Wildlife, zoom lens and low light suggestions and help..

Hey all, finally starting in on forums as back in June I got my Canon T5i and been reading and learning ever since (and loving every second of it )

I mainly shoot wildlife and I currently have a EF-S 55-250 lens. I would like to upgrade and thinking about the 28-300 or 100-400 with the main objectives being better glass and more reach.

Currently it seems that some of my shots on overcast days are of subjects in the shadows like on the shadow side of a tree trunk or in shade under a large tree. My photos end up with a lot of grain due to high iso (1600/3200 if I recall). So far I've been doing all my shooting hand held and looking back at my images in Lightroom the shutter speed seems ok for the lens.

In the future I would like to upgrade to a full frame canon body with better handling of higher iso and noise reduction. For now I'm thinking of getting the lenses that will work with a full frame so when I switch down the road all will be good.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong in my shooting? But anyway I have a question about zooms and their aperture...

Both zooms I noted will have a 5.6 on the long end which already has me thinking higher iso in low light. I could go with a 70-200 f2.8 to allow more light but then I lose a lot of reach. I'm fine with some grain, I would like it at a normal level so it doesn't effect IQ.

How do you all handle these low light and max zoom situations?
EDIT: At times I don't use a tripod/slow shutter speed as I want to catch when a bird takes of into flight.

Sorry if this has been asked before. I couldn't figure out the best keywords to find it on the forum or google.

- In this case you will not have same results in terms of focal distance. So you will be shorter with same lens )

- Those are not excellent. But acceptable )

- Use extender. Or use prime.

iroctd wrote in post #16270931
How do you all handle these low light and max zoom situations?

You buy a 500mm f4

Anyway, back in the real world... yes, this is a problem, but if you want reach and fast shutter speeds in non-ideal light, and you don't have a significant bank balance then it's really got to be high ISO I'm afraid.

Remember that a telephoto focal length + a large aperture will usually also result in a relatively shallow depth of field (unless the subject is a very long distance away). As such, I sometimes find the need to stop down for sufficient DOF, so even with an uber expensive fast lens (which I don't own), I'd still be shooting at a smaller aperture.

On a crop body, your 55-250 is essentially an 88-400 in full frame terms, so whilst the 100-400 would give you more reach, going to full frame would bring it back to the same sort of reach you have now.

A full frame sensor should give you just over 1 stop of improvement in noise (for crop vs. FF with the same technology of sensor). However, as you lose 1.6x the reach, you'd have to use a 1.4x TC to get somewhere near what you had before - which would lose one stop of light (i.e. you're kinda back where you started, unless you're going FF plus some seriously pricey glass).

Whilst it's no faster (still f5.6) you might consider the 400mm f5.6 prime, as I understand that's very popular with birders (fast AF) and should have much better image quality than the 100-400mm.

If I shot nothing other than wildlife (where I needed reach), I'd probably stick with a crop body, and a 70-200 f2.8, plus a 400mm f5.6 (or maybe a 300mm f4 IS), and also a couple of TCs. But if someone else were paying, I'd gladly use a 1DX with a 200-400 f4 IS!

You can go longer, or you can go faster, but it gets damn expensive to do both. Decide whats most important to you, reach or low light capability and then take that route. As mentioned above the best route for both is a fast prime. You might want to stick with a crop body like the 7D if you want to maximize your reach.

To para-quote another member of this forum, (can't recall who?)

"If your not chasing the light, your doing it wrong"

ie: rather than try to get gear that will help you make an o-kay photo out of a bad lighting situation, you should focus on trying to shoot under the right conditions for good lighting and get fantastic photos as a result.

You can throw as much money as you want at the problem, but the real solution for exceptional images is good lighting.

That said, If I had a hardware recommendation for you, it would be a powerful speedlite and a better beamer flash extender. Decent fill flash will get you the best results for the least amount of hardware expense.

Get the 100-400mm by the way. If your shooting wildlife, a 70-200mm is not the way to go, unless you do add the magnificent and affordable 400mm f/5.6L

what cyberdyne said. you can have all the gear in the world and still have terrible light.

Plus, I had a 70-200 2.8 while in Costa Rica, and the jungle is a fickle b*tch in terms of light. The 2.8 aperture did little to keep me out of the high ISO ranges, and definitely did not provide as much reach as I found myself wanting.

Good point! I knew being on a crop body had that effect but I never thought of the reverse on FF. Definitely something to think about since I already own the crop body.

I'm actually glad to hear that it is a problem and I will have to deal with the higher iso, it just tells me that I'm on the right track of thinking for the gear I can buy and work with.

And I also hadn't thought about DOF specifically 2.8 on a zoom, but that makes total sense. What are your experiences of common apertures used while zoomed to 400mm? Just want to gauge it against the lens being a 5.6 and feel better about it - which is silly I know lol

Ok, I didn't know how much improvement of noise there was in FF. Being that it is just one stop and in your example it again makes me question upgrading. Especially since it seems I would come full circle.

Honestly I'm a bit afraid of primes because I can't zoom and i'm not sure how much foot movement I would have to do to fit the subject in the frame or just switch lenses. I.e. spending the money and finding out that a certain focal length isn't used much. What would you say the percentage of IQ difference is between zoom & prime?

Good news is I feel better about zooms at the long end and their aperture. I was thinking... quality lens and getting stuck on F2.8 but forgetting about DOF.

Hmm, how well does a 70-200 f2.8 play with a Extender either the 1.4x or 2x? I know the extenders reduce by 1/2 stops, don't they reduce IQ a bit? That could be an option for closer subjects in low light and also getting reach.

That is excellent advice and that makes me feel better too because I have one photo I love which looks great and was taken in great light and when I look at my other photos taken in low light, I see the big difference. Then I'm trying to rack my brain on how to make the low light ones better. When really I just need to chase the light!

That will help me a lot with lens selection because I won't be trying to solve a problem rather I understand the problem and can make a good choice of lens for the purposes of upgrading what I have and what I need (i.e. reach, etc.)

Thanks for the real world experience! I'm sorry you had problems out there but it helps to hear these real world situations!

Tonight I'm going to go over my lens choices again.. and I think the 100-400 would be awesome and add a quality lens to pickup the lower end. Maybe EF-S 17-55, I heard its of L quality without the L label.

There is a member here named Glenn Bartley and he has a great e-book on his web site about bird and wildlife photography. Might be worth checking out. I hesitate to link you to it because I do not know if there is a rule about that kind of thing, and am too lazy to look

Welcome to the wonderful world of wildlife photography. We all want longer, faster glass, but that can get very expensive. I have settled on the 100-400L as my "go to" wildlife lens. It is difficult to beat this lens for its versatility and reach at that price point. Yes, I had to learn to live with shooting at a higher ISO at the prime wildlife times of dusk & dawn, but it's a trade off versus taking out a 2nd mortgage on my house.

The newer camera bodies do have pretty good high ISO performance if you expose properly, though. Combine that with some noise reduction in Lightroom or your favorite NR application, and you can get very good results with a f/5.6 400mm lens. I will push my 7D to ISO 6400 and my 5D3 to 12800 without any qualms when the light dims.

iroctd wrote in post #16271111
Good point! I knew being on a crop body had that effect but I never thought of the reverse on FF. Definitely something to think about since I already own the crop body.


I'm actually glad to hear that it is a problem and I will have to deal with the higher iso, it just tells me that I'm on the right track of thinking for the gear I can buy and work with.

And I also hadn't thought about DOF specifically 2.8 on a zoom, but that makes total sense. What are your experiences of common apertures used while zoomed to 400mm? Just want to gauge it against the lens being a 5.6 and feel better about it - which is silly I know lol

Ok, I didn't know how much improvement of noise there was in FF. Being that it is just one stop and in your example it again makes me question upgrading. Especially since it seems I would come full circle.


Honestly I'm a bit afraid of primes because I can't zoom and i'm not sure how much foot movement I would have to do to fit the subject in the frame or just switch lenses. I.e. spending the money and finding out that a certain focal length isn't used much. What would you say the percentage of IQ difference is between zoom & prime?

Good news is I feel better about zooms at the long end and their aperture. I was thinking... quality lens and getting stuck on F2.8 but forgetting about DOF.

Hmm, how well does a 70-200 f2.8 play with a Extender either the 1.4x or 2x? I know the extenders reduce by 1/2 stops, don't they reduce IQ a bit? That could be an option for closer subjects in low light and also getting reach.

Lots of questions . OK, I'll try to answer...

DOF: Totally depends on the subject and distance. A good DOF calculator (http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/d​of-calculator.htm) is useful. E.g. at 400mm and f5.6, on a Canon crop body, with a 10m subject distance, you'll have a DOF of around 13cm. That may be plenty... or not enough, depending on what you're shooting.

Difficult to quantify the quality difference between lenses (unless there's a big gap), and obviously there's always sample variation. The following link may help in this instance though: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Having said the above, unless you're printing big, then the difference may not be relevant.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a stunning lens. With the 1.4x TC it's very good. It takes more of a hit with the 2x TC. General rule of thumb (and it matches my testing) is that whilst you lose 1 stop with 1.4x and 2 with the 2x, it's worth stopping down 1 and 2 stops respectively to "bring back" the quality. E.g. an f2.8 lens with a 2x TC is f5.6, stopped down twice for quality is f11.

Many will disagree with that, and I won't say they're wrong - it depends on the subject, the print size, the variations of the lens and TC. For instance, some people swear the 100-400 is better than the 70-200 with 2x TC, others claim the reverse.

I do however agree with the argument that you should try to get a lens with the focal length range you use most. I tend to shoot 70-200 often, so have that. For "zoo" wildlife, the 1.4x or 2x TC usually comes out. If I did mostly wildlife, I'd be looking at a 100-400 or 300 or 400mm prime.

There are two fundamental rules for wildlife
1: Your lens will not be long enough
2: Your lens will not be fast enough

Hmm yeah, I think with the 70-200 price plus the Extenders I might be better off with the 100-400 and enjoy the extra range. Range being a big factor of the upgrade. Also big thanks to everyone for their input!

ISO 1600 isn't high. Check the photos in this thread of photos ISO 3200 and higher: https://photography-on-the.net …308983&highligh​t=high+iso


There are many examples scattered in various threads on shooting at high ISO. I have been amazed at the results from my 50D at ISO 6400 when processed in Lightroom.

iroctd wrote in post #16271438
Hmm yeah, I think with the 70-200 price plus the Extenders I might be better off with the 100-400 and enjoy the extra range. Range being a big factor of the upgrade. Also big thanks to everyone for their input!

When I use the 70-200 with the 2x extender, it works... I get some decent shots, but I never really feel it's "great" (compared to the lens without the TC, which is superb).

I've never actually shot with the 100-400, but I suspect that a good copy would be a better bet for the budget concious wildlife shooter.

Craign wrote in post #16271888
ISO 1600 isn't high. Check the photos in this thread of photos ISO 3200 and higher: https://photography-on-the.net …308983&highligh​t=high+iso


There are many examples scattered in various threads on shooting at high ISO. I have been amazed at the results from my 50D at ISO 6400 when processed in Lightroom.

Agreed - and again it's down to the scenario, the post processing, and personal choice. I've always found 3200 to be my personal limit on the 7D (though I understand a mild over exposure can help). I'll happily use 6400 on the 5D3, and I think the noise 'grain' is also slightly less offensive. That's another area where money does make the difference again - the 1DX appears to have a high ISO advantage over even the 5D3.

artyman wrote in post #16271336
There are two fundamental rules for wildlife
1: Your lens will not be long enough
2: Your lens will not be fast enough

But what about my 1200mm f0.9? (and the truck I suspect you'd need to carry it).

Iroctd - I notice that artyman's sig lists the Sigma 120-300. That's another lens you might want to consider. It's f2.8, seems to be well regarded, and apparently takes a TC pretty well.

It's not small, but you could buy several for the price of a 200-400 f4, and with a 1.4x TC will give you a 192-420 f4, and a 2x TC gives 240-600 f5.6 (which should autofocus on your crop body, as it's still f5.6 or faster).