Question about lens for wildlife

.

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.

Was it a new (version 2) 100-400mm? Or was it the version 1? Even wide open, the version 2 is normally tack sharp at all focal lengths.

The version 1 - yeah, that had a few problems with sharpness.

.

It was version 1. I rented it the day before I left for my trip so I didn't have time to microadjust on the 7D mark ii. I rented it the year before for the 70D and thought it was a great lens. Maybe I got a bad copy and I don't want to take that chance again.

In Cade's Cove, were I go for bears and deer, I drive around until I see something. I do get out of my car and try to gets as close as I can. But if there are a lot of people or a ranger you are suppose to be 50yards away. The only problem I have with the extender so far is in low light. I found some deer in the woods and you are right the picture seem soft. I actually took it off and just cropped in post.

Here are two shots I took at my local state park with the 7Dmarkii 70-200L f4 IS with the 1.4x extender iii

MalVeauX wrote in post #18133462
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.

why not just zoom out if you're too close for 600mm to work? i mean the lens you got is a 150-600mm lens...so it's probably better to not have to use it at 600mm...but i don't think it makes much sense to say you were too close to wildlife and unable to use the 600mm...zoom out, it works fine at 150mm

i understand shooting for your subjects, but you guys are really saying you'd rather have either 70-200mm lens bare, or a 98-280mm lens over a 150-600mm...you really value that 70-150mm range for wildlife that much? i mean get a 18-135IS and pair it with a 150-600mm...i'd rather have the chance to get to 600mm than the chance to get to 70mm...will you miss some shots...sure but you will always miss some shots

.

DreDaze wrote in post #18133597
i understand shooting for your subjects, but you guys are really saying you'd rather have either 70-200mm lens bare, or a 98-280mm lens over a 150-600mm...you really value that 70-150mm range for wildlife that much?

While photographing deer and bears at the Smoky Mountains, yes, I absolutely value that range that much for those specific subjects at that venue. But at most other venues I photograph deer and bears at I would not value that 70-150 range at all.

If you notice the OP's initial post, you'll see that his question is very specific to these two subjects at this one venue - he never mentions any desire to photograph anything other than deer and bears, nor does he mention any desire or plans to photograph deer and bear at any spot other than the Smoky Mountains. Hence, my answers in this thread are given based on those very specific parameters. I would never make these suggestions if the OP were asking for advice about lenses for "general" wildlife photography.

I've tried to do my best to give the OP the help he is seeking, based on his very specific needs, based on my own personal experience shooting the same species of animals at the same location. Isn't that what I should be doing?

.

DreDaze wrote in post #18133597
why not just zoom out if you're too close for 600mm to work? i mean the lens you got is a 150-600mm lens...so it's probably better to not have to use it at 600mm...but i don't think it makes much sense to say you were too close to wildlife and unable to use the 600mm...zoom out, it works fine at 150mm

i understand shooting for your subjects, but you guys are really saying you'd rather have either 70-200mm lens bare, or a 98-280mm lens over a 150-600mm...you really value that 70-150mm range for wildlife that much? i mean get a 18-135IS and pair it with a 150-600mm...i'd rather have the chance to get to 600mm than the chance to get to 70mm...will you miss some shots...sure but you will always miss some shots

Because if I was shooting at 300~400 at best at F5 to F5.6 on the 150-600, I no longer needed that lens as I wanted more aperture if I'm at those shorter focal lengths. A 300 F4L IS was the better lens for my uses and progression at that focal range, and I'd have taken an F2.8 version if I really wanted to dedicate to this focal length. Focuses faster, gets more light, and is smaller and easier to handhold in the low light I'm typically in than my 150-600, both fare very well on a monopod & tripod too. Just because this works for me doesn't mean it works for everyone, I merely described my journey with the same focal lengths and similar situation putting highlight on that getting closer just makes more sense than trying to get longer glass for various wildlife/birds.

I was using a 200 F2.8L with two TC's very often, over my 150-600. Mostly because I wanted F2.8 in some cases for the low light, for handheld, at very close range. And I was getting very close with a 200 F2.8L + 1.4x TC. I have a lot of birding done with a 280 F4 in that sense, both on APS-H & APS-C and really liked it. It was fast and sharp. I can see someone doing close range or large animal photography with a 70-200. Shooting at 280 F4 for a while really showed me what my lens needs were. I could have been shooting at 200mm F2.8, or using my 150-600 at F5 through F6.3, but ultimately using those focal lengths and TC's, I found that 300mm was the sweet spot for what I do, both small and large animals/birds. So I got the lens that suited what I do most. I do a lot more birding than mammals, so I favor focus speed over focal length. My budget doesn't let me have a 300 f2.8L IS or I'd have that instead.

I'm just someone that started at 200mm. Went to 600mm. Went back to 200mm. And ended up at 300mm with a set of TC's and I simply prefer it for what I do.

We all have our images to show our points too, so it's just another perspective that clearly works.

Right now, based on where I am with photography and how I do my birding/wildlife, I would love to have a 5DSR and 300 F2.8L IS as my ideal setup. Wide field of view for easy fast tracking at close range (fast large arc changes), pixel density to match a crop to get more pixels on the subject even with that wider field of view, fast focusing, supreme optics, options for TC's if cannot get physically close enough for preference.

Very best,

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18133617
.

While photographing deer and bears at the Smoky Mountains, yes, I absolutely value that range that much for those specific subjects at that venue. But at most other venues I photograph deer and bears at I would not value that 70-150 range at all.

If you notice the OP's initial post, you'll see that his question is very specific to these two subjects at this one venue - he never mentions any desire to photograph anything than deer and bears, nor does he mention any desire or plans to photograph deer and bear at any spot other than the Smoky Mountains. Hence, my answers in this thread are given based on those very specific parameters. I would never make these suggestions if the OP were asking for advice about lenses for "general" wildlife photography.

.

Yes Bears and Deer. I try to visit the Smokies 4 times in the Spring and 3 times in the Fall. The other time of the year is just normal family stuff so I have another lens for this. I might go to the zoo for practice or a state park but this is just a hobby.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18133462
Heya,

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

Very best,

Yes I rented twice. On the 70D it worked great but this spring I rented for the 7D Mark ii and most of the shoots were very soft. I would love to get the 100-400 but scared I will get a bad copy again.

.

chops411 wrote in post #18135312
Yes I rented twice. On the 70D it worked great but this spring I rented for the 7D Mark ii and most of the shoots were very soft. I would love to get the 100-400 but scared I will get a bad copy again.

chops411 wrote in post #18133513
It was version 1.

I highly recommend the 100-400mm version 2. If you get the version 2, I guarantee you will not get a bad copy, and you will not have soft photos (provided everything is set up properly and done properly).

.

I would love that lens and a lot of other photographers I know in the Cove have it. I just can't justify the price for what I do. I have seen it for $1650 refurb on Canon site, thats how I got my 7D mark ii and my extender. I have rented 5 lens in the last year and half but the fees start to add up. Thats why I think its time to make a decision on a new lens or not. I didn't know I would get addict to this type of photography. My last trip I only had the 70-200L and it was find for about 70% of the shots. I haven't been yet with my extender yet.
In the spring the bears are very close since they are feeding cubs and they very hungry. In the fall they are a little father back because it's the busiest month and rangers like to keep them away from the road, traffic control.

.

chops411 wrote in post #18135396
I just can't justify the price for what I do. I have seen it for $1650 refurb on Canon site, thats how I got my 7D mark ii.

Maybe I can help you justify the price.............buy it now (right before the deer rut) for the great price of $1650. Use it at the Smokys a lot over the next few months (during the pre-rut and the rut), then sell it for $1700 when the rut is over. It's like renting a lens for free!

When spring comes around (the best time to photograph black bears in the Smokys) you could do it all over again. With good glass, you can almost always get your money back if you buy at a good used or refurb price - a fact which justifies the purchase price.

.

Thats a great idea. I have a facebook just for by bears and wildlife, if you want to check it out. I don't know if I can post the link here or not.

.

Wow - you have some great stuff there, Eddie!

Your deer shots make me wish I was in the Cove RIGHT NOW!

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18135467
.

Wow - you have some great stuff there, Eddie!

Your deer shots make me wish I was in the Cove RIGHT NOW!

.

Thank you.