7D Wildlife Lens

I've been using the 100-400 for the last few years and love it. It is very versatile, although you'll find yourself often wanting more reach for wildlife.

Palladium wrote in post #11875242
the 100-400 is old technology - try something brand new

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Lens

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …70_300mm_f_4_5_​6L_IS.html

No offense, but there's no way on God's green earth I would pay the asking price for that lens.

I'm sure it's nice, but there's nothing I've seen that puts it head and shoulders, IQ wise, above a good 100-400 copy. Granted, the weather sealing and better IS are nice, so perhaps the price is justified for some.

cputeq007 wrote in post #11875323
No offense, but there's no way on God's green earth I would pay the asking price for that lens.

I'm sure it's nice, but there's nothing I've seen that puts it head and shoulders, IQ wise, above a good 100-400 copy. Granted, the weather sealing and better IS are nice, so perhaps the price is justified for some.

That lens is ridiculously sharp compared to the 100-400L

What do you define as wildlife shooting?

If you shoot birds 400 may be a bit short. In a zoo you may get away with a lot less than 400.

Out on an African Safari shooting the 100-400 range is great, you may wish for more than 300 on quite a few occasions (though 300 will do in a pinch). At time 100 may be too long if you get close to big game, and a shorter lens on a different camera may be good to have handy (can get dusty in an open vehicle - closed vehicle you may have the option to quickly swap).

IS will also be very handy to have for long shots. The 100-400 looks like a great choice for a safari lens, but keep a shorter one handy as well. An elephant can be pretty far with a 400

Staszek wrote in post #11875459
That lens is ridiculously sharp compared to the 100-400L

True, but you don't buy the 100-400 for sharpness, you buy it for versatility and price.

Sp1207 wrote in post #11875594
True, but you don't buy the 100-400 for sharpness, you buy it for versatility and price.

The new 70-300L is a lightwieight lens (2.3 lbs vs. 3 lbs) compared to the 100-400 making it a great everyday lens (also it's a close focusing lens 3.9 feet vs 5.9 feet).

artyman wrote in post #11872304
I've been well pleased with my Sigma 150-500.

and 100% crop

+1 !!!

Hmm, the 70-300mm does seem quite a good lens like the 100-400mm. I am not sure if I would like the push/pool zoom on the 100-400,

I guess I will do some more research on them both and maybe go to a store and get a feel for both of them.

The wildlife I would be shooting would just be anything I see when I am out and about walking around my neighborhood and the closest zoo to me is Animal Kingdom :P so thats where I would be using that.

Maybe the 70-300mm is the way to go and then I can crop the images without losing too much sharpness?

Thanks again guys for helping out a newbie, appreciate it

Staszek wrote in post #11875459
That lens is ridiculously sharp compared to the 100-400L

Yes but compare the IQ at 300 f/5.6 and 400 f/5.6 respectively - I'm just not seeing much of a benefit except in corners, and I really don't care about corners if I'm shooting 400mm.

Like I said before, the 70-300L might be justified in its price to some people because of the features, but for pure IQ I think it's a wash really.

Granted - I'm approaching this from a birding mindset, where I'll probably be at 400mm most of the time. the 100 and 200mm marks look better than the 100-400L samples for sure

edit 2 - and not including the tripod collar is pretty insulting.

i don't see why anyone serious about wildlife/bird shooting would waste their time with the 70-300L....

DreDaze wrote in post #11876722
i don't see why anyone serious about wildlife/bird shooting would waste their time with the 70-300L....

Seriousness is a state of mind which in turn is so relative, eh?

Woot, looks like the 3 massive draught beers I have had till now and going is making me churn out that philosophical stuff

Go with the 100-400. You shant be disappointed (getting birds to sit still is another story...).

The 100-400 is not a perfect lens but it is very good at many things and it is almost always attached to my 7D. They are a great combination.

krb wrote in post #11876785
The 100-400 is not a perfect lens but it is very good at many things and it is almost always attached to my 7D. They are a great combination.

I agree, plus if you dont mind shooting manual focus @ F11.0 on a nice bright day the 100-400L does pretty good with the below 2X extender i tested:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1001570

Here below are some real world shots Sharon captured with her 7D + 100-400L using this same Kenko 2X MC4 DGX i tested:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=983021

Not half bad for a FOV of 1280mm with a crop body IMO.

Regards,

400 is very frequently not long enough; if you are seriously trying for birds, the 70-300 is pretty much a non- starter outside of more people-habituated birds. Hell, 400 is frequently lacking, IMO. Still, to get the range I'd LIKE would cost upward of $7k, so the 100-400's where it's at for me.