L glass dilema - safari/airshow

jnO

jnO

Messages
603
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Apart from my close shots at car shows I take wildlife photo's. My Girlfriend is an animal/nature nut so I am constantly at zoo's, safari parks, animal/water reserves, and am on safari early next year for the first time.
I have a Canon 55-250 IS f4-5.6 and wanted a 70-200 L F4 IS, but I get the impression from what I have read that this is going to be nowhere near enough reach for the safari. So I was thinking of ditching the purchase of the 70-200 and going for a 100-400 L F4-5.6 IS.

I should think I'd get alot of use out of it at airshows and motorsport events as well. Most of what I shoot is outdoors so the speed should be ok.

Does this sound like a sensible option? The 50mm will do me for close shots at car shows, the L glass for the above and, for now, the 55-250 can cover the gap.

Thanks.
 
The best bang per pound option for safari use IMO is 70-200 4.0 IS L and 400mm L on a two body set up. You have fairly low weight, great IQ and AF and superb usability, plus a backup body in case something happens. On my safari last year one guy had his 1D mk III give up the ghost but he had a 5D too, so was OK. However, the 100-400 IS L is one of the most common lenses you'll see on Canon mount on safari and if you get a good copy then hard to go wrong. You can use that for 90% of your shots. I'd just be wary of a SH model unless you're able to test IQ. Another option is the Sigma 150-500mm OS. I've had two 100-400's and 150-500's and would go Sigma first based on that experience. The extra reach and better OS helps, as does the much nicer price. I'm taking one on my safari this year along with the Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR.
 
condyk said:
.... the 100-400 IS L is one of the most common lenses you'll see on Canon mount on safari and if you get a good copy then hard to go wrong. You can use that for 90% of your shots. I'd just be wary of a SH model unless you're able to test IQ. Another option is the Sigma 150-500mm OS. I've had two 100-400's and 150-500's and would go Sigma first based on that experience.....
Click to expand...
I don't have the safari experiece that Dave/condyk has, but I do perhaps have a bit more epxerience with some of the lenses.

We have over 30 copies of the 100-400L and every single one of them has been a "good copy". Personally I would not hesitate for a microsecond in recommending this lens. In addition to the image quality, build quality etc, one great feature of this lens which deserves mention is the ergonomic design. Many people seem to be put off by the push-pull zoom, but in my opinion it is miles better than the standard twist-to-zoom design. Your left hand is always in exactly the right place to support the lens, and zooming is completely intutive. Acquiring your subject and composing the picture is much quicker and easier with this lens than with any other telephoto zoom.

As for the Sigma 150-500mm - I don't have any experience with this lens, for a very deliberate reason. My friends at LensRentals.com in the USA have what is probably the world's biggest collection of lens failure data, and they reported (here) that the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 both had such high failure rates that they discontinued carrying them. Personally I'm not in a great hurry to see whether I can prove them wrong.
 
jnO said:
Apart from my close shots at car shows I take wildlife photo's. My Girlfriend is an animal/nature nut so I am constantly at zoo's, safari parks, animal/water reserves, and am on safari early next year for the first time.
I have a Canon 55-250 IS f4-5.6 and wanted a 70-200 L F4 IS, but I get the impression from what I have read that this is going to be nowhere near enough reach for the safari. So I was thinking of ditching the purchase of the 70-200 and going for a 100-400 L F4-5.6 IS. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Have you had a look at your exif data on your photos you've taken already at the zoo's, safari parks etc - this will tell you the focal length used and whether you are above 200mm - you say you have the 55-250IS lens, do you feel you are using this at the 250mm range very often.

Good luck with your search (y)
 
StewartR said:
I

We have over 30 copies of the 100-400L and every single one of them has been a "good copy". Personally I would not hesitate for a microsecond in recommending this lens.
Click to expand...

Fair comment and I was specifically talking about SH buys. With a new lens you can minimise risk through guarantee. With SH you are stuffed. I did a poll ages ago on another forum for the 100-400 and from memory around a third of people had some issue or other. Main one was softness at 400mm, which is where you want performance. The key there is stop down to f8 and you'll be fine on safari as the light is often very good. I'd be interested in knowing if you actually check each lens you hire or whether you more depend on problems being reported.

andyred said:
Have you had a look at your exif data on your photos you've taken already at the zoo's, safari parks etc - this will tell you the focal length used and whether you are above 200mm - you say you have the 55-250IS lens, do you feel you are using this at the 250mm range very often.
Click to expand...

Useful for zoo's maybe but safari is a different ball game, which I think is where the OP is looking at options. You do need range most of the time. Last year most of mine were taken with the 400mm and 1.4x tcon. Hence the 150-500mm this year on a crop body. 200-300mm or so probably second most number of shots, hence the 300mm on a FF body. So I'm following the logic, but adding in the reality of safari shooting. Many of the interesting animals tend to stay further back, or in the case of birds you just need range end of story. Lots of Zebra and buck closer by, sometimes Lion and Elephant too.
 
condyk said:
Useful for zoo's maybe but safari is a different ball game, which I think is where the OP is looking at options.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, would agree with you for an actual Safari, jnO mentioned Safari Parks in the initial thread, which is what I was commenting on, didn't read it as going on a Safari - :bang:
 
StewartR said:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.05.17/lens-repair-data-30
Click to expand...

Interesting Stewart, do you keep similar data you could share with us?.

The yanks may be "ham fisted":)
 
i have the 70-200 2.8 IS. I love this lens, but even on a crop body i dont think it would give you the sort of range you need for safari. My use is mainly portraits and candid shots, but i think for safari you will definitely need a tcon of some sort.
 
Another vote for the 100-400 L

I do a fair bit of motorsport photography and have been accompanied by friends who have 200mm lenses and they simply do not have the reach (especially on full frame)

200mm (in my experience) is fine in most wildlife/zoo circumstance

Here are some example of the 100-400 L

[Motorsport] - [Cycle] - [Airshow]
 
Thank you for your thoughts and opinions all :)

I think, all things considered, the 100-400L ticks all the boxes to some degree. There are obviously going to be compromises as I have a budget and quite a wide range of requirements.
 
It really depends what budget you've got....

I've never been a fan of the sigma budget long zooms. You'll buy the lens for the trip, but you'll be primarily using the lens back in the UK.

The 50-500mm or 150-500mm, yes they will take some fantastic shots on Safari, because the light conditions in Africa are miles better than the conditions in this country.

They'll be ok for wildlife here, but they will struggle for motorsport / airshows without good light, which we can't guarantee. Both lenses are not quick, they are actually f6.3 at 500mm (and it has been reported that they are only really 450mm lenses), and what they do is trick the camera into thinking that they are f5.6, which is the max aperture you camera will take too autofocus. Ok for wildlife shots this isn't so important so you could add a TC and manual focus the lens to give extra reach, but action photography does really require faster lenses. If I had to pick between the 2, the 50-500mm (bigma) is the better lens.

Personally if I was to recommend a sigma, it would be the 100-300mm f4 (add a 1.4x TC) or 120-300mm f2.8 (add combo of 1.4 and/or 2x TC), but 2 vastly different prices.

An thats why the canon 100-400mm is quite widely used because of its versatility, ok as mentions, its soft at 400mm, but just step it down an f-stop and you'll get some great shots. Check out Kerso on the forum or his eBay shop, search for "Flash Camera" as shop name.

Peter
 
StewartR said:
I don't have the safari experiece that Dave/condyk has, but I do perhaps have a bit more epxerience with some of the lenses.

We have over 30 copies of the 100-400L and every single one of them has been a "good copy". Personally I would not hesitate for a microsecond in recommending this lens. In addition to the image quality, build quality etc, one great feature of this lens which deserves mention is the ergonomic design. Many people seem to be put off by the push-pull zoom, but in my opinion it is miles better than the standard twist-to-zoom design. Your left hand is always in exactly the right place to support the lens, and zooming is completely intutive. Acquiring your subject and composing the picture is much quicker and easier with this lens than with any other telephoto zoom.

As for the Sigma 150-500mm - I don't have any experience with this lens, for a very deliberate reason. My friends at LensRentals.com in the USA have what is probably the world's biggest collection of lens failure data, and they reported (here) that the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 both had such high failure rates that they discontinued carrying them. Personally I'm not in a great hurry to see whether I can prove them wrong.
Click to expand...

Great post from Stewart (y) Very few people have access to that kind of information.

I have a 100-400L. When I bought it, believing there was something in the bad copy rumours, or soft at 400mm stories, or problems with early production samples stuff that floats about the web, I got hold of two copies and tried all afternoon to find fault with them. They were indistinguishable, and both excellent.

I don't hold with the soft at 400mm stories. Some 400mm bird shots were posted on here recently by a prominent member, crops from a 50D. They were exceptionally crisp.

And just a few days ago I managed to get close to our friendly local robin, about 3m close in fact, and took about 30 frames before he'd had enough. Inbetween thunder storms in horrible light, Canon 40D, 400mm, 1/160sec at f/5.6, hand-held IS on, ISO800.

TBH I wasn't expecting much with the light and that shutter speed, and sure enough some have got shake, some have got subject movement and some don't have perfect focus on the eye (depth of field is 10.5mm at that distance). It would be easy to conclude that this lens is indeed a bit soft at 400mm or that I had a bad copy. However, most of the images were pretty sharp, and quite a few were amazingly so. Crisp as you like :)

I'm beginning to think that problems with this lens, and long lenses in general, are down to slight misfocusing and shake/movement, often emphasised by big crops. But when I get it right, this lens really delivers.

Sure there are better 400mm lenses, primes that is, but you need to be damn good to get the most out of them, and even then it's not much.
 
HoppyUK said:
Great post from Stewart (y) Very few people have access to that kind of information.

I have a 100-400L. When I bought it, believing there was something in the bad copy rumours, or soft at 400mm stories, or problems with early production samples stuff that floats about the web, I got hold of two copies and tried all afternoon to find fault with them. They were indistinguishable, and both excellent.

I don't hold with the soft at 400mm stories. Some 400mm bird shots were posted on here recently by a prominent member, crops from a 50D. They were exceptionally crisp.

And just a few days ago I managed to get close to our friendly local robin, about 3m close in fact, and took about 30 frames before he'd had enough. Inbetween thunder storms in horrible light, Canon 40D, 400mm, 1/160sec at f/5.6, hand-held IS on, ISO800.

TBH I wasn't expecting much with the light and that shutter speed, and sure enough some have got shake, some have got subject movement and some don't have perfect focus on the eye (depth of field is 10.5mm at that distance). It would be easy to conclude that this lens is indeed a bit soft at 400mm or that I had a bad copy. However, most of the images were pretty sharp, and quite a few were amazingly so. Crisp as you like :)

I'm beginning to think that problems with this lens, and long lenses in general, are down to slight misfocusing and shake/movement, often emphasised by big crops. But when I get it right, this lens really delivers.

Sure there are better 400mm lenses, primes that is, but you need to be damn good to get the most out of them, and even then it's not much.
Click to expand...

agreed :)
 
Just a general note... If you put the word 'safari' in your thread title (advanced edit gives you this option) then you might get more responses from people who have safari experience and might be able to share some valuable insight. I know of at least one person who would have a lot of info to offer.
 
Well the first long lens I bought was the 100-400L and it's never disappointed me within it's range. I later added the 70-200 2.8L. Now the logic of this was that Jan would use the 100-400L on zoo days and short range stuff, while I would use the 70-200 on similar days. That was the thinly disguised excuse for getting one anyway.

The problem is she's insisted on sticking with the deal, and she out-reaches me all day long with the 100-400L. :D

The 70-200 2.8L is a cracking fast lens, but it's strong point isn't wildlife IMHO unless you're talking larger species.

I wouild think the 100-400L wouild make a cracking safari lens being able to cope with the closer and more distant subjects.
 
Jon, I should have a 100-400mm for sale very soon, I'll let you know more on the day (pictures etc). It is an old lens (seven years) but has just been cleaned, callibrated and had a new IS unit fitted at H. Lehmanns and will be collected on Friday. I'll only want what I paid for it ... £700 + p&p.

I'm only posting this in here to give you a first refusal once you decide which way to go and to give you the chance to do a bit of research before making that decision.

If you're close to Tamworth, you're welcome to come have a play before making your mind up :)
 
Hi all, I have a Canon 100-400mm also and its great, I couldnt be without it now. Okay at 400mm its a little soft but nothing too bad at all and compared to other telephoto lenses its very good. The push / pull zoom throws me off a bit at times and takes some getting used too, but apart from that its far quicker focusing than say the sigma 50-500mm. one thing I must add is forget using the 2x adaptor with it as you lose autofocus and F-stops and the image becomes really soft. On the whole a brilliant lens and I would recommend it to anyone.
 
I took a 100-400 in part exchange for my 300/2.8 when I sold it on here to see what it was like. I've now sold by 70-200/2.8 and kept the 100-400 as I didn't have space in the bag to lug both around. I'm very impressed with the 100-400. It's not as sharp wide open at f/5.6 as a 400/5.6 prime but its pretty good and it offers IS.

condyk - would you still be using the Sigma 150-500 if you were still shooting Canon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top