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 Photography Talk by Genre Wildlife Talk 
Thread started 24 Aug 2011 (Wednesday) 19:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens Setup for Wildlife

 
huntersdad
Goldmember
4,560 posts
Likes: 182
Joined Nov 2008
     
Aug 24, 2011 19:23 |  #1

While I shoot pics of my daughter, my first and true love is wildlife. I have what you see in my sig. I'm thinking of making a change but not sure where to go.

The 500 and 1.4x stays and both bodies stay.

The question becomes the 70-200. It is my go to for my daughter but really serves no purpose for wildlife to me. I have thought about picking up a Mk III 2x and using it on my 5D for wildlife, but I'm not sure that is the right way to go.

The 24-105 is my walk around/landscape lens. I don't do alot of walk around or landscapes but it has been pretty handy when I did.

I'm not a big fan of the 100-400, hence why it's not in my lineup.

Any thoughts? Do you guys all fill the void of 200-400 void with the 100-400? Any of you use the 70-200 for wildlife with success?


Facebook (external link)

http://WWW.BLENDEDLIGH​TPHOTOGRAPHY.COM (external link)
5D4 / 35 F2 / 50L / 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MCAsan
Goldmember
Avatar
3,797 posts
Likes: 61
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta
     
Aug 24, 2011 21:11 |  #2

so are you moving both bodies to crop or FF? that of course impacts len selection based on desired focal lengths. If the emphasis is on wildlife (distance, high speed, faster ISo likely) I would consider having both of you on 7Ds....unless you have the budget for IDIV (a killer body for wildlife and sports).

Personally I do not use any of the 70-200 family. I got us both the 100-400 for our trip to South Africa last summer. I also rented us a pair of 500mm and put our 1.4 on them. The vast majority of my wildlife shots were either made with our 100-400s or the Tamron 18-270 (first generation) that was our walkaround lens at the time. Since then I replaced the 40D with a 5DII and will do so soon for the wife. So when we go back to South Africa next summer the plan is to use the 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400 on 5DII. The Tamron 18-270 PZD (second generation) and the rented 500 and 1.4 converter will be on the 7D. That combo gives us the range of 17mm UWA to over 1000mm telephoto.

I hope some of this ramble helps. :D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,560 posts
Likes: 182
Joined Nov 2008
     
Aug 24, 2011 21:28 as a reply to  @ MCAsan's post |  #3

I generally pair the 500 and 1.4 with the 7d. In fact, for the most part, it's the only reason I have a crop body.

I use the other two lenses with my 5d for portraits of my daughter, family, landscapes and so on.

Obviously, when I trek out for wildlife, the setup is above for the 500 and then I throw the 70-200 on the 5d - which, let's be honest, is useless for wildlife due to lack of reach.

Obviously, I could pick up a 2xIII and add it to the 70-200 giving me more along the lines of a 100-400.

Just thinking through what I have for what I enjoy shooting while making sure I keep the family covered.


Facebook (external link)

http://WWW.BLENDEDLIGH​TPHOTOGRAPHY.COM (external link)
5D4 / 35 F2 / 50L / 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jhayesvw
Cream of the Crop
7,229 posts
Gallery: 167 photos
Likes: 255
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Tucson AZ
     
Aug 24, 2011 23:57 as a reply to  @ huntersdad's post |  #4

i think maybe you should think about becoming a fan of the 100-400L
its a great lens.
very versitile, sharp, and the push pull is actually pretty nice when you get used to it.

beyond that, I HEAR a 70-200 IS 2 with the new mk3 2x TC has similar IQ to the 100-400.
you could try that combo.



My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott_online
Senior Member
369 posts
Gallery: 85 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 1067
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 25, 2011 10:46 as a reply to  @ jhayesvw's post |  #5

I would keep the 70-200 and pick up a 2x converter.

I've been using the 70-200+2x combo quite a bit recently on both a 7D and a 5D2. With the 7D, it's my 'travel' wildlife setup where it isn't practical to carry anything longer and I've just returned from safari in SA where I used it on the 5D2. I did start out without the 2x but it left too big a gap to my 'long' lens (a 300/2.8+1.4x) on the 7D.

I wouldn't worry at all about the image quality with the 2x. It's perfectly fine, even wide-open. The only drawbacks are the reduction in focussing speed and the outer focus points on the 5D2 will struggle a bit (centre is good though).

There are examples of all of the body/TC combinations on my Flickr photostream at http://www.flickr.com/​photos/16866094@N06/ (external link) although they've all been downsized for the web, so I wouldn't judge absolute sharpness on these.

An alternative option would be to buy another crop body and maybe another 1.4x which would turn the 70-200 into a 150-450/4. Either way, I would keep the 70-200. Used neat on the 5D2 the image quality is remarkable.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Craigstuarthollis
Member
142 posts
Likes: 32
Joined Aug 2011
     
Aug 26, 2011 05:06 as a reply to  @ Scott_online's post |  #6

You could consider keeping the lenses you have and buying an additional crop sensor body for when you are walking around so that you can have both your 500mm with 1.4x and your 70-200 on 1.6x crop bodies.

Is your 5d a mkII and do you always need the full reach of 500mm + 1.x + crop factor? Because if you don't you could put your long lens and extender on the 5d mkII with it's fantastic sensor and gain some reach on your shorter zoom but pairing it with the 7d.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,560 posts
Likes: 182
Joined Nov 2008
     
Aug 26, 2011 10:16 as a reply to  @ Craigstuarthollis's post |  #7

The 5d is a 5Dc. And, yes, normally, I need the reach. Still considering the 2xIII route. That seems pretty viable, given my disdain for the 100-400. Maybe I am going to invest in the 200-400 when it comes out.


Facebook (external link)

http://WWW.BLENDEDLIGH​TPHOTOGRAPHY.COM (external link)
5D4 / 35 F2 / 50L / 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ssim
POTN Landscape & Cityscape Photographer 2005
Avatar
10,884 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2003
Location: southern Alberta, Canada
     
Aug 27, 2011 16:15 as a reply to  @ huntersdad's post |  #8

Wildlife is a pretty broad subject. Is there a specific area of wildlife that draws your interest more than others. I would disagree with you on the 100-400 as I find it a great lens and it is alot easier than walking around with heavier glass when you have long distances to cover. If I am just walking through the bush that is what I have on. The 70-200 can be a good wildlife lens, it all depends on what you are shooting. Add a 1.4TC and you have reasonable reach. I shot this rattlesnake shot with the 70-200 without the converter, it all depends on how comfortable you are getting close to some subjects or how close they will let you get.

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/ssim/image/137409974/medium.jpg

I am a much bigger fan of the 1.4TC than the 2.0 of which I have both. I have even shot them stacked on my 600 which gives you a great reach but you need allot of light. Even with the 2.0TC by itself I have found some softness in the image that is not there with the lens by itself. I don't use my FF body for much wildlife work even though I have long glass. If all you shoot is wildlife I would question why you would even have a FF body. If I didn't have a multitude of other uses for the FF body I wouldn't have one.

If you shoot small birds you need all the reach you can get in order to keep your images sized at sensor size. If it is large animals such as deer, elk, etc. then you might get away with FF body and long glass but I still like the extra little reach I get from the crop factor in my MKIV and the FPS advantage over the FF that does come in handy at times.

My life is like one big RAW file....way too much post processing needed.
Sheldon Simpson | My Gallery (external link) | My Gear updated: 20JUL12

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Overread
Goldmember
Avatar
2,184 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 27
Joined Mar 2010
     
Aug 27, 2011 16:27 |  #9

I'll second the motion to keep the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII and get yourself a 2*TC (MII or MIII). That will give you a 140-400mm lens that is pretty much on par with the 100-400mm in terms of optical performance. There are a good few comparisons of the two lenses against each other; eg
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=869226

That gives you a stella 70-200mm for close up work and your current shots of your family - whilst also giving you a good quality 140-400mm to support your 500mm lens when in the field - whilst the 400mm reach also makes it suitable for a lighter option for when the 500mm is just not on the cards to bring to an event/situation.


Tools of the trade: Canon 400D, Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS, Canon MPE 65mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, Tamron 24-70mm f2.4, Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6, Raynox DCR 250, loads of teleconverters and a flashy thingy too
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
simonjs
Member
57 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: UK
     
Sep 15, 2011 14:41 |  #10

I would also suggest using a 1.4x and 2x converters, especially with the mark II 70-200mm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hollywoodgt
Senior Member
Avatar
971 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Mar 2011
Location: New,Lenox,Il
     
Sep 21, 2011 14:07 as a reply to  @ simonjs's post |  #11

I myself was torn between buying a 400mm 2.8L or a 500mm 4L how ever I have a 70-200mm 2.8L IS II and a 2X EX II I thought trying that lens and seeing how it comes out before drop $5500..00 plus


www.Jeffreyantonphotog​raphy.com (external link) http://www.modelmayhem​.com/jeffreyanton (external link)
Bodies:5D Infared 5D MK II/5D MKIII 4 Travellites 750R
18=55mm/55-250mm/50mm Ef1.8/70-200 ef2.8L IS II/85mm 1.2L II/24-70mm 2.8L II/16-35mm 2.8L II 2X Ext II
(3) 430EX/(3) remotes/2umbrellas plus assortment of defusers

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,349 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1382
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Sep 21, 2011 14:20 |  #12

Full disclosure: The 100-400 is my favorite lens, ever, to date:

If your 70-200 is the original model, I wouldn't bother with the TC idea, simply based on overall results I've seen come back from it during my time here. I have the 100-400, and the newer Mk II 70-200; when I tried out the Mk II + 2x MkIII TC combo it didn't come anywhere close to acceptably approximating the results possible from the 100-400.

If you don't like the 100-400, and you're looking for a stabilized, long zoom, your only other option would be one of the Sigmas.

I find that there isn't MUCH use for the 200-399 range for small birds or large mammals MOST of the time. They're either close and small (birds, chipmunks, etc) or they are large and (hopefully) far (bear, moose, deer); which, in both cases, generally has you at your longest focal length, anyway.


- 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
Bogino
Senior Member
Avatar
488 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 255
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
     
Sep 25, 2011 10:09 as a reply to  @ Snydremark's post |  #13

I too sort of have the same dilemma. I travel to Costa Rica a lot and my preference is in shooting rainforest wildlife. Last year I used the Canon 400mm. It was OK but I wasn't "thrilled" with it. Seems to lack versatility. I've since sold the 400mm and recently purchased the new Canon 70-300mm L lens which is fantastic. However, I'm still thinking about a lens with a range of 400mm and I keep thinking about the Sigma 120-400mm versus the Canon 70-300mm L. My primary target are monkeys and birds and God Forbid should I ever be able to catch a shot of one of the Cats (jaguar...puma..). Any thoughts?


Canon 7D Mark II; Canon 70-300mm "L"; Canon 100mm Macro; Tamron 24-70mm; Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,560 posts
Likes: 182
Joined Nov 2008
     
Sep 27, 2011 22:50 as a reply to  @ Bogino's post |  #14

Well, it only takes a matter of days to change the value of things.

In SF this week and have found that my 70-200 on my 7D does have a good bit of versitility. Used it for some distance shots of the GG Bridge and for Alcatraz. That being a learned lesson, probably gonna keep it.

I traded my 24-105 for a 28-70 2.8. Valued the speed over the range and IS. I also added a 400 5.6 to use on my 5D in combo with my 500. Pretty sure I'm gonna stick with one of the bodies - just deciding which one. Still a big difference between my 400 on FF and 500 on crop, but I think I'll like it once I get the opportunity to use them in tandem.


Facebook (external link)

http://WWW.BLENDEDLIGH​TPHOTOGRAPHY.COM (external link)
5D4 / 35 F2 / 50L / 85 1.8

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

4,160 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lens Setup for Wildlife
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Wildlife Talk 
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 joni H
936 guests, 335 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.