Wildlife lens decision - suggestions welcomed

[JohnT]

Considering a purchase not far down the road, I'm looking at two lenses for birds/wildlife:

• EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
• EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

I already own the 70-200 f/2.8L and a 1.4x II Extender so I'm thinking the prime might be the way to go, IS notwithstanding. Both lenses are within my price range.

What say you?

[Jay Henley]

I would go with the zoom. There will be times when 400mm will get you too close for some wildlife and you will need to move back but may not have the room to move or even the time to move before the subject leaves. The zoom will give you much more flexibility. Yes you have the 70-200 with extender but you will have to take the time to change out the lens which I would not want to do..... just my opinion.... I am sure there will be good reasons for the prime suggested here.

Afterthought edit: If you are using for birds mostly then I guess the prime would be a good option. I assume the bokeh would be better for the bird shots with the prime.

[JohnT]

Thanks, Jay. That makes sense. I certainly wouldn't want to be trying to change lenses in the middle of shooting wildlife.

[Jay Henley]

I got my 100-400 after watching another TPF'er using his at BBSP. Can't remember his name but he takes some awesome pictures of Bobcats sometimes.

[wapiti]

John,
IMO, you will find 400mm lacking in reach for birds, unless they are quite large. It's kind of like engines in a car; you never hear anyone complain about too much power.
Even for wildlife, I would consider a 500 with, perhaps, a 1.4 TC. This is my favorite combo. Of course, we are talking a significant increase in financial outlay.
Bill

[snidow]

I use the 100-400 IS L and most of the time the 2XII is attached, for birds you need as much reach as possible and it helps with the other wildlife too. I agree with the statement that the 500 would be better, but the cost is increased to say the least.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Jay Henley

I got my 100-400 after watching another TPF'er using his at BBSP. Can't remember his name but he takes some awesome pictures of Bobcats sometimes.

Hmmm... I wonder who that could be.

[JohnT]

Thanks, Bill and Laurie. I'd definitely like something longer than 400mm, but the funds just aren't there. Maybe in a couple of years.

[Jay Henley]

When I said other TPF'er, I forgot to mention his other lens "500mm"..... not that I have never wanted that one also....just have not been able to afford it yet.

[venchka]

The perfect Wildlife System:

The lens can seldom be too long.
The lens can never be too fast.
The tripod support system can never be too rigid.
The tripod support system can never be too light.

You have the TE and I assume a 1.6 crop body. Go for the 400mm 5.6. Several owners have stated here that the 400/5.6 is easily sharper than the zoom at 400mm. Your 70-200 + TE will easily handle anything less than 400mm. You don't need another zoom lens.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Jay Henley

When I said other TPF'er, I forgot to mention his other lens "500mm"..... not that I have never wanted that one also....just have not been able to afford it yet.

If all I shot was wildlife and made money doing it, then I could justify the 500mm. But for me, my photography money is made elsewhere.

[SilverShooter]

I agree with Bill that the 500 would be a better choice. Most often it is shorter than I would like. I, too, use it with the TC 1.4 quite a bit. On the other hand, the 500 is almost impossible to hand hold. For flying birds you might be better off with the lighter IS zoom. You might also want to check the close focus capability of these lenses. The Nikkor 500 I shoot can't focus any closer than 14 feet, while my 300 can focus down to 7.5 feet. It can actually produce larger images on the sensor if I can get close enough (say in a blind). (The fix for this is extention tubes, but they introduce their own quirks.)

As all of us who shoot wildlife know, whatever's attached to your camera is never long enough or fast enough.

[zeroendless]

John, that's a tough one. The debate of 1-4 vs 4 prime is always the talk of canon's mid range tele lens.

In earlier years, Mr Arthur Morris is a hardcore fan of the prime. In the last couple year, he barely talk and shot with it anymore. (Judging from his latest post and bulletins) Then he started complained about the zoom, dust and too much mechanical issues but he like it so much that he just brought his 4th copy despite the problem with the last 3 copies. His latest bulletin #221 post from Far North pole is brilliant. One shot on Chinstrap Pengiun on blue iceberg with the zoom is magical.

If you find yaself a frequent visitor to wildlife area with strong and beautiful landscape for background. Zoom is a better chioce. Local shooting always place the focus length at the tele-end. For that reason, prime is a better tool since it takes TC fairly well while maintaining good Af speed and sharper than the zoom.

I like the prime, it;s very sharp. if light permits and subject in close distance, it perform no less than the quality of the 500 prime. Because it's light,convenient and easier to handle than heavier lens. (but you can't never replace physical reach with add-on tc)

Going from $1200 lens to $5500 is a big jump and huge investment. I totally agreed you need to find out how much you like shooting bird/wildlife first before going for the big gun. I don't shoot for living, but i live to shoot :) U don't have to be in the wildlife business to own a good gears. You never knew one day you get one of those superteles for personal interest. Either choice you make, the lens will maintain good resale value. You don't have to worry about losing too much money when you need the ultimate upgrade.

Since you already have 70-200 and 1.4x, i think you should give the prime another thought. In fact, my inner voice been telling me to replace my 1-4 with 70-200 and keep the 400 prime. Like the situation you in. it's a tough decision which one i should let go. :)

I got my 100-400 after watching another TPF'er using his at BBSP. Can't remember his name but he takes some awesome pictures of Bobcats sometimes.

Yo. Jay da man, I think we need to make another trip to the south. You never knew you get to upgrade a bigger lens after the trip. LOL.

[Jim Victory]

I would go for the 400 f/5.6L. It is as sharp as some of the long teles. and takes a TC very well. I have used one with a 1.4x TC and the quality is just as good with or without a TC and so is the AF speed.

Makes a great BIF lens at 560mm with a TC. The 100-400 can produce some good work but the optics don't compare to the 400 f/5.6L. I have owned numerous copies of both and I always come back to the 400 prime because it is the only reasonably priced lens in that range that rivals my 600 f/4L IS in IQ.

[lhdvies]

I would go with the 4 prime and consider carrying both cameras to alleviate changing lenses if that is a problem- Also rmember that both of the 1-4 and the 4 prime will require manual focusing with the extender(unless you do the tape the contacts thing)on your 350 and 30D.