Question about lens for wildlife

Hello, I have a Canon 7D mark ii and right now I have the 70-200 f4 IS L with the Canon 1.4x iii. I was thinking about selling to get the Sigma 150-600. I know I will get the extra reach but worried about losing quality.

I mostly go to the Great Smokys to shoot bears and deer in the spring and fall. This is just a hobby so I don't want to invest to much or I would get the new 100-400L.
Any suggestions would help. Thank you.

here's a comparison of the 70-200f4IS +1.4 at 280mm...vs. the sigma 150-600C at 300mm...there's not much of a difference sharpness wise...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

for wildlife the 150-600mm will be much better

Thank you so much.

You'll definitely want the longer lens. Even with a crop sensor, 280mm is just not going to be long enough to safely shoot some of the larger and more predatory or aggressive critters you're going to come across out there. The Sigma is quite a good lens, especially at that price point.

Thank you

I have a buddy that owns both the 100-400II and the 150-600. He has no problem using the 150-600 on days when he's reach limited. My understanding is that focus speed under challenging conditions is the limiting factor not image quality once focus is achieved.

as it so happens, I happen to own both the 100-400mm MkII and the SIGMA 150-600mm as well.

I got the SIGMA on a super deal, expecting to try it and then sell it later.

Well, almost a year later, I never sold it. I find reason to shoot both.

I am all for grabbing the very affordable yet very good 150-600mm!

I'm still learning my way around the camera....I bought the 150-600 when we went to the Yukon. It has not been off the 7D since.

.

chops411 wrote in post #18131222
I mostly go to the Great Smokys to shoot bears and deer in the spring and fall.

I have experience shooting deer and bears in the Smokys, and quickly came to realize that a long lens is not only unnecessary, but a hindrance. The vegetation in many areas is fairly dense, and I simply couldn't get far enough away from the wildlife to fit them in the frame without getting a bunch of wayward vegetation in the way. In the Smokys, you are pretty much right on top of the deer and bears, due to the nature of the habitat and also due to their high degree of habituation.

I think that your 70-200 setup is pretty much ideal for shooting that venue, if combined with a shorter zoom. I would also make sure to carry a shorter lens around with me, something like the 24-105mm. There are a lot of times when, if you work it properly, 70mm is just too long, and you will miss many great opportunities if you don't have the ability to go shorter. This is especially true when using a 1.6 crop sensor body, such as your 7D Mark 2.

For shooting big mammals in the Smokies, I really don't see any sense at all in having or using a lens like the Sigma 150-600mm. That would be way too long and awkward, given the types of opportunities that present themselves there. For wildlife in other places, sure......but not in the Smokys.

If you want to get a Sigma zoom that would be appropriate for Smoky Mountain deer and bear, then I suggest that you consider the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 - the latest one. It would be an extremely useful lens to have there:
https://www.sigmaphoto​.com …67STG_N76ScDK4a​Am6c8P8HAQ

.

Not sure I would want to go shooting bears with a 24-105......
When choosing a lens for wildlife it is usually better to get the longest lens with good IQ that you can afford....You will always wish you had a longer lens when shooting wildlife..

.

don1163 wrote in post #18131842
When choosing a lens for wildlife it is usually better to get the longest lens with good IQ that you can afford....You will always wish you had a longer lens when shooting wildlife..

Actually, it is best to get the lens that best fits the situations that you will be shooting. These situations vary greatly in different venues. If you find yourself continually backing away from the animals, so that you can fit them into the frame, but you are never able to get far enough from them, and therefore keep missing the shots you want, then it is NOT best to get long glass. This is exactly what has happened to me each time I have photographed large mammals in the Smokys. I am trying to use my own personal experience in the same place the OP is going to shoot to help him make the best decision.

Overall general statements about "what lens is best" are no good if someone has one specific venue in which they are going to do their shooting. In these cases, very specific advice is required - advice based on actual experiences shooting the same subjects in the same exact areas. Gear that is "best" in one place may be completely useless in another place. The Smokys are very, very different than most other places in which people photograph deer and bears; hence, venue-specific advice is required.

.

Thank you for your reply. My last trip only shot with the 70-200L and it was find but sometimes I wanted a little more. That's why I about the 1.4x extender but I'm always double guessing myself.

Heya,

I will echo Tom's sentiments.

The more you dedicate to wildlife in general, you will develop techniques and use the environment and often be so close that some longer focal lengths become too long. I have done this myself, where I proclaimed that "there's never enough reach when it comes to wildlife!" and so I bought a 600mm. 600mm really is nice to have, you get tons of reach, especially paired with an APS-C sensor. But, after I calmed down about finally having reach, I realized I had to actually go away from wildlife/birds to be able to actually use it at 600mm in a lot of situations because I was getting closer to them the more I learned. What I really figured out was that the 600mm is really handy if you're shooting very small wildlife/birds at close distance, but actually is too long on large wildlife/birds at closer distances unless you're into detail shots of an eyeball or something, and not concerned with composition. I definitely have found that getting closer to the wildlife/birds, and having enough environmental context to also have room to crop to make a nice composition is more important than just framing up an animal/bird and snapping a shot. Kind of the difference between a photograph and journalism perhaps. Or something like that.

So these days, my 600mm actually sits on the shelf more and more, and I actually use my 300mm the most now. I use a 300 F4L IS with an APS-C & full frame (to control field of view).

The environment dictates nearly everything. As Tom pointed out, if you're really far away and trying to frame up a large mammal at 600mm on APS-C, you have to actually be very far away and when you're in the environment like the Smokeys, that means trees, brush, etc, and potentially dew point water vapor hanging around depending on temp and time of day to shoot through; not really a good thing as you end up with a lot of "kinda see them" type shots, where they're constantly concealed by something.

If you're just walking around on typical high traffic trails, a long lens seems like a good idea.

But if you're scouting, using a blind, or a tour service, or hiking in deeper, etc, you'll end up closer and likely not need the longer lenses as much as you might think.

Consider a 70-300L IS. You end up with the same thing, without the TC, and could probably trade it straight up.

With a good stable mount system, you can get really low, steady, and handle even really low light no problem.

+++++

Your gallery has a 70D + 100-400L image, did you rent or sell or something that 100-400?

Very best,

Thank you. I think I'm going to stick with what I have now. I may look into the 70-300L later. I would like the old 100-400 but I rented one this spring and 90% of the shots were soft. Thank you again for all the help.

chops411 wrote in post #18133490
Thank you. I think I'm going to stick with what I have now. I may look into the 70-300L later. I would like the old 100-400 but I rented one this spring and 90% of the shots were soft. Thank you again for all the help.

Ok, well, just to forewarn, a 70-200 F4L with a 1.4x TC will probably produce relatively soft images as well, wide open. Something to consider, and why I suggest against using a TC really. If you feel you need more reach, either get closer, or get a little more physical reach.

Do you mind sharing how you are going about photographing the wildlife? Are you hiking? Driving trails in a car?

Very best,