Best Zoo lens?

[Rick50]

This might very well be it.
Canon 100-400mm (some numbers go here) L IS II. The range seems to be perfect.
I have tried 70-200, 300mm prime, and then this one.

There seems to be more long zooms coming out which is good.

Makes me think that the question of whether it's the photographer or the camera that makes a good picture is wrong. It's the lens that makes a good picture!

Cartier-Bresson was wrong in his statement about 10,00 pictures. He just didn't buy a good lens till photo # 10,000.

 

[jcdeboever]

He said "your first 10,000 are your worst". He didn't say they were bad. Totally different. Lens is merely doing what the camera communicates and the camera is doing merely what the photographer communicates. I have seen fantastic photos from a Holga, a Polaroid, and a Hasselblad. All different quality hardware and glass /plastic. All the glass is doing is communicating with the camera and keeping you from getting mauled to death.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

This might very well be it.
Canon 100-400mm (some numbers go here) L IS II. The range seems to be perfect.
I have tried 70-200, 300mm prime, and then this one.

There seems to be more long zooms coming out which is good.

Makes me think that the question of whether it's the photographer or the camera that makes a good picture is wrong. It's the lens that makes a good picture!

Cartier-Bresson was wrong in his statement about 10,00 pictures. He just didn't buy a good lens till photo # 10,000.

Doubt I'd get much use out of it. But then again, I shoot Nikon.. lol

Glad to hear your liking the lens though, always nice to find equipment that suits your particular needs and individual style.

 

[robbins.photo]

All the glass is doing is communicating with the camera and keeping you from getting mauled to death.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Still, one should never underestimate the importance of something that keeps you from getting mauled to death.

 

[DarkShadow]

I wish I could make that lens fit my D7200.

 

[JacaRanda]

Based on how many birdographers I have seen with the lens......I would say it is a great lens (because I trust in the people I see actually using them). For the zoo; that's subjective.

 

[JacaRanda]

I wish I could make that lens fit my D7200.

I have been debating. I really want a 500f4, but the cost of this new 100-400II makes it very tempting. It also plays well with the 1.4 tc III.
I'm holding off, but it ain't easy.

 

[DarkShadow]

The 500f/4 is a beauty but the 100-400 is really nice lens and from the looks of Ricks shot,it looks razor sharp.

 

[robbins.photo]

Based on how many birdographers I have seen with the lens......I would say it is a great lens (because I trust in the people I see actually using them). For the zoo; that's subjective.

Probably depends a lot on the zoo you frequent too - at the Henry Doorly at least for a lot of subjects faster glass is better than longer zoom. The big cats, for example - the way their enclosures are setup you've got wire enclosures with barriers and hedges that prevent you from getting too close to the enclosure on all but one enclosure used for the lions, which does have viewing windows on the one side and wire on the other.

But for those wire enclosures getting a shot outdoors on most of the big cats becomes difficult to nearly impossible - you can't get close enough to the enclosure to shoot through the wire, and trying to process it out after the fact.. well, you'd need a lot more patience and skill for that than what this big ape possess, that is for certain. Lol

So at least at the HDZ you have to wait for may of them to come indoors, which usually means lower lighting and closer subject distance. So faster glass but less zoom works a lot better at least over at the cat complex.

However the zoo is finishing construction on a new African Grasslands exhibit hopefully sometime this year, and it looks like a longer telephoto might come in really handy for that particular area.

The aquarium? Well shooting in there just sucks regardless.. lol..

 

[Rick50]

He said "your first 10,000 are your worst". He didn't say they were bad. Totally different. Lens is merely doing what the camera communicates and the camera is doing merely what the photographer communicates. I have seen fantastic photos from a Holga, a Polaroid, and a Hasselblad. All different quality hardware and glass /plastic. All the glass is doing is communicating with the camera and keeping you from getting mauled to death.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I know. I'm just kidding about it.

 

[Rick50]

Thanks for all the replies. Nice when things work out (after spending oogles).
The good news for me is that I have used this lens for a few things now - cars, skyline,birds, zoo and it doesn't fail me.

 

[JacaRanda]

Nice shots. It's a great lens, but good you know what you are doing with the camera also.

 

[robbins.photo]

I wish I could make that lens fit my D7200.

I have been debating. I really want a 500f4, but the cost of this new 100-400II makes it very tempting. It also plays well with the 1.4 tc III.
I'm holding off, but it ain't easy.

I know what you mean. I recently sold the Sigma 70-200 mm OS, originally my plan was to replace it with the non-OS version since I wasn't really using the OS anyway, and put the extra money back into the gear budget. Then I ran across a deal on a D600 I just couldn't pass up, so I bought it instead of replacing the 70-200mm.

I can get good shots even indoors using the full frame with the 70-300 I have.. naturally I still want to replace my 70-200 2.8 at some point but it's not as high a priority with full frame as it was with APS-C. I also want to get something with some more reach, so I'm looking at adding a Tamron 150-600 to the bag hopefully this summer as well.

Well I'm poking around and I find a couple of good deals on the Sigma 50-150 2.8, which doesn't have quite the range of the 70-200 but it only weighs about half what the 70-200 does, which would make it a lot easier to carry around the zoo in conjunction with the 150-600 if I eventually end up buying that..

arghh...

Lol

 

[JacaRanda]

The 500f/4 is a beauty but the 100-400 is really nice lens and from the looks of Ricks shot,it looks razor sharp.

No doubt it's sharp. I just have this burning desire to be able to shoot at f4 when I want or need to. The reach, 5.6 with TC and use of all the focus points still is the deal breaker for me.
Well, the real deal breaker and heart breaker is the price tag of the 500F4 version II. Ouch. Where there is will there is a way...right?