Wildlife Lens

Which lens would be the best for wildlife photography?

I think the 70-200 is too short.

Is it nessesary with image-stabilizer?

I am going to use it on a 7D.

Budget?

The 100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 is a great lens at a great price. The 400mm f/5.6 L is nice too, but lacks zoom (duh!) and IS. IQ and AF is said to be better with the prime, but the 100-400L is no slouch.

If you are really serious about this, the 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 are about as good as it gets for wildlife.

As egordon said we really need an idea of the kind of budget you are looking to spend/consider for this purchase. Wildlife photography gets expensive really really quickly, yet there are a good range of cheaper options that will give you the range you need and a decent quality of shot.

Zoom lens either 100-400mm IS L or Sigma 150-500mm OS (or 50-500mm OS).

Prime - 400mm f/5.6

If you have money laying around, 500mm L or 600mm L. Like Egordon said, those are about the best you'll find for wildlife, or anything for that matter.

put a 2X on your 70-200

JonK wrote in post #11204512
put a 2X on your 70-200

Do they even own a 70-200? Assuming they do and it's the f/2.8 IS II, than that suggestion is prudent. If it's the original f/2.8 IS (or even non-IS), the 100-400L would be MUCH better than the 2x on the 70-200.

If it's an f/4 variant, I wouldn't bother with a 2x as you'll be at f/8 and without autofocus.

Oh, I thought they said they have one. In that case, 400/5.6

egordon99 wrote in post #11204549
Do they even own a 70-200? Assuming they do and it's the f/2.8 IS II, than that suggestion is prudent. If it's the original f/2.8 IS (or even non-IS), the 100-400L would be MUCH better than the 2x on the 70-200.

If it's an f/4 variant, I wouldn't bother with a 2x as you'll be at f/8 and without autofocus.

+1

however lets let the OP get a word in before we go too much further - we need some input from them before get distracted

egordon99 wrote in post #11204399
Budget?

The 100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 is a great lens at a great price. The 400mm f/5.6 L is nice too, but lacks zoom (duh!) and IS. IQ and AF is said to be better with the prime, but the 100-400L is no slouch.

If you are really serious about this, the 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 are about as good as it gets for wildlife.

Agreed. Also consider a used 300 2.8. This lens can be used very success fully with eithera 1.4x or 2x TC and retain full autofocus. If you're on a crop body, you get extreme reach with the TC's on the 300 - 960 effective mm on a crop, and that's pretty good range for wildlife!

Budget: up to 3000 - 4000

Maybee a used lens, if its in perfect condition.

I just want you guys opinion, what you have used, and that works.

That budget opens up a few possibilities -

70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 + 2*TC - that image quality of this combo, as mentioned above, gets to same level as that of a 100-400mm at the 400mm point. However it costs far more than the 100-400mm alone. What you are paying for is thus not just the 400mm reach, but the zoom functionality and the option of having a fantastic 70-200mm f2.8 lens in the bag for use. Generally for nature shots this is a great focal range for landscape through to general close up and average shooting.
With the TC you still get good performance and it gets you out to 400mm which is a good range for working with wildlife - not the longest, but not so short as to be impossible to work with. However I class it as a support or waiting lens - support for something like a 300mm f2.8 or other supertelephoto lenses or a waiting lens as you wait to get one of those supertelephotos.

300mm f2.8 IS L M2 - not sure how much these go for in Norway but I think one should be possible with your budget (new). This is an outstanding lens and one of the lightest supertelephotos canon makes. It will also take up to a 2*TC to give a 600mm f5.6 IS L lens that is far cheaper and far lighter than the 600mm f4 L. Its weight makes it popular with a lot of wildlife photographers because its a lens that (with some practice) can be used for a full day or so of shooting - whilst heavier longer options like the 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4 and 600mm f4, whilst having outstanding optics, do put more strain on the user and are far more in need of a good solid tripod and wemberly tripod head.

You might be able to get a 400mm f2.8 or the 500mm f4 if you look at used options, but these are heavier lenses and that might affect your choice.

Second hand lenses such as any of the above are still quality products - depending on their use they may come with a few scratches to the body paint work (tripod collars are often scuffed/marked) but the optics inside should be (if treated well) in perfect working order.

There are a lot of possibilities.

100-400mm L
400mm 5.6 L
300mm 4.0 L
300mm 2.8 L

Sigma 50-500mm
Sigma 150-500mm

blah blah blah.. and so on and so on. Each has their own uses and one lens will not satisfy everyone. But in my opinion the 100-400mm L is a versatile lens with great optics for not a lot of money. You can't go wrong with it.

Overread wrote in post #11205199
That budget opens up a few possibilities -

300mm f2.8 IS L M2 - not sure how much these go for in Norway but I think one should be possible with your budget (new).

It's someplace around 6500 in norway

I heard 300 f/2.8L works well with the 1.4X extender. On a 7D, the combo goes to an overall FOV of ~670. That should provide a good reach.

I know the soon to be released versions of 300L and 1.4X extender are expected to work even better (especially a better IS), but they will be way more expensive.

FWIW I use the 300 f/4L with a 1.4X extender and have been happy with my results - I don't sell my photos to wildlife magazines though...

Do you need AF? Do you need IS?