New wildlife lens???

JPR

JPR

Messages
66
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I would like a new telephoto lens for wildlife...
I currently shoot on a 5d km iii on a 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2x TC... It is a great combo, but often want more reach or faster... I mainly shoot early and late, so start (or end) with bare 70-200 and then add the TC when lighting improves. That being said, a lot of my images are taken on the bare lens. On safaris, I shoot from the jeep, but I will be getting walking access to some parks soon. weight is not a major issue, but a consideration! :)

I'm torn between 300 f/2.8 IS II vs 500 f/4 IS II (600 is out of my budget, hell they all are, but you know how it is)

- the 300 works great with TCs, giving me 480 and 600mm in one smallish lighter package. It also has the low light capabilities. DOF about is equal in both (if my maths is correct).
- the 500 works well with TCs and will give me more reach but at a size, weight and price cost. Also, it is 1 stop slower, which can make a difference (see image below).

In terms of how i would integrate the lenses in my current kit, it would be different, but either way they would give me a nice range.
with the 300 - I would use my 70-200 bare, and then use the 300 + Tcs is needed - 70mm to 600mm good IQ range
with the 500 - I would have my 70-200 with 2x tc, and have the 500 bare, using TCs is needed (probably only the 1.4x) - 70mm to 700mm good iq range

Has anyone got any experience these lenses and could offer an opinion?
In an ideal world, both would be great, but convincing my wife i need one is hard enough! it is a tough call!

Any advice welcome! :)
 
I can't comment on Canon so can't offer any specifics but you will always want more reach - I've had a Nikon 300 2.8 and brilliant IQ but needed longer ... I've got the 200-400 f4 now and still need longer! Either the 500 or 600 is probably going to be too big and heavy for me now so It'll probably be staying with the 200-400 and 1.4TC & 2.0TC.

I would say a lot will depend on what size of thing you shoot and how close you can get ... small birds will need more reach, larger animals maybe not so ... though don't get too close to the big cats :D
 
Phil Young said:
If you're thinking of the 300/2.8 then perhaps it's worth considering the sigma 120-300/f2.8 OS for versatility?
Click to expand...

I had looked at it, but it is really bad with TC's, and I would like extra reach... thanks for the suggestion though! :)
 
Hi

I used a 300 2.8 IS with and without 2x TC (don't have a 1.4...) for last safari in Zambia which was a mix of Jeep, Walking and Hides. Really pleased with the combo. My wife was using Tokina 80-400 which worked for the times we needed less than 300m (which wasn't all that often.) I just lived with the fixed FL and with the occasional swap on off of the TC but even then generally stuck to what was on the camera and composed accordingly, some days with the TC and some without.

Others had 70-200s but I didn't see them used often much more frequently they were turning to a 100-400.

I can dig out some samples with and without TC if you'd like?

A
 
AlistairD said:
I can dig out some samples with and without TC if you'd like?
A
Click to expand...

If you could that would be great... looking at resolution charts on TDP is one thing, but real life images are always better, thanks!

I like the idea of the 300, as i think it will be more versatile for me... The large aperture will be great for those low light situations, 420 f/4 is an improvment of what i already use, and a small 600 5.6 will be nice...

I think no matter what lens people have longer is usually a wish! :)
 
Last edited:
Hi,

If you have a look at these unfortunately, I haven't split these between the 80-400 and the 300 with and without TC but when you look at the EXIF you will see 1 1D II and a 1DS - the 1DS had the 300mm on it. The Hippos are with the TC and the baby croc is without for example. These generally have very little PP on them and I can send you the RAW files of a couple if you'd like.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/15979825@N04/sets/72157625044313022/

A
 
AlistairD said:
Hi,

If you have a look at these unfortunately, I haven't split these between the 80-400 and the 300 with and without TC but when you look at the EXIF you will see 1 1D II and a 1DS - the 1DS had the 300mm on it. The Hippos are with the TC and the baby croc is without for example. These generally have very little PP on them and I can send you the RAW files of a couple if you'd like.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/15979825@N04/sets/72157625044313022/

A
Click to expand...


Thanks, but it says it is private and i don't have permission! :(
 
I've re-checked and all the photos are public and I can see them without logging in?

But I've now made my EXIF data public, guess that was what the problem was....

A
 
Last edited:
Alistair - awesome shots! looks like you guys had a great time! :clap:

And the 300 + 2x TC appears to work a treat... I think I am leaning that way! ;)
 
Just to throw my oar in, I use a 70-200 f2.8 II, 300 f/4 and 500f/4 II for wildlife together with a 1.4 III & 2x III TC.

The 500 is brilliant and the fact it's an f/4 is almost immaterial especially taking into consideration on the MkII version you have a 4 stop IS. The TC's on it give it fantastic reach and again the IS system really helps out.
Weight can be an issue if you're looking to lug it around all day but I use mine predominantly on a gitzo/Gimbal combo and when walking carry it in a tripod carrier on my back making it a lot easier and enabling me to be out and about all day without feeling too knackered.
Using it hand held is possible and I'll up the ISO if I can't get the speed/aperture combo I want.
I'd suggest going to a dealer and trying them out or hiring them for a day or so, and then buy both!!!!:)
 
Last edited:
BMD said:
I'd suggest going to a dealer and trying them out or hiring them for a day or so, and then buy both!!!!:)
Click to expand...

Hahahah... buy both would be ideal, but for now I'm only considering one! :)

Thanks for the info! and suggestion to rent, although there is nowhere here in Bangalore India I can rent the 300 2.8 II and only one place that has a single copy of the 500 II, and every time i have tried to rent it, it has been booked! :(
 
Same situation as you, but I orginally bought the MKI 300mm f2.8 IS...... great lens worked well on safari with the 1.4x and 2x MKII TCs, even stacked the TCs to increase the range with some impressive results in good light, especially mounted on a 20D. Just bought a used 500mm f4 from here to add to my kit list because of the extra reach for wildlife/aviation/motorsport. The 300mm f2.8 and TC combinations have been great, don't get me wrong, but there are times where it misses a beat, hence the 500mm.

My problems is now the weight of the kit for flying. 300mm (2.5kg), 500mm f4 (3.9kg) plus camera, plus 70-200mm f2.8 (1.5kg) plus 24-105mm f4 (700g), 1D MKII (1.2kg) and all the other extras is going to prove logistical nightmare of how I'm going to transport it with all the weight restrictions and also how the baggage handlers handle things which puts me off buying a storm / pelican case.

I know the new MKII lenses weights have been reduced, nearly 1kg for the 500mm f4, but combined with your other gear, still makes things heavy
 
Wow, nice set up.... :) Though air-travel is an issue these days... I have found that if you show the check-in person it is a bag of lenses, smile and shrug, they tend to let it slide! But this is not a guarantee! :(

I think i am leaning towards the 300 II with TCs (III). I fear it will be a gateway lens for larger things!!! ;)
 
I travel pretty extensively and am just back from the Mara and Serengeti, where I was fortunate enough to be able to borrow a 200-400f4 +1.4, so my kit was 70-200 2.8 mk2 on one 1 Dx and 200-560 f4-5.5 on the other.......shooting from a jeep all the time, the latter saw by far the majority of the action but even if I could afford the 2-560 (Which I can't) the weight would just be far too heavy for general use for me.
I'm off to the Pantenal in September, and will be taking the 70-200 and my 300 mk 2 with both extenders as I'll be doing some wandering around and on a boat, I can hand hold the 300 without too much difficulty and it really doesn't suffer too much damage degradation even with the 2x....sadly it looks like the new 100-400 won't be released till after my trip as that coupled with the new 7D whenever it appears hopefully will give a great safari package in a small and compact unit....effectively 160-640 f4-5.6.

So my tuppence worth...I think the 300 plus extenders would get my vote as being a more practical (and cheaper?) unit.....when I look at my shots, ok, sometimes I need to crop a bit but really that's not a problem with the images I'm getting.

George.
 
Last edited:
For my Pentax kit I have a FA* 250-600mm f5.6 which is excellent quality even when wide open at full stretch but I very rarely take it out because of the size and weight (6kg on it's own). For my 7D I have the MKI 300mm IS f2.8 with extenders.

I much prefer my Pentax kit but if I need that sort of length then I always take the Canon purely because it is a lot lighter. No point having a nice big expensive lens if you can't be bothered to lug it around. :(
 
Good info George / Mike... and fair comment re-weight and size.

I am fortunate enough to have a friend who works for Canon in India, and said he can give me a special price for the 300 2.8 IS II ... 4200 pounds! 3 years warranty too! So, as soon as i can convince my wife 'we need it', i think the 300 is the winner for me! :)

Thanks for all your input! I'll let you know how it goes and if/when i get it! :)
 
I've owned a Canon 300/2.8 and it was by far the sharpest lens I've ever owned. It's not too heavy and I found it worked pretty well with the 1.4x TC but noticeably softer with the 2x TC. This gives plenty of versatility without having to carry a big bag around. I now own a Canon 500/4 and this is a much bigger and heavier beast, but with some very impressive results.
It generally comes down to how much reach you need, and in my experience you nearly always want more than you've got. :)
 
wippers said:
I've owned a Canon 300/2.8 and it was by far the sharpest lens I've ever owned. It's not too heavy and I found it worked pretty well with the 1.4x TC but noticeably softer with the 2x TC. This gives plenty of versatility without having to carry a big bag around. I now own a Canon 500/4 and this is a much bigger and heavier beast, but with some very impressive results.
It generally comes down to how much reach you need, and in my experience you nearly always want more than you've got. :)
Click to expand...

Was it a mk2?...found that the mk2 with mk 3 extenders noticeably sharper and quicker to af than the previous model.
 
One thing I considered when choosing between the 300 and 500 is the minimum focus distance. Of course the 500 is usually bought if your subject is further away or a small bird. Im happy to have the variation of 300 f2.8, 420 f4 and 600 f5.6 and I can get as close as 2-3m from subjects.
 
rob-nikon said:
One thing I considered when choosing between the 300 and 500 is the minimum focus distance. Of course the 500 is usually bought if your subject is further away or a small bird. Im happy to have the variation of 300 f2.8, 420 f4 and 600 f5.6 and I can get as close as 2-3m from subjects.
Click to expand...

You can use extension tubes to reduce the minimum focus distance on the 500mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top