jonharrisphotography wrote in post #16371093
5D MkIII body
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS IINot considering the 100-400mm ‘pump’. I think it’s too much of an overlap with my 70-200mm, and I don’t like the pump design.
My main shooting scenarios and priorities are as follows:
Mainly using this setup for birds and wildlife. Not heavily focused on birds in flight, which the EF 400mm would probably be best for due to weight and AF speed.
As light and un-bulky as possible without compromising IQ and performance. This is leading me away from the 2x extender option.
Would love to hear thoughts on anybody who has played with any of my proposed setups.
Whenever some quotes "birds and wildlife" I always recommend the 100-400. It's relatively light, it will fold down very small if you're hiking. IQ differences between all of the lens you mention is minuscule, AF will be the main decider.
The 70-200 is not a wildlife lens, if you go hiking it really doesn't need to be in your bag. I have one and love it but, I hardly ever use it.
The 400/5.6 is a great lens but for wildlife (not birds) the MFD can be a big factor, as we all try to get as close as possible to eliminate the need to crop. If you go with that, the Kenko TC's are normally used when taping pins.
The push/pull is a love or loathe thing. For me it's so fast to pull back to find a small bird hopping in the branches, the zoom in to shoot, it's very easy to get into and very fast.
The 100-400 is probably my most used lens, I can post examples, but unless they were side by side with the other lens, you'll never tell any difference.