L Dreams Coming True?

Could it be?!
Yes, I could *possibly* be getting a refurb L to go with a soon to be mine 60D.
So, I was shooting for the 24-105L first, but I saw the 70-200L F/4.0 was actually $400 cheaper or something like that.
SO, for wildlife photography, on a 1.6 crop sensor, am I choosing the right thing?

what kind of wildlife ?

For wildlife you want to go as long as possible, ideally a 100-400, but I think that's out your price range. I have the 70-200 f/4 and use it for wildlife and it does ok. I wish it was longer.

wildlife in a zoo, 70-200 will be fine for most animals

wildlife out in the wild, you'll be coming up short...

You seem to be building up your gear. If I'm correct, then, having a 70-200 f/4 is not a bad place to start.

All Canon's 70-200 lenses are excellent and having one of them in your system is useful. The f/4 version is the most basic and affordable model and many users own this lens as their first L lens (me included). This lens or any other 70-200 may not be the right tool for wild life depending how much reach you need. That said, I used to use this lens with 1.4X extender on a 1.6 crop body in earlier years and it wasn't that bad at all.

But are you choosing between 24-105 and 70-200 just based on the price? This would be OK only if you're going to get both and you can get only one lens at the time. Otherwise, I would be looking into what lens do I need instead of what L lens can I buy.

Good luck anyway

Depends what kind of wildlife you're talking about. If you mean in zoos and the like, yes its fine. If you mean "real" wildlife, then very likely no. You'd want ~400mm for that, which means looking to the sigma 150-500 OS or 120-400 OS, or if your budget allows (which I doubt from your post), the canon 100-400.

Unless of course you know you'll be able to get relatively close to the wildlife, then the 70-200 shines. Here are some zoo/safari shots with it:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

Okay. I don't do too much wildlife, more horse shows. I think between the 70-200 and a crapster 135-400 that I have, I should do fine for animals that aren't lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) wouldn't want to get to close to those suckers And I would like high quality, fast glass so I believe the 70-200 L is a good place to start. For right now, it should have the reach I need. If it doesn't and I get super serious about real wildlife photography, then I will move up according to my needs. Also, I am going to buy based on the overall better lens too. I have allowed myself to pick between these too, as they will allow me to shoot two different aspects of wildlife that I am interested in. I don't want to spend that kind of money that's going to be rather problematic, if you see what I mean.

KatieMarie99 wrote in post #13720505
Okay. I don't do too much wildlife, more horse shows. I think between the 70-200 and a crapster 135-400 that I have, I should do fine for animals that aren't lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) wouldn't want to get to close to those suckers And I would like high quality, fast glass so I believe the 70-200 L is a good place to start. For right now, it should have the reach I need. If it doesn't and I get super serious about real wildlife photography, then I will move up according to my needs. Also, I am going to buy based on the overall better lens too. I have allowed myself to pick between these too, as they will allow me to shoot two different aspects of wildlife that I am interested in. I don't want to spend that kind of money that's going to be rather problematic, if you see what I mean.

me say 70-200 f/4L IS w/ Kenko 1.4x extender and you'll be close to 300mm with the extender on. DDD

KatieMarie99 wrote in post #13720505
Okay. I don't do too much wildlife, more horse shows. I think between the 70-200 and a crapster 135-400 that I have, I should do fine for animals that aren't lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) wouldn't want to get to close to those suckers And I would like high quality, fast glass so I believe the 70-200 L is a good place to start.

In that case, a 70-200 should be fine! Although I wouldn't exactly call the f4 version "fast".

Vixen89 wrote in post #13720547
me say 70-200 f/4L IS w/ Kenko 1.4x extender and you'll be close to 300mm with the extender on. DDD

With the crop sensor I believe I'm already at 320? And I think I would buy the extender before a new lens altogether.

Sirrith wrote in post #13720565
In that case, a 70-200 should be fine! Although I wouldn't exactly call the f4 version "fast".

Faster than 5.6
Aha, I know what your saying, but for me it is a big step up!

Sirrith wrote in post #13720475
Depends what kind of wildlife you're talking about. If you mean in zoos and the like, yes its fine. If you mean "real" wildlife, then very likely no. You'd want ~400mm for that, which means looking to the sigma 150-500 OS or 120-400 OS, or if your budget allows (which I doubt from your post), the canon 100-400.

Unless of course you know you'll be able to get relatively close to the wildlife, then the 70-200 shines. Here are some zoo/safari shots with it:

That bird was about 40m away if I recall, and this was shot with a 1.4x TC, so 280mm. My intention was actually to photograph the bird, but since this was the biggest I could get it in the frame, I went for this shot instead.

Also, your photography is beautiful

KatieMarie99 wrote in post #13720623
With the crop sensor I believe I'm already at 320? And I think I would buy the extender before a new lens altogether.

Faster than 5.6
Aha, I know what your saying, but for me it is a big step up!

You're still at 200/280 with the crop sensor, the 1.6 factor does not affect actual focal length of the lens, just the effective field of view. Basically you get the same FOV as a 320mm lens on FF, but don't let that concern you unless you also happen to shoot FF, or want to reproduce a shot taken with a FF camera etc... Just think of it as a 200mm lens, no more, no less.

And yes, you should be pleasantly surprised by it.

KatieMarie99 wrote in post #13720633
Also, your photography is beautiful

Thanks

Sirrith wrote in post #13720665
You're still at 200/280 with the crop sensor, the 1.6 factor does not affect actual focal length of the lens, just the effective field of view. Basically you get the same FOV as a 320mm lens on FF, but don't let that concern you unless you also happen to shoot FF, or want to reproduce a shot taken with a FF camera etc... Just think of it as a 200mm lens, no more, no less.

And yes, you should be pleasantly surprised by it.


Thanks

Oh, interesting. Thanks! Learn something new everyday!

Should be OK, but I wouldn't go shooting tigers in the wild with a 70-200......

kfreels wrote in post #13721021
Should be OK, but I wouldn't go shooting tigers in the wild with a 70-200......

HECK no! (;