Help choosing my next wildlife lens set up

[Tommo]

Please help with choosing my next lens set up

Hi Everyone!

I was just wondering if i could get some advice on what my next wildlife/bird watching lens/setup should be. I'm currently toying with three options in my head.

Option 1. A Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM with a 2x EF Extender III. Total Cost = $1,600

My Views,

Pros: I like the thought of having a more everyday lens like 70-200mm as it is alot lighter and portable than the 100-400mm.

Cons: I need the reach to 400mm for safari and bird watching but im not 100% sure what i have to sacrifice by adding on a x2 teleconverter. (AF?? a F Stop??)

Option 2. A Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5- 5.6L IS USM. Total Cost = $ 1450

My Views,

Pros: Its got the reach i need with out any sacrifice to sharpness!

Cons: Its Massive heavy and I'm not sure if i want to carry that on 4 day treks let alone through an airport and on the plane!,Weird push pool zoom (dust magnet??)

Option 3. Canon A EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM with a 1.4x EF Extender III. Total Cost = $1750

My Views,

Pros: I assume by adding a x1.4 TC instead of a x2 i sacrifice a lot less?

Cons: Its also Quite a big lens, and i heard its not great in low light?

Whats Important For Me.

I do most of my shooting early early morning and late afternoon, so lighting is more often than not generally quite low.
I dont want it to be to heavy and cumbersome unless its the best option by far.
I go to Africa every year for safari (so that will be one of the main purposes of this lens)

Also

If any one has any of these setups if you could show me some pictures especially the two setups with teleconverters at full zoom that would
be so helpful.

Thankyou all so much in advance.

Cheers

[wfooshee]

The teleconverters will cost you a stop for the 1.4x and 2 stops for the 2x. That brings both your packages down to f:8 at the long end. You'll get a very slightly longer reach with the 1.4x on the 300mm.

I haven't used a teleconverter since my Canon AE-1 with an off-brand 1.4x on a Kiron 70-210, and I was not happy with the results. Probably the cheap factor, and I'm told that good teleconverters actually exist.

I don't know anything specific about your selected lenses, but I'll tell you that f:8 may make your autofocus close to useless, and it obviously limits your light-collecting ability if the light level is already low. For lens speed, there's no real option but #2.

[mjs1973]

I have been working through a similar situation with a local photographer who is leaving for Africa in a few weeks. She is pretty small, so having a lens that was hand holdable was important for her. For this reason, she went with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. So far, she seems to be happy with it.

According to Canon, you can not use the 1.4x TC with 70-300mm lens though.

Putting a 2x TC on the 70-200mm f/4 is going to mean you have to focus manually. Is that something you can live with?

Do you need the versatility of a zoom? For a light weight wildlife kit, I would give serious thought to the 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC. It's not as versitile as a zoom, but the image quality is very good and it's relatively small and light weight.

When I went to Africa a couple years ago, I opted for the 100-400mm along with the 70-200mm f/2.8. I also had a 1.4x TC. Using 2 bodies, I was covered for pretty much anything that was within a reasonable distance. That being said, I wasn't trekking with any of my gear, so weight wasn't an issue for me.

What camera body will you be using and what other lenses, if any are you planning on taking?

[mattb]

I'd lean toward a prime for this too. Not sure what your choices are but I had a reasonably well-regarded 55-300mm Pentax zoom and later bought a 300mm f/4 prime when I saw that the majority of the shots with that zoom were at 300mm. The image quality of the prime blows the zoom away on just about every shot. The best zoom photos under ideal conditions were still not as sharp or "poppy" as the prime. I have a 2x tele converter too, but I don't like the quality all that much so I'm on the lookout for a 1.4x converter that is higher quality.

Anyway, if size and IQ are you primary concerns, a prime lens is the way to go!

[SmartWombat]

Practically, the 100-400 L IS in my opinion is the best budget choice, particularly if your body is not full frame and has integrates dust reduction.


The Canon 100-400 is about the same weight as the 70-200 plus converter.
BUT it is a dust sucker, as the push pull design changes the internal volume of the lens.

The 70-200 has no volume change, it is internal focus and internal zoom.
For me that is a killer feature. I hate trying to clean the dust off the sensor !


Manual focus is a nuisance, if you don't have the Pro bodies that can focus to f/8 then the 70-200 and converter or 70-300 and converter are not for you if you have issues manual focussing. You could try changing the focussing screen to the precision screen instead of the general purpose screen that ships with the camera. BUt losing AF may be a killer if your subject is in action.

The 70-200 plus 2x converter is a little soft but not as bad as my 100-400 which itself is pretty soft and has vignetting in the corners wide open, best used about f/8 or f/11 which rather defeats the object !
But the vignetting is less noticeable on the old 20D body (1.6x crop factor) because it only uses the centre of the lens image circle.
So bear in mind the results of the same lens are different on the 1DSmkII, 1DmkIIN and 20D becuase of the different sensor sizes!
What's your body?

The 100-400 L lens choice was cost driven (before I inherited from my parents) and not quality driven.
Though I tried the Sigma 80-400 and returned it to the store, buying the Canon instead, worth the extra £300 for me.


My dream lens is the announced (but only just seen on trial in Africa) 200-400 1.4x Zoom.
I bet I can not afford it.

Coming back to reality my quality choice would be 70-200 f/2.8 mkII and 2x converter mkIII which should be significantly better than my old mkI lens and mkII converter.


My 300mm f/2.8 is a fantastic but relatively heavy lens, I wish I had bought a longer prime for wildlife.
Even second hand with the 1.4x converter (a mkI not even as good as mkII) it cost more than a car !

You will eventually probably end up saving for years and buying a second hand prime lens, at which point f/4 lenses are lighter and generally cheaper, costing you only a stop.
And you will always want a longer lens, even if you don't need it
And then the wildlife surprises you, jumps up on your jeep, and you reach for the second body with the 24-70mm lens on

[monkey44]

I've been using the Canon 100-400 for years - sports and wildlife, and pretty near everything. Always been happy with it as my 'out there lens', never had a dust issue. It's worth the 'carry weight' in my opinion ... and deletes the need for shorter lens with TC ...

And correct above, with a TC you lose autofocus - which can really be a hassle in the field when you have any quick movement in your subjects.