telephoto lens advise for nature,wildlife etc

RD400

RD400

Messages
693
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
For a while now I`ve been toying with the idea of a fixed telephoto lens
and after reading other peoples posts what would be the best between the two lens below
Canon F5.6 400mm
Canon F4 300 mm with IS
there for use on a 5D mk11
I`am drawn to to 300 mm lens as if I fit a 1.4 converter on it it becomes F5.6 at 420 mm but I get the added bonus of the IS
 
If you want to use it handheld a lot, I'd take the 300/4 IS for stabilisation, and it'll also be better for low light when you're using it without the TC.
If you going to shoot with supports a lot (tripods, monopods, beanbags on hide windows etc.), then I'd take the 400 for the extra native focal length.

One other thing to bare in mind is that the 300 focusses much closer, so if you want to shoot very small birds and things quite close to the camera or use it for dragonflies or butterflies, the 300 would be a better choice.
 
It depends on the wildlife you are shooting, for birds many use a crop camera so you are already at a 1.6 disadvantage with a full frame. As a general rule no lens is ever long enough, elephants, and tigers excepted. I find that 500mm on my 7D is sometimes not long enough for birds, so depending on the wildlife I would get at least a 500mm lens. Sigma 150-500 is the cheapest reasonable lens, then it's spend more money time.
 
Adam thanks for the info I know the 400mm F5.6 is a very good lens much used in the bird photography I`ll have to maybe hire one or poss go over to the local RSPB sites see what they are using and have a chat with them .
Ken it would be may`ll birds but anything really I suppose I already have a 120-400mm sigma but for some reason I just car`nt get to grips with it I know it`s me maybe I should practice more with this lens and see what I can get out of it
 
Michael,
I have been taking photos of birds for a good while now using Canon100/400 IS lens with a 1.4 extender on a 7D, and I felt I needed the extra reach, so I have purchased the canon 500mm f4 is and I can already tell that it works and it will taken the 1.4 extender with minimal loss of quality.
Being a Prime lens the 500mm is knocking spots off the zoom.

Good luck
 
David, I should imagine that 500mm cost you a pretty penny. Would love something like that, but only if I won the lottery or the wife would either divorce me or kill me.
 
RD400 said:
Adam thanks for the info I know the 400mm F5.6 is a very good lens much used in the bird photography I`ll have to maybe hire one or poss go over to the local RSPB sites see what they are using and have a chat with them .
Ken it would be may`ll birds but anything really I suppose I already have a 120-400mm sigma but for some reason I just car`nt get to grips with it I know it`s me maybe I should practice more with this lens and see what I can get out of it
Click to expand...

What is the problem you are having with the 120-400 sigma, I tested more lenses than I wanted to including the Tamron and Canons 100-400 and ended up with it through choice as a superb lens.

Sometimes I am as close as 5' to the subject

Img_13302.jpg


Other times a long way away, so a fixed length is useless depending on what shots you want to take.


Img_1069.jpg

Img_2740.jpg

Img_2746.jpg

sayah.jpg

Img_07702.jpg
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
What is the problem you are having with the 120-400 sigma
Click to expand...

If you asked, well, some of the sample shots look slightly soft at small size (ie just soft or slight misfocus), and low-ish contrast. A bit of PP should mask it though.
 
I had to make the same choice a few years ago and picked the 300 and 1.4 over the 400.

I haven't regretted it at all.

I chose the 300 because of the IS. I shoot about 90% of my shots handheld or from the car. I also chose it because you get 2 lenses in one: a 300 f4 and a 420 f5.6

I now have the 500 but I'll never sell the 300. It is sharp wide open an is great for doing close up stuff like fungi and large insects.

Either way 2 good bits of glass. FWIW I owned a Sigma 50-500 before the 300 and found the 300 took over and I sold the 50-500.

Good luck

Neil
 
da_nige said:
I had to make the same choice a few years ago and picked the 300 and 1.4 over the 400.

I haven't regretted it at all.

I chose the 300 because of the IS. I shoot about 90% of my shots handheld or from the car. I also chose it because you get 2 lenses in one: a 300 f4 and a 420 f5.6

I now have the 500 but I'll never sell the 300. It is sharp wide open an is great for doing close up stuff like fungi and large insects.

Either way 2 good bits of glass. FWIW I owned a Sigma 50-500 before the 300 and found the 300 took over and I sold the 50-500.

Good luck

Neil
Click to expand...

I do agree here, if I wanted (which I don't) a single lens then 300 all the way, I must say I have used a 300mm for a week, and whilst I found it inflexible, it was a good lens, just the right weight, just the right physical size and with a 1.4 converter I have very nice.

Unfortunately I do find a fixed length as restricting as a car with just one gear, second out of four, you miss the shorter end for getting close and having just 100mm and just when you need the 400mm you don't have it instantly to hand, but until they design a bitingly sharp f1.2, 6-1000mm with 6 stop IS and a weight of 1 pound and a length of just 12 inches everything is a compromise and only you know what you want.

You will find many occasions when you want that grab shot of something 6' away from you or to zoom in on another subject and that is where fixed lengths are a bain.

Some of my pics above may look flat, just remember the "actual originals are tack sharp.
 
Last edited:
I probably should add that I have a 70-200 too so if I need the shorter end I can use that.

Another plus of the 300 for me is that with the 500 and a 300 I have ideal focal lengths for my wildlife shooting. I think a 400 and a 500 would be too close in focal length.

Neil
 
I had both the 300 F4 & 400 F5.6 until recently. I had to sell one to free up some funds and had a similar dilema. I decided in the end to get rid of the 400 and keep the 300. The reasons were as already mentioned - I can use the 300 as a macro lens for dragonflies etc and I can also add a 1.4TC to get 420 F5.6 (i think) if I need a bit more reach. Although I did a lot of hand-held shots with the 400 no problem, there was not as much versatility with it. I'm happy with my decision so far, but I still want a 500 F4! :thumbs:
TBH whichever you go for, you'll always want more reach. :bonk::D

Gareth
 
The main problem is animals and birds have far better eyesight than we have, they can read the info on the front of the lens and move just beyond it's workable focal length. Happens every time, no matter what lens they are always that bit too far away :D
 
Guy`s thanks for all the replies I`am going over to dearne valley RSPB centre this coming sunday so I can have a play will try the 12-400 lens again with different setting etc will post some picture of the out come .
I think if I was to go for the lens I mentioned it`d be the 300mm +1.4x as said two lens in one plus can use the 1.4x on my other lens .
I also have the 70-200F4 as well which I find a super lens and I can see what everyone says does`nt matter what lens you have on be it marco or telephoto some thing turns up
to take a picture of and you`ve never got the right lens on for that shot .

Jeremy
QUOTE until they design a bitingly sharp f1.2, 6-1000mm with 6 stop IS and a weight of 1 pound and a length of just 12 inches
I think you should write a stronge e-mail to canon a demand they make this lens would solve most people`s problems :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top