"Budget" Wildlife Lens Option

[NancyP]

I have not upgraded yet to the 100-400v2. I use the 400mm f/5.6L, but I am a birder, and don't need 100-399mm. (I would like the much closer focusing of the 100-400v2 for butterflies and dragonflies). Lack of IS is a real issue, but one fix is to carry a monopod with tilt head. This can do double duty as a hiking staff, if you get the largest diameter monopod. It works fine as a staff for the very basic steadying across streams, muddy slopes, or clamoring over downed trees. A very few commercial hiking staffs come with 1/4" threaded bolt on the top, to which you could attach the head. If you are crafty and always shoot standing up, you could make your own staff. Then you learn how to use the monopod effectively. A collapsed monopod can be used sitting. You don't get the stability of a tripod, but it can help - I have taken pixel-sharp shots at 1/100 with the non-stabilized 400 on a monopod, and could likely do better than that. Anyway, the 400 f/5.6L takes some getting used to, but it is a great hand-held lens for birds in flight and other panning shots, given practice, and it certainly is light. Current price for good used copy is ~$900.00. I'd recommend this for a birder who is willing to spend some time tracking and shooting any-old-bird-in-flight. I have gotten technically excellent shots with this lens on my 60D.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The Sigma 150-500 is a crazy good bargain at $525.....

Every review has it very, very soft at 500mm on FF. It must be unusable on crop?

Also I know and/or have spoken to numerous people who have owned this lens, having been attracted by the low price, and regretted it.

To the OP: you say you could stretch to the 100-400L II if you max out your budget. Ok it's easy to spend other people's money but my advice is do that - it's that far ahead of the other options.

 

[Fr3nzy Photography]

Hey everyone, thanks for the advice/thoughts so far. I do appreciate getting real world users' thoughts as testing and weekend rentals can only go so far.

To add some clarification, weight is generally a non-issue for me. With my landscape gear, tripod, ballhead, hiking accessories, water, etc., I'm generally looking at 20-ish pounds, so I generally don't get bogged down in ounces unless I'm doing extremely long or overnight trips.

My biggest reasons for leaving off the Sigma C & Tamron were filter sizes (I've invested in good 77mm filters), autofocus performance, and copy variation. In my reading of reviews, the Sigma S performed better in the latter two categories (still diminished IQ above 400 and especially 500mm), but at that point I'm basically at the 100-400mkII and would be better served with that. I've generally no desire to chase animals that require 600mm on a crop camera to get close enough. As I mentioned earlier, wildlife is a hobby of my hobby for when I'm out hiking during landscape shoots.

I know the 100-400mkII is the best of these "budget" options, but I'm really trying to not blow my entire budget on the lens. As I mentioned, I'll be renting these in a weekend or two to see what everything looks like on the 7DII in a controlled test, and I might just end up with the mkII. I figure other options at least deserve a shot to see what they have to offer.

 

[JBSF]

Hey everyone, thanks for the advice/thoughts so far. I do appreciate getting real world users' thoughts as testing and weekend rentals can only go so far.

To add some clarification, weight is generally a non-issue for me. With my landscape gear, tripod, ballhead, hiking accessories, water, etc., I'm generally looking at 20-ish pounds, so I generally don't get bogged down in ounces unless I'm doing extremely long or overnight trips.

My biggest reasons for leaving off the Sigma C & Tamron were filter sizes (I've invested in good 77mm filters), autofocus performance, and copy variation. In my reading of reviews, the Sigma S performed better in the latter two categories (still diminished IQ above 400 and especially 500mm), but at that point I'm basically at the 100-400mkII and would be better served with that. I've generally no desire to chase animals that require 600mm on a crop camera to get close enough. As I mentioned earlier, wildlife is a hobby of my hobby for when I'm out hiking during landscape shoots.

I know the 100-400mkII is the best of these "budget" options, but I'm really trying to not blow my entire budget on the lens. As I mentioned, I'll be renting these in a weekend or two to see what everything looks like on the 7DII in a controlled test, and I might just end up with the mkII. I figure other options at least deserve a shot to see what they have to offer.

I recently started using 100-400 mk2 on 7D2, though I used the lens for part of last year on a 7D. It's great, but I understand your quandary.

I follow the work of several nature photographers on Flickr. One who has used 300 f4 + 1.4 TC for much of his work is Alan Schmierer, and you can search for him there. His work over the past year has been with 100-400ii, but if you scroll through to 2014 and earlier, you will see that he used the 300 almost exclusively, more often than not with the TC (and thereby identifying FL as 420mm). He has shot all of it on Rebel bodies with excellent results.

For the 300 f4/1.4 combo's ability to serve as a crossover between birds and insects, look up Vic Berardi online and look at his web publication on photographing dragonflies. He has gotten beautiful results with the 300. He often uses the 1.4 TC, and also uses an extension tube for some shots.

The 400 f5.6 doesn't work for me; I simply don't have steady enough hands, and I seldom use a tripod.

 

[slclick]

This is one of those scenarios where you can pick two out of three of your criteria but not have all.

My solution is patience. The price of the 100-400 v2 will come down and so will refurbs.

 

[azhelishot]

I am in your exact situation...I hike a lot (always with my gear) and a landscape photographer. A side part of my hikes is to capture whatever wildlife comes my way...from lizards to birds to larger animals. I spent a lot of time finding the right backpack (an entire other story altogether) to hold my one body, 2 lenses, and 1 TC. Most importantly, the bag had to carry the 100-400 I had on-camera as it was nearly always the go-to lens for my style of work. I started with the original version that worked flawlessly for me for many years for BOTH landscape and wildlife. I recently upgraded to the MKII as I felt the upgrades were worth it for the amount of use I get out of it. I will usually add the 1.4 TC on it if I am specifically shooting birds, otherwise its 100-400 II on my camera 75% of the time. It is useful in so many situations and you will have the lens for many years...it is definitely worth it in my opinion.

 

[danski0224]

I technically can afford the 100-400mkII, but it would max out my budget and I wouldn't be able to get anything else. That said, I've narrowed down my options to 3 possibilities, primarily based on usability for wildlife or other subjects and IQ as based off of tests over at The Digital Picture. I do plan to rent all three of these items to test them during one of the coming up weekends, but I also wanted to get the thoughts and opinions from folks here who may have actually used the items in the field.

• 300 f/4L IS +/- 1.4t.c.
  • 300mm could be good for larger/closer animals
  • Based on TDP, IQ seems excellent and still pretty good after adding 1.4t.c.
  • Could still rent the t.c. for big trips as 300mm likely will satisfy my casual wildlife interests.
  
  I know that relying on teleconverters has it's own risks and concerns when in the field, but as wildlife is generally a secondary goal while I'm out, I'm comfortable dealing with whatever option is "stuck" on the camera at the time. I'm more interested in just having an option that I own so I can get used to it and know what I'm working with.
  
  Thanks, in advance, for any thoughts or ideas. (I'm also open to other options, keeping in mind my budget.)

• 
  
  The 300 f/4 has a really short minimum focus distance, which is *really* nice. The lens also has nice bokeh. It is lightweight and the built in hood is a plus.
  
  However, AF performance (speed) with any TC, even the 1.4x, is not good at best.
  
  I have not used the other 2 lenses you mention.
  
  "Wildlife" covers a pretty wide range of stuff. Relying on TC's to get there is a spotty plan at best, unless you plan to leave the TC on the lens. Swapping the TC on and off in the field opens too many doors for problems- from small ones like dust to large ones like dropped equipment.
  
  I have learned that buying "one step down" to save money, even with workarounds on paper (TC's), is an exercise in futility. If the 100-400 VII is actually attainable in your budget, then you will be much happier with that lens than the others.
  
  I would STRONGLY suggest setting up an alert at Canon Price Watch for the 100-400II and then wait.
  
  I just now got an alert that it is available for $1,583.28 refurbished.
  
  I do not own the 100-400II, but by all accounts that I have read, it seems to be *the* choice for that focal range without going to the Big Whites.

 

[slclick]

I technically can afford the 100-400mkII, but it would max out my budget and I wouldn't be able to get anything else. That said, I've narrowed down my options to 3 possibilities, primarily based on usability for wildlife or other subjects and IQ as based off of tests over at The Digital Picture. I do plan to rent all three of these items to test them during one of the coming up weekends, but I also wanted to get the thoughts and opinions from folks here who may have actually used the items in the field.

• 300 f/4L IS +/- 1.4t.c.
  • 300mm could be good for larger/closer animals
  • Based on TDP, IQ seems excellent and still pretty good after adding 1.4t.c.
  • Could still rent the t.c. for big trips as 300mm likely will satisfy my casual wildlife interests.
  
  I know that relying on teleconverters has it's own risks and concerns when in the field, but as wildlife is generally a secondary goal while I'm out, I'm comfortable dealing with whatever option is "stuck" on the camera at the time. I'm more interested in just having an option that I own so I can get used to it and know what I'm working with.
  
  Thanks, in advance, for any thoughts or ideas. (I'm also open to other options, keeping in mind my budget.)

• 
  
  The 300 f/4 has a really short minimum focus distance, which is *really* nice. The lens also has nice bokeh. It is lightweight and the built in hood is a plus.
  
  However, AF performance (speed) with any TC, even the 1.4x, is not good at best.
  
  I have not used the other 2 lenses you mention.
  
  "Wildlife" covers a pretty wide range of stuff. Relying on TC's to get there is a spotty plan at best, unless you plan to leave the TC on the lens. Swapping the TC on and off in the field opens too many doors for problems- from small ones like dust to large ones like dropped equipment.
  
  I have learned that buying "one step down" to save money, even with workarounds on paper (TC's), is an exercise in futility. If the 100-400 VII is actually attainable in your budget, then you will be much happier with that lens than the others.
  
  I would STRONGLY suggest setting up an alert at Canon Price Watch for the 100-400II and then wait.
  
  I just now got an alert that it is available for $1,583.28 refurbished.
  
  I do not own the 100-400II, but by all accounts that I have read, it seems to be *the* choice for that focal range without going to the Big Whites.

I got the alert as well and it was sold out when I got to it. Maybe 1 minute after the alert. Wow.

 

[Fr3nzy Photography]

After some initial testing, I'm liking the results of the 300 f/4L + 1.4 & the 200 f/2.8L + 2. From an IQ perspective, I've noticed more CAs on the 300 combo (but not when it's used without the t.c.), but only when you really get close and pixel peep. I also am not sure about the 200mm combo since it lacks IS, but man if the pictures aren't great!

I'm hoping to try and do some SERVO work later, I've only been able to do still photos for now so I can test the focus tracking with each as compared to the 100-400 II, but for single shots, focus has been great. To try and keep the field level, I also AFMA'd all three lenses and the t.c. combos prior to starting my "testing."

Just thought I would let folks know since you took the time to give advice. Cheers.

 

[Basil]

I have the Canon 300mm f4 and the 1.4 TC. Decent combo on my 7D Mark II. However, I just bought the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary on sale from Adorama and wow! If you can swing it, that's what I'd recommend.

 

[Fr3nzy Photography]

So, having just done some AI SERVO shooting with both combinations using my dog as the subject, I have to admit that both perform exceptionally well - at least for my needs/tastes, others who shoot wildlife more often may be more strict with their requirements.

I'm convinced that I don't need the 100-400 II, no matter how awesome it might be. That said, the decision is a tough one. The 300 has IS, but with the teleconverter I saw some CAs when shooting the test charts. The 200 is a really nice focal length for any telephoto landscape work that might come up and the f/2.8 opens up some indoor shooting options. The 200 is also significantly cheaper; I can get the lens plus a t.c. for cheaper than the 300 lens alone. The cost isn't too big of a factor but, if all other things are equal, saving money or getting more for your money is nice.

I guess it comes down to "IS & longer native focal length" vs. "Cheaper & more flexible wide aperture."

I suppose this isn't the worst decision to have to make. 8) Any thoughts specifically relating to these two combinations (300 f/4L IS + 1.4x, 200 f/2.8L + 1.4x/2x) are always welcome.

 

[slclick]

So, having just done some AI SERVO shooting with both combinations using my dog as the subject, I have to admit that both perform exceptionally well - at least for my needs/tastes, others who shoot wildlife more often may be more strict with their requirements.

I'm convinced that I don't need the 100-400 II, no matter how awesome it might be. That said, the decision is a tough one. The 300 has IS, but with the teleconverter I saw some CAs when shooting the test charts. The 200 is a really nice focal length for any telephoto landscape work that might come up and the f/2.8 opens up some indoor shooting options. The 200 is also significantly cheaper; I can get the lens plus a t.c. for cheaper than the 300 lens alone. The cost isn't too big of a factor but, if all other things are equal, saving money or getting more for your money is nice.

I guess it comes down to "IS & longer native focal length" vs. "Cheaper & more flexible wide aperture."

I suppose this isn't the worst decision to have to make. 8) Any thoughts specifically relating to these two combinations (300 f/4L IS + 1.4x, 200 f/2.8L + 1.4x/2x) are always welcome.

I have the 200 2.8 Prime and a Kenko 1.4 Teleplus Pro 300 which work very well on the 5D3 but it is by no means a birding setup... larger slow moving wildlife sure, it's nice, light and very inexpensive. ($509 refurb + $128 Kenko) It's really a get by setup with a FL of 289mm f/4.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have seen no mention of the 70-300mm L. For hiking, its going to be easy to carry, has a great IQ. It does not work with TC's at all focal lengths, but will work at the long end with Kenko TC's.

You might want to look into that as a option. The small aperture is a concern at high shutter speeds, but the 7D MK II can use higher ISO's.

 

[martti]

My first experience with the Tamron 150-600 was very positive. About half of the people taking pictures in Kruger Park, ZA, were using it. Maybe it is because it looks good and does not cost so much...
A lot of people also carrying the old dust pump Canon 100-400 which is hard to beat in value.


Do you want to take pictures or do you want to look good?
Do you want the last pixel stand out like a Koh-I-Noor diamond?
In that case, get something more expensive than the Tamron.


If you want good shots, an IS, reasonable picture quality at 600mm and excellent at 400, Tamron is your choice.

Probably you get 'sharper' shots with a prime and an extender shooting birds but HTF do you zoom back with that kind of a setup?


Going for a Safari you can upgrade your lodging quite a bit with 1000 dollars extra. Like 'quite a bit'.
Just saying. Choices.

 

[martti]

A young female spotted hyena with the stupid Tamron 150-600 zoom

 

[martti]

Is Tamron a leopard lense?

 

[iaind]

I have the 100-400v2 and since getting it my 300 f4 has lost its place in my bag

 

[monsieur_elegante]

Just came across this accidentally, but Sigma recently released a press release boasting a 20%-50% AF speed increase for both the Sport and Contemporary 150-600: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=561

As a 150-600 C owner, I'm certainly hoping they'll be able to deliver on this promise--and this might make these lenses more compelling, particularly the C, as good "budget" wildlife lens options!