San Diego Zoo - EF 200 2.8 + TC 1.4x?

we are going to San Diego in September and the Zoo is a must for me.
Currently my longest lens is the EF 135 f2L* which I use quite often with the 1.4x TC for Zoo and occasionally landscape but for San Diego, I'm thinking of using a longer lens.
I want something light and small to carry, my uncle is lending me his 100-400L but I may want something lighter and faster.

Now I'm thinking about the 200 2.8L, either v1 or v2, doesnt matter to me.
Is this lens long enough for SDZ?

I could also buy a used ED 70-300 IS but for some reason, I never liked this lens.
70-200 f4L IS might be good too but I don't want a white lens and it's slightly bigger than the 200 2.8

*errata, my longest lens is an FD 100-300 5.6 fo my AE-1 Pro

i have never been to the san diego zoo but i would consider using the 100-400mm. I go to a lot of zoos and you almost always want longer reach. If you have a lot of light, you don't need a low aperture, although the lower the better to blur out the background so it doesn't look like the animal is in a zoo.

Anyways when i'm shooting at a zoo i am almost always shooting at 300mm or more when i'm using the 100-400mm. Plus you can use the "tape trick" and you can use the 1.4x extender at f8 if the light is good. If you don't use the 100-400mm, you COULD get by with the 200mm but i'm sure you will be wanting extra reach. I can post some awesome zoo photos with the 100-400mm. Only bad thing about it, kids and some adults will look at your big lens and camera more than the animals.

I went to the SD Zoo with a 5D, 70-200 2.8, and 1.4 TC. I wanted something longer, so the 100-400 is a great idea. That plus the 135L would be a nice combination.

Take the 100-400. It's a great zoo lens.

Many of the exhibits at the San Diego Zoo offer viewing at relatively close quaters to the animals. I would always opt for a zoom lens when I am shooting various venues from relatively fixed positions.

You cannot zoom with your feet when shooting at any zoo, so (IMO) a zoom really comes into its own. If I had the choice of any Canon mount lens for zoo photography, I would most likely choose the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS coming in a close second.

I usually carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on one 1.6x camera with my 300mm f/4L IS on the other. I will usually carry a 1.4x TC along but, seldom use it.

Now for the San Diego Safari Park (AKA: Wild Animal Park) I will most often carry the 300mm f/4L IS om one camera with the 400mm f/5.6L on the othetr camera.

thanks all, might try my uncles 100-400L first with the 135 as 2nd lens

For zoo photos I use the 400mm 5.6. That said, the 200mm 2.8 is an outstanding lens. With the 1.4 extender you'll get 280mm with decent IQ. If possible use the 400mm lens, as the extra focal length is needed.

As Nightcat suggests if you want high quality photos without lugging a heavy 500/f4 IS rig and your spending the kind of money it costs to enter the SD Zoo i personally always bring the 70-200 f 2.8 MKII + the 400/f5.6 prime. I also bring along a Speedlite 580 EX II + Better Beamer for the animals that always seem to be in the shaded areas. Its tough to accomplish your objectives and at the same time achieve quality without packing the added weight. I usually just throw the additional gear in a small carry-on spinner suitcase and tow it behind me. If nice satisfactory photos are your goal then the 100-400 is an excellent choice along with the ThinkTank Digital Holster below:

http://www.thinktankph​oto.com …igital-holster-50-v2.aspx

http://www.youtube.com …U&feature=playe​r_embedded

Regards & Have Fun, Ron

We have a membership to the Detroit Zoo, so I shoot there a lot. The 100-400L is my primary zoo lens. I will also use the 135L for some indoor exhibits, and the 28mm f/1.8 for the indoor polar bear and giraffe viewing areas. If I decide to travel light for our visit, I will take just the 100-400L and leave the backpack at home.

The 100-400L is not any heavier than the 70-200mm f/2.8, so you are not going to save any weight by using the 70-200 with a TC instead. Lugging both the 100-400L and 70-200 f/2.8 would be too much for me. Your 135L would be a much lighter alternative for a fast lens in combination with the 100-400L, IMO.

200mm f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter. Small, light, and black.

Cesium wrote in post #14820759
200mm f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter. Small, light, and black.

Except for that whole TC part (if Canon)..

Wow, interesting comments here.

Let me add my 2 cents (actual monetary value: $0.00001)

We visited the SDZ in June on a typically bright, sunny day.
I had my 7D, 10-22 and my 100mm macro with me.

These are the conclusions I drew by the end of a very tiring day (>10 mile walk = wear comfortable shoes! ).


1) I was surprised at how dim/dark many of the enclosures were. Even an f/2.8 lens was struggling to focus. Forget about the snake enclosures... It's almost like a tomb. My UWA did a great job at 1/4s (and slower) exposures.

2) The macro actually did an excellent (dual) job of taking pictures of fauna (monkeys posing in their cages or my kids doing same outside) and of flora (quite abundant and interesting).

3) I never felt like I needed a longer lens. But that maybe just me (probably) because I see many comments to the contrary here.

4) The cages in addition to being pretty dark, have very tight grids which makes it very hard to (auto)focus on your subject behind it. So, manually helping the focus helps quite a bit. Plus you'll need a large aperture to "wipe" the grid out of focus.

5) My biggest surprise is when I realized, that an external FLASH would be ideal for such a place.

Best of luck and have fun!

PS Anybody else shared my experiences there?
PPS Bring your 135L!

We were just at that zoo in April. I used either my 17-55 or at the time the 55-250 for longer shots from the bus. Honestly, you can get so close at most of the areas that having a long zoom you may have framing issues, although less likely with a FF.

Now that I have the 70-300 L, it is perfect. You have both a wider and longer zoom. As long as it is a sunny day at the zoo you won't need speed unless you are indoors or in a darker area, in which case you are going to want a faster and wider lens anyway.

The 70-300 is lighter and shorter than either the 100-400 or the 70-200s.

Here are a couple of shots from the Indy Zoo I took with the 70-300L:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​584135162/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​584138256/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​584136810/

And now some San Diego Zoo shots..

17-55:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​725735954/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​725738744/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​725734890/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​725735410/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​725739324/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​725734208/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​725737502/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​725738020/

Keyan wrote in post #14820799
We were just at that zoo in April. I used either my 17-55 or at the time the 55-250 for longer shots from the bus. Honestly, you can get so close at most of the areas that having a long zoom you may have framing issues, although less likely with a FF.

Now that I have the 70-300 L, it is perfect. You have both a wider and longer zoom. As long as it is a sunny day at the zoo you won't need speed unless you are indoors or in a darker area, in which case you are going to want a faster and wider lens anyway.

The 70-300 is lighter and shorter than either the 100-400 or the 70-200s.

Here are a couple of shots from the Indy Zoo I took with the 70-300L:

some great shots!
the 70-300L is actually my dream tele lens to have, perfect for all-around landscape/wildlife and am actually planning to buy one next year.

however just thinking the 200 2.8 because it's cheaper and lighter, plus with a 1.4TC is a stop faster than the 70-300L, however no IS and no weather sealing.

i might as well use my uncle's 100-400L and 135L while saving for the 70-300L
but if I find a 200 2.8 for less than 600$, i'll buy it in a heart beat