cheaper, try the Sigma 400mm or 500mm zoom lenses with OS.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JayCee ­ Images
Goldmember
Avatar
1,544 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: CA
     
Jan 23, 2011 11:26 as a reply to  @ TooManyShots's post |  #9

Another vote for the 100-400L.


Nobody cares about your gear list...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LowriderS10
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,170 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2008
Location: South Korea / Canada
     
Jan 23, 2011 11:51 |  #10

Are you talking about the 70-300 IS L or non L?


-=Prints For Sale at PIXELS=- (external link)
-=Facebook=- (external link)
-=Flickr=- (external link)

-=Gear=-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,431 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Jan 23, 2011 11:57 |  #11

I say either EF 400/5.6 or Sigma 150-500 OS. General rule for birding lenses: Get the longer one even if it is slower. I am not a fan of the 100-400 for birds. It is great for airshows and zoos and such, but not wildlife where you will spend all your time where it is the softest and still want more.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,109 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 435
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jan 23, 2011 11:59 |  #12

Sp1207 wrote in post #11697190 (external link)
The 70-200 IS 2.8 (even the mark I) is an amazing lens. The 70-300 is pretty terrible at any price over 200$.

IMO it's easy, get the 70-200, and if you need more range grab a teleconverter and you'll have more range and still be faster than the 70-300.

you have your lenses confused.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,454 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1496
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jan 23, 2011 12:20 |  #13

You need reach for birds/wildlife....I'd also recommend the 100-400L or the Sigma 150-500 over either of the two you've listed. They'll give you the range to get things that are staying farther away, but also let you capture them when/if they move in closer as well.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kent ­ andersen
Goldmember
1,071 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Norway, Kristiansand
     
Jan 23, 2011 12:39 |  #14

The new 70-300L IS has a very good reputation, but to fresh to for most people to say anything. I haven't tested it, I don't know anyone that has it. I wouldn't consider the old 70-200 2.8 IS, that is to soft for me. The canon rumour guy has made a comparison between 70-300L and the new 70-200 2.8 Mark II, and the 70-300 get a good review from him from his kenya trip.


Living in Austria, I am so glad that there is stuff like Gimp out there...
I am a happy giver, so if you find any misspelling in my text, you can keep them... :)
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/41388512@N05/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Jan 23, 2011 12:45 |  #15

Snydremark wrote in post #11698316 (external link)
You need reach for birds/wildlife....I'd also recommend the 100-400L or the Sigma 150-500 over either of the two you've listed. They'll give you the range to get things that are staying farther away, but also let you capture them when/if they move in closer as well.

I agree , one needs at least 400mm for wildlife .


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,397 views & 0 likes for this thread
Decision needed: 100 mm more reach VS 2 stops faster for wildlife lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is gammy13
1956 guests, 226 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.