the perfect zoo lens

This afternoon I took a drive down south Arizona to look for pronghorn. A main purpose was to test the 100-400 to see how it performs with my 1.4x extender attached. It performs quite well. This photo I posted in the gallery http://www.zoochat.com/729/chihuahuan-pronghorn-461210/ is with that combination in very low light (and a tripod). The lens is zoomed out to the maximum 400mm, with the extender making it a total of 560mm. I am pleased. A shot I took earlier in better light (of cattle) looks even sharper.

Edit - I forgot to mention the posted image is about a 100 percent crop.
 
Last edited:
Alfa male said:
I'm considering a lens upgrade to a Sigma 150-600 C with the Canon 5D Mk2. Does anyone use that combination in zoo/safari parks ? I would be interested in your opinion of lens size/weight and speed (f/6.3 @600mm?). I'm prepared to do some body building....:)
Click to expand...

I considered both the Sigma and Tamron versions of the lens you described, as both get good reviews. Previous lenses of this range had very poor sharpness, but these seem to get outstanding results (based on photos and descriptions on photography forums). Just to add another option, it is reported that Tamron is about to announce an updated version 2 of their lens: Tamron to Announce 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2

I ultimately opted for the Canon 100-400 ii because it is tack sharp, even better than the (reportedly sharp) Sigma and Tamron versions. Of course it costs twice as much as the Tamron or the Sigma C (but about the same as the Sigma S), but I saved a few hundred bucks by buying a refurbished model directly from Canon's website.

As for size, the one you are considering is longer and if you do a Google Image search you can find photos of several lenses (including the one you are considering) stacked side by side for size comparison. If you shoot without a monopod or tripod I think that lens will be a bit much to shoot with for extended periods. If you don't mind carrying a monopod, it should be fine.
 
I did get one finally a few months ago, via the Canon reburbished lens website. I am conflicted. Please note I am a semi professional photographer who does huge enlargements so I am very particular, perhaps more than most on this site would be. I used it extensively on a recent Alaska trip and shooting animals in open spaces it is great. The sharpness and Image Stabilization are fantastic, though the bokeh is not as pleasing as my 70-200 f2.8 (even when the latter is stopped down to an equivalent aperture). When I used it this week at Wildlife World Zoo I noticed the focus had a difficult time locking in on subjects not in full sun (e.g. black jaguar cub even when I put focus point on eyes). My 70-200 would have locked on immediately no problem. Also had difficulty focusing past fences, even when the focus limiter was activated and I was close to the fence. Again my 70-200 does not have this problem. Just a few observations - take them or leave them.
 
I bought a the lens last Thursday, and tried it out yesterday and today in the wild. As I'm used to using my 70-300mm, I didn't really notice the extra reach of that added 100mm, but I know it's there. Very fast focusing depending on the light. With both this and my 70-300mm I've noticed that in the dark or very dark subjects (especially anything black) there is a a lot of hunting. I just thought this was the norm, particularly as my 100mm Macro does the same.

Although I didn't really notice the extra 100mm capability, what I did notice was the overall length compared to the 300mm, the extra weight, and the minimal focussing distance has also increased, something I'll need to practice with.

But otherwise, very happy witht the lens.

:p

Hix
 
On my recent Austria trip, I had to decide which telephoto to take, the 70-200 f2.8L or the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L ii. I opted for the latter mainly because I figured I would need the extra reach for the large cat hills at Zoo Salzburg. It was a good choice, as this photo shows:
Puma on the prowl

Puma on the prowl

February 6, 2017
 
As I mentioned previously, my camera backpack will only hold one of my two telephotos (in addition to my other lenses). I find given the choice I lean towards my 70-200 f2.8 because it focuses better, has better bokeh (background blur), has larger aperture for low light, and handles better because it is internal zoom while the 100-400 is external zoom. If you don't know what this means, it means the 70-200 does not extend out when you zoom out to 200mm while the other lens does extend when you zoom out to 400mm. I also find being able to go a little wider (70mm vs 100mm) is very practical.

Therefore I sent in my 100-400 along with both camera bodies (1D4 and 5D3) today to KEH, the major used camera dealer in the USA. This gives me enough money to replace the two cameras with one body, the 5D4, which has the focus speed of the 1D4 and the resolution (plus more) of the 5D3. Down the line I may pick up a used 500 f4 for my long lens. Just my personal experience with the lens, but as I stated before I am a very picky semi professional.
 
I bought a 5Ds-R a couple of months ago - very happy with it. And haven't noticed the loss in reach by converting to a full-frame.

:p

Hix
 
@Hix If you do a lot of wildlife photography, 5DSR is an interesting choice. It is generally considered NOT to be a wildlife camera due to its slowness (frame rate and focus mechanism). Of course the 50MP resolution is unmatched so I am sure it is great for bringing out feather detail for example.
 
I haven't noticed it's slowness in focusing, and frame rate isn't normally an issue. I chose it because the low-pass filter has been disabled (which makes the images sharper), and because of the 50MP.

For instance - this is a heavy crop of a Christmas Island Swiftlet.

full


full
 
Well I am fickle. As posted above I sold the lens in September 2017. One week ago, in May 2019, I bought it again, purchased new with $400 instant rebate. BTW a lot of camera companies are offering generous rebates for the month of May. For a while last year I had a 300 f2.8 that I got a great deal on used. While it's a nice lens (I used it extensively in Yellowstone), it is too big and heavy to be practical for travel. Also 300mm is not quite long enough - I can get almost the same by snapping the 1.4x extender on my 70-200. Thankfully I was able to sell it to a photographer I know for the same price I bought it.

While there are some issues with the 100-400, it is the best available option for portability and sharpness. For most zoo animals, I still prefer the 70-200 f2.8 and snap on the 1.4x extender when needed. However for birds and other truly wild animals, I need the extra reach of 400 (or 560 with the extender). I received it a few days ago and tested it this morning on a couple wild birds at Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. See sample photo (taken with extender attached) in the gallery here: Cactus Wren (wild) - ZooChat .

Those of you who follow photography know that we are on the cusp of another transformation akin to the switch from film to digital or before that the switch from manual focus to auto focus. The emerging transformation is the rise of mirrorless camera bodies which I imagine will soon replace conventional SLR's. Nikon and Canon have both recently introduced new systems with all new lens mounts (and others like Sony did it a while ago). Supposedly the removal of the mirror allows for new lens designs because the back of the lens can be closer to the sensor. This means potentially smaller lens designs or larger apertures (as already witness by the new Canon R 28-70 f2). No long telephotos have been announced yet but it will be very interesting to see what transpires over the next few years.
 
I agree AD, mirrorless seems to be the future. I'll reserve judgement on how I feel about it, as I'm very much attached to an optical viewfinder, especially given the high speed and tricky light stuff that I do a lot of. We'll see.

But, I am holding back on lens purchases at the moment, as new product lines like this do tend to gather momentum rather quickly once they get going. So far I haven't upgraded my 100-400 to the mark 2, and I'll be disappointed if I don't get to. :)
 
I am already all in on the mirrorless.
Pro's:
- The low weight is an advantage.
- For wildlife also the silent way it works is very nice. Imagine that you are in a hide (like myself 2 weeks ago) and have waited for 10 hours for a leopard to pass by and you will make the noise of a burst salvo with a Canon 7D 400mm F4. The leopard will be spooked and run of.
- For me seeing directly what a change in settings will do to the photo thru my electronic viewfinder is a great thing.

Con's:
- Not a full range of lenses available like DSLR
- Not a lot second hand material available, so on a budget it's still difficult.
- For big lenses and/or large hands, the bodies van be too small or light. An extra grip is sometimes needed.
- Battery life is shorter.
 
But to stay more on-topic:
Indeed a 100-400mm lens is a very nice lens for zoo photography. I think an ideal combination of range you need in a zoo, versatility and price.
 
Stefan Verhoeven said:
But to stay more on-topic:
Indeed a 100-400mm lens is a very nice lens for zoo photography. I think an ideal combination of range you need in a zoo, versatility and price.
Click to expand...

I would say a 100-400 mm lens or a 75-300 mm lens, depending on the manufacturer of the camera you use, is a good choice for most zoo photography.

Stefan Verhoeven said:
I am already all in on the mirrorless.
Pro's:
- The low weight is an advantage.
- For wildlife also the silent way it works is very nice. Imagine that you are in a hide (like myself 2 weeks ago) and have waited for 10 hours for a leopard to pass by and you will make the noise of a burst salvo with a Canon 7D 400mm F4. The leopard will be spooked and run of.
- For me seeing directly what a change in settings will do to the photo thru my electronic viewfinder is a great thing.

Con's:
- Not a full range of lenses available like DSLR
- Not a lot second hand material available, so on a budget it's still difficult.
- For big lenses and/or large hands, the bodies van be too small or light. An extra grip is sometimes needed.
- Battery life is shorter.
Click to expand...

This might be brand-specific, admittedly, but experiences with my mirrorless camera are actually pretty positive, even in terms of battery life.

In the spring of 2018 my old Olympus E-450 finally gave up and in June I bought my current camera, the Olympus E-M10 Mark III, and it has turned out to have been a good choice. I really like the extra options the new camera has to offer compared to my old setup.

I too was initially sceptical about the mirrorless cameras, and one important reason was in fact the battery life issue. I however did my research and asked a bunch of questions in the camera store, and they were able to put my mind at ease regarding that issue.

And indeed, as I've noticed battery life hasn't been much of an issue with my E-M10 Mark III thus far. I did buy a spare battery but so far have only used it two or three times, and then only a as a precaution. And I do take many pictures and I do not exactly go all that easy on my battery either. That said, and I repeat myself here, it might well be a brand issue - and Olympus seems to be a less common camera brand, from what I gather.

As far as lenses go, I currently have a 14-150 mm new lens (Micro Four-Thirds system) and I have kept my old 70-300 mm lens (Old Four-Third system with adapter ring). However my results with the latter lens have been pretty disappointing so far and I am starting to consider buying a new "big" lens later this year or next year.
 
Forget the Canon 100-400, Nikon is coming out with the perfect zoo lens: a 120-300 f2.8 . The best part? It only costs around ten thousand dollars! :D

(No I am not getting one but yes I did switch from Canon to Nikon).
 
I think I’ll stick with the Canon!

:)

Hix
 
Arizona Docent said:
No. The one with the built in extender is a constant f4 and lists for just under twelve thousand US dollars.
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X

So in comparison this new one is small and cheap. To low wage workers like me, over two thousand dollars for a camera lens is not cheap. But it is funny when you read the photo forums about how everyone is so happy that it is so cheap. Either they are comparing it to the one above or they have much better paying jobs than I do. I suspect both are true, although the latter is not hard to achieve.
Click to expand...
I agree!!
 
I’ll throw my hat into the ring if anyone else is considering going mirrorless. Have had the new Nikon Z 50 dual lens kit for more than a month and the results have been amazing. The Nikkor Z DX 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR lens is more than handy and capable for most occasions when shooting at the zoo. It has good reach, able to bring out the colors of the animals and the VR inside the lens is so helpful especially due to the Z 50 lacking IBIS. It’s a lighter system that is comparable to its larger cousins the Z 6 and Z 7. I can’t wait for the other telephoto lenses to come out for the mirrorless system, I’m more than satisfied and am glad I did the right choice, strongly recommend anyone to get the dual lens kit if they are strongly considering the Z 50 :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top