Which Wildlife lens

First of all, I just wanted to say hello to everyone. I am new to the Photography on the net site.

I am looking to buy a wildlife lens for Canon sometime this year.

My current setup is :
Canon 6D
Canon 16-35 F4
Tamron 24-70 F2.8
Tamron 70-200 F2.8
Canon 100m Macro F2.8L IS

I usually shoot landscape,some macro and some portraits also from time to time with just my friends.

I plan on buying a Canon 7D Mark II, plus a new tripod and a gimbal head, since my current tripod (Feisol CT-3442) wouldn't be able to handle the weight of one of the big Canon lenses.

Here are the lenses I am currently considering:

Canon 400 F4 DO IS
Canon 500 F4 IS

Other lenses that I am considering is:
Sigma Contemporary or Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3

My current budget is close to $6K just for the lens itself, not including the other accessories like another body, tripod, Gimbal Head, Canon ex 1.4 and or 2 extenders et cetera.

I would like to use this for wildlife, mostly animals, and birds.

Thank you for your options and your comments since this question has probably been covered many times already

Also on a side note, unfortunately I wouldn't have the funds available to rent a big Canon prime lens since the deposit would be basically the price of a brand new lens and I do not have photography insurance according to Borrow Lenses.


Scott

I own both the 400 F/4 DO Mk1 & 500 F/4 L. I use them with either a Canon 1D4 Crop body or 1ds3 FF. I also use the 1.4 & 2x TC (Both version III).

They are both great lenses. I tend to use my 400 more so when I go away for long weekends or short holidays as it is lighter. It is a super sharp lens that is light to carry and can easily be used hand held. Ignore the Contrast issues you may hear on this lens. I get wonderful images from mine.

My 500 f/4 I would say is slightly sharper, it is a much bigger and heavier lens. I tend to always use mine on a Monopod or tripod.

I enjoy Wildlife photography with these lenses and if I had to make a choice on which one? it would be the 500 to keep. In my experience of Wildlife photography I would have to say you can never have enough reach. I like to fill the frame and even with a 1.4 x or 2x TC, the focal length is still not enough.

Heya,

Depends on what you're doing really.

500 F4L IS is a versatile lens, awesome on it's own, and with a 1.4x TC it's a crazy 700 F5.6 that is still good wide open. Very good lens, sharp, fast, not ultra-heavy, you could hand hold this a bit, but is ideal on a gimbal & tripod.

The DO is a great lens for hand holding where you want speed, weight, smaller size, etc. So if your goal is to hand hold, this would be more ideal.

The 150-600's are slower, significantly slower, with autofocus and tracking, but they are fairly sharp for a zoom, slower aperture, and much lighter weight. These can be handheld. Great for wildlife from a mount.

If it were me with a $6k budget, I'd be going for a 400 F2.8L, without hesitation. Mostly because it means 400 F2.8, 560 F4 and 800 F5.6. Fast, sharp, awesome. That reach with those apertures. That's where I'd go with that budget.

But, if that's not an option, of your choices, the 500 F4 is easily the one I'd go for since you mentioned a mount. With no mount, ever, I'd have to choose the DO.

Very best,

shamlyn16 wrote in post #17951540
I am looking to buy a wildlife lens for Canon sometime this year. My current setup is :
Canon 6D
Canon 16-35 F4
Tamron 24-70 F2.8
Tamron 70-200 F2.8
Canon 100m Macro F2.8L IS

I usually shoot landscape,some macro and some portraits also from time to time with just my friends. I plan on buying a Canon 7D Mark II, plus a new tripod and a gimbal head, since my current tripod (Feisol CT-3442) wouldn't be able to handle the weight of one of the big Canon lenses.

Here are the lenses I am currently considering:
Canon 400 F4 DO IS
Canon 500 F4 IS

Other lenses that I am considering is:
Sigma Contemporary or Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3

My current budget is close to $6K just for the lens itself, not including the other accessories like another body, tripod, Gimbal Head, Canon ex 1.4 and or 2 extenders et cetera. I would like to use this for wildlife, mostly animals, and birds.

Thank you for your options and your comments since this question has probably been covered many times already

Hi, Scott! Welcome to our forum - it's good to have you amongst us.

If I were in your shoes (figuratively speaking, of course), I would probably opt for the 500 f4 IS.

There is a lot of merit to having a 400 f2.8 because of the flexibility that Mal Veau X spoke of. But the weight is significantly more difficult to manoeuvre and get into position quickly, which can be a real liability when shooting subjects such as birds in flight. The 500 f4 IS - even the 1st version - is surprising light and easy to handle compared to bigger lenses like the 400 2.8 and the 600 f4.

But then again, having 400 f2.8, 560 f4, and 800 f5.6 is really quite useful. It is really a pretty tough choice. If the 400 f2.8 were always good with the 2x tele-extender, then I would probably go that route. But image quality with the 2x is just too iffy and unpredictable - sometimes I get great results from that combination, but other times the results are so soft that the photos are not useful. It's really a toss-up.

Either the 500 f4 IS or the 400 f2.8 IS should be able to be obtained used in good condition for around $5000, which leaves you about $1000 left over. If I were you, I would use part of that $100 and get a 300 f4 IS to go along with the big white. Or better yet, try to get a little more cash together and get the new version of the 100-400mm,which serves as a perfect complement to a big supertelephoto.

shamlyn16 wrote in post #17951540
Also on a side note, unfortunately I wouldn't have the funds available to rent a big Canon prime lens since the deposit would be basically the price of a brand new lens and I do not have photography insurance according to Borrow Lenses.

This is completely understandable. The cost of renting a big lens for even just a day or two is ridiculous, and pretty much a waste of money - money that could have gone toward a lens purchase.

.

I bought my first big lens last year..I was also unsure which to buy but after lots of research I went for the 500 f4 mk1..It is a fantastic lens, fast AF, sharp and can be hand held ( not for too long thoughߘ).
I also bought a Canon 1.4x mkIII..it lives on my 500 most of the time and gives me a 700 f5.6 with excellent image quality..
I also use a 6D but will be upgrading to something else soon for better AF for shooting birds etc..

Well you are certainly looking to dive in at the "Deep End" - it's the best place to be!
My vote is for the 500 F4 L IS Mk1 or Mk2 - simply superb lenses that take extenders somewhat better than F4 lenses should. On the other hand there is the 400 DO? The 400 DO is a lens that will give you much more mobility due to the lack of a tripod and associated kit - however it is shorter.
If you want to be very mobile and seek out your subjects then the 400 DO looks very interesting. However if you want to fill the frame and use extenders then the 500 is probably the best option.
I would refer you back to PCousins's post. He is a very good photographer and has more experience than most with both of these lenses.

Thank you for that information johnf3f.

The current lenses I am looking at is the 500 F4 IS Mk1. How well does the 400 F4 DO work with a 1.4 EXIII Extender??

Also, can you include the PCousins's post??

Thank You

Scott

PCousin's post was the first reply above.

Unfortunately I have little experience of the 400 DO Mk1 with extenders having only tried one extender (1.4 Mk3) on one 400 DO lens - so nothing to really go by but it seemed to work OK.
With the 500 F4 both Canon Mk2 and Mk3 1.4 extenders work well, in good light the 2 x Mk3 Canon extender can give good results too but is best for static or slow moving subjects.

I'd use the money to buy a used 500 f4 version 1 and a 7D MKII body.

Wildlife covers a lot of territory ... to me, 'wildlife' is any creature free to roam its habitat without man-made impediments.

So, if you wish to photograph chipmunks at 15 yards, a 200mm will do the job; dragonflies at 10 feet, 150mm will probably work for you. Grizzly bears in YNP, at 200 yards, you will want at least 500mm - wolves in Lamar Valley, even with 1000mm you will have to say 'trust me, those really are wolves on that hillside over there'.

Purchase the set-up that you can afford - maybe rent a 'big gun' for a special trip - then shoot what you can with the set-up you have. If you decide you need more, save up for the purchase.

Remember, too, that wildlife includes insects and spiders - a 100mm macro works great for most of those --- although, for Black Widows (and other venomous creatures), a 75-300mm (perhaps with extension tubes) is a good choice.

GJim wrote in post #17955158
wolves in Lamar Valley, even with 1000mm you will have to say 'trust me, those really are wolves on that hillside over there'.

Not necessarily.

GJim wrote in post #17955158
Wildlife covers a lot of territory ... to me, 'wildlife' is any creature free to roam its habitat without man-made impediments.

So, if you wish to photograph chipmunks at 15 yards, a 200mm will do the job; dragonflies at 10 feet, 150mm will probably work for you. Grizzly bears in YNP, at 200 yards, you will want at least 500mm - wolves in Lamar Valley, even with 1000mm you will have to say 'trust me, those really are wolves on that hillside over there'.

This depends on the framing that you prefer. For a decent closeup "portrait style" image of a chipmunk, if I were 15 yards away I would opt for an 800mm focal length. But even that wouldn't be good enough, and I would try to close the distance to about 8 yards.

If I were shooting dragonflies, I would use my 100-400 zoomed all the way in to 400mm, and then I would try to shoot them from a distance of about 4 feet (or whatever MFD is), because even at 400mm 10 feet is way, way, way too far away to get a decent photo of a dragonfly. I am not sure what you think you would be getting at 150mm and a distance of 10 feet.....I don't think the dragonfly would even be readily visible in such an image.

When I was shooting 3 inch long grasshoppers with my 400 f2.8, I could only get within 10 feet - no closer - due to the 10 foot MFD. And they were way too small in the frame. So I added the 2x tele-extender and shot them at 800mm from 10 feet, and I still wasn't filling the frame with them the way I wanted to, but it was close enough that with some minor cropping I could achieve the result I wanted. This was on a 1.6 crop body, so it the difference between what I would suggest and what you are suggesting would be even more extreme if you were shooting on a full frame body.

.

Nice shots ... it's all a matter of luck as to getting good photos of the wolves. Here is my one-time (1000mm) in Lamar Valley, haven't been able to get back since.

Take my word ... that's a wolf on that hillside over there.

Chipmunk at 285mm, Dragonfly at 165mm.

GJim wrote in post #17955207
Nice shots ... it's all a matter of luck as to getting good photos of the wolves. Here is my one-time (1000mm) in Lamar Valley, haven't been able to get back since.

Take my word ... that's a wolf on that hillside over there.

Hosted photo: posted by GJim in
./showthread.php?p=179​55207&i=i87970549
forum: Wildlife

I think it's more of a matter of you not getting back since. I've gotten at least one wolf shot every visit to Yellowstone in the Spring or Summer since 2008, and many trips I've had multiple opportunities. It's not luck so much as knowing where to go and going there over and over.