best zoo photography lens

Are you a Canon man, AD?

:p

Hix
 
Yes, but the lens is not on its way. I think Sim should buy me one and designate me the official ZooChat photographer. I promise I will post lots of nice photos taken with it on the site! :D
 
Have you tried the 100-400mm L IS USM? What are your thoughts?

:p

Hix
 
Hix said:
Have you tried the 100-400mm L IS USM? What are your thoughts?

:p

Hix
Click to expand...

I have not, but my cousin whom I often shoot with used it as his main lens for years. I do not like the push-pull design - it extends way too far when zoomed out to 400. I also saw (years ago) a report on Popular Photography about the quality that gave it an F rating at the long end. However, many pros have used it with good result and my cousin got fantastic shots, so that report may have been overblown.

Canon is reportedly redesigning it with a normal zoom ring (instead of push pull) and improved optics, and if or when this comes to fruition it will be a huge seller. There are times it would be nice to have 400mm, especially on a full frame camera like I use. Currently I use 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 extender, meaning 280mm is my longest reach. Fine for most zoo shots, but a bit short now and then.
 
AD, I had the 100-400L but never liked it. I now have the 70-300L (I also had a 70-300 non L) and I absolutely love it. Ocassionaly a bit short but not often and a superb lens. I use it on a 7D so 1.6x crop factor makes it a useful length.

Would eventually love a 200-400L 1.4x but I dont think its an all day hand-holdable lens, so would have to carry both.
 
I'm too old fashioned to feel comfortable with zooms. I now usually take my 500mm and 105mm macro lenses on zoo visits. An odd combination on paper, but it seems to work for me.

Alan
 
The IQ from primes is great but unfortunately in a zoo setting they are very restrictive, i.e., 500mm is going to be too long almost all of the time and 105mm too short a lot of the time.
 
Looking at your pictures, this most certainly works brilliantly for you!!
Thankfully the 200-400 is way way way too big and heavy for me to even dream about - it`s too expensive for a hobby, even if the price would drop by half (and that`s not going to happen anytime soon).
However, a new 100-400 with improved optics at the long end would be very tempting - currently I am very happy with my 70-300 L and 400/5,6 L (the latter just for safari parks and wildlife), the 70-300 L is my standart zoo lens and I love it.
 
Yassa said:
However, a new 100-400 with improved optics at the long end would be very tempting - currently I am very happy with my 70-300 L and 400/5,6 L (the latter just for safari parks and wildlife), the 70-300 L is my standart zoo lens and I love it.
Click to expand...

Definitely an updated non push-pull 100-400L would be very tempting.
 
I've been using the 70-300mm IS USM (non - L ) for about 8 years now and I'm happy with this lens (90% of the photos I've uploaded were taken with it). I'm going to Uganda in a couple of months and thought I might upgrade to the 100-400mm L, and possibly get the 2x Converter too.

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to try out both on my camera, but was disappointed by a number of features - most significantly the push/pull aspect of the lens. It was very unwieldy because the bulk of the weight is at the far end of the lens. And the lens is more than double the weight of my 70-300mm. Adding the 2x Converter not only made the weight even greater, but the end of the lens was even further from the camera. On the rotate-type zooms (like to 70-300mm) the weight of the lens is right next to the camera and is easier to handle.

Plus, the autofocus doesn't work when the converter is added, and the focussing ring is at the end of the lens. Very difficult to hold steady by hand (actually, vitually impossible!), and the light level is decreased meaning a minimum of F11 when extended to 400/800mm.

Without the converter it was easier, the autofocus was very quick, and the quality of the images was improved upon my current lens. It's obviously a very good lens, but not for me, I'm afraid.

However, the improvement in the quality of the images has convinced me to get an L-series, so I'll probably get the 70-300mm L. The reviews state that it's sealed (the 100-400mm is not) which will be handy when I'm trekking the Mountain Gorillas in the rainforest. And the comments in the above posts has convinced me.

:p

Hix
 
Last edited:
If it is a rotating style, where the weight of the lens remains next to the camera, I'll be very interested. But I think it will be too late for my Uganda trip.

For anyone who's interested, I got a half-decent shot of a Golden-headed Cisticola using the 400mm and 2x Converter (so 800mm, f11) by propping myself up against a tree.

http://www.zoochat.com/674/golden-headed-cisticola-cisticola-exilis-322769/

I thought I must have moved the camera slightly because the image is soft, but apparently the image is not so sharp with the converter. I quite like the bokeh, though.

Thanks for everyone's comments!

:p

Hix
 
Hix said:
However, the improvement in the quality of the images has convinced me to get an L-series, so I'll probably get the 70-300mm L. The reviews state that it's sealed (the 100-400mm is not) which will be handy when I'm trekking the Mountain Gorillas in the rainforest. And the comments in the above posts has convinced me.
Click to expand...

Seriously I would be very surprised if you didn't love the 70-300L. Straight out of the box it looks and feels quality (which it should do at the price), it's relatively compact, not particularly heavy (I have no problem hand carrying it on a 7D all day), IS is excellent, autofocus is almost silent and very quick and the IQ is superb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top