Wildlife Lens vs. Travel

*I have posted an idential thread in the Lens Section. I am looking for advice from both spectrums of the board, and I apologize if I have broken the rules.

Hey,

I have some cash saved for a 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L telephoto lens. I've got almost enough and I look at my savings and think, "Christ, what a lot of money." It has taken me a very long time to save this money and now that I am near my goal, I am reluctant to part with it all for just one lens.

I believe that it's the photographer, not the gear, that takes a great picture. Currently, I shoot with a 5 year old Rebel XT and a 70-300 USM IS 4.5-5.6. About 90% of my images are taken with my 70-300. There are many examples of images taken with this gear on my website, so check it out, if you discern the 70-300 + Rebel XT to be an inferior setup. However, if a new lens is going to help me to evolve into a more experienced photographer, I look at the price tag as an investment into my skill level as an artist.

No, my gear is not the greatest. But - my 300 has almost as much reach as the 400, and the same maximum aperture range. Is that 400 really going to improve my work? And to what extent? Will it really assist in furthering my skill and experience in photography?

I am thinking that a better investment would be a quick trip based around wildlife photography. With all this money, I could get out and shoot some great wildlife pictures to add to my portfolio!! Alaska for grizzlies, salmon and eagles, or the Great Bear Rainforest for Kermodes, whale watching trips up the coast...the possibilites go on.

So basically it all boils down to: What is the richer experience? A photography trip with my Rebel and 70-300, or a 100-400 telephoto lens?

Jeez, I could really use a vacation...

I think you should take the trip and rent a bigger lens.

We got 100-400 last year for a trip to South Africa. We also rented 500s in country. The VAST majority of my shoots were with 100-400. So much easier to move around...and not all your target will need all the distance you can reach. With a fixed lens...what do you do when a target flys/walks up to where you are located? With the zoom, you can back off without changing the lens. Our best combo was to put the 500 with 1.4x on our 40Ds and keep the 100-400 on the 7Ds. That way were prepared for any thing from 150mm to almost 900mm by the time you figure in crop factors.

So can you get great shots with a fixed 300? No doubt you can. But what will you do when the shoot needs much less....or a little more?

Couple of things to consider:

1.) You can always try renting the 100-400 first and see if the results are worth it.

2.) Don't forget L glass holds its value incredibly well, so while it may be a big purchase initially, if you find yourself saying "my old lens was giving me about the same results" you can always sell it for little loss.

I have no experience with the 70-300 so I can't compare the two lenses for you.

MCAsan wrote in post #12153714
So can you get great shots with a fixed 300? No doubt you can. But what will you do when the shoot needs much less....or a little more?

Adapt your composition, change lens to an alternative (70-200 is my fave) or stick a TC on if you need more reach.

A 300 f2.8 with 1.4x and 2x TCs, paired with a 70-200 f4, is still my favourite safari combination. I've used that combination for the last two safaris, a 100-400 for the three safari previous to those and a 70-300 for my first one. If I were faced with the OP's choice - go to Africa with a 70-300 or not go and buy a 100-400. I'd go.

But I'd try damn hard to save up the £900 for a second-hand 100-400.

I use the 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 IS USM on my 60D for sports, a bit of wildlife, and shots of candidates at political forums. I'm very happy with the image quality, the balance on my 60D (not too heavy), and the very good IS. Occasionally 400mm would be nice, but I'm not willing to lug it around or pay the price. If it was really necessary, I would rent one.