Lens recomendation

[pahranagatman]

I'm missing a lot of candid nature shots on the wildlife refuge I work at. I usually use a Cannon 400 5.6f lens that has been great for birds but not so great for taking deer and other wildlife when I can't get the tripod set up fast. I wish I would have gotten the 100-400 with IS so I could do hand held and get more action shots while walking around. I went with the 400mm prime lens because it was said to be a bit sharper.

Any recommendations? Should I sell the 400 and get the 100-400 IS or should I get a smaller 70-300 IS that will be lighter and maybe better for walking around photos. (darn them for raising the 100-400 price!) How much quality will I loss if moving to the zoom lens?

I take pictures of birds, lizards, waterfowl, but not much bird in flight stuff yet. I'm kind of the refuge's documenter so I shoot everything and scenic. I only have one camera. Well, a point and shoot that I should start carrying too. Oh, I have a D7 and the EF-S 18-55 lens.

 

[Gavjenks]

The 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS USM is an awesome piece of equipment, near L quality, but at reasonable prices (300ish used). The price tag is probably low enough that you could just get it, without ditching your 400, and have the best of both worlds. 70-300 is a wonderful range for non-birds of all sorts, as well as even some landscapes. The IS is very good. As long as the wildlife is standing still, you could probably get off crisp shots at 1/60th of a second most of the time.

 

[grafxman]

I recommend you get the Sigma 50-500mm. The stability system is excellent. I've taken hundreds of hand held wildlife photos with it. I never use a tripod. Among the many terrific things about it is it's close focusing. At 500mm it will focus to under 2 feet. That makes its capabilities nearly macro. Close up shots of insects to distant shots of deer and other wildlife is easy with this lens.

Simply put, a prime lens is unsuitable for wildlife photography, as you have apparently discovered. Many "experts" will tell you to get one because of the superior quality. It doesn't matter how "superior quality" your lens is if its too powerful or too weak to get a photo. What's required for wildlife photography is a zoom with the widest possible range. Fast focusing and a good stability system are also important. I've taken thousands and thousands of photos covering much of the wildlife of Florida. It's all shot handheld mostly with a Sigma lens. Occasionally I do find myself it a situation where I can rest the camera on the windowsill of my car. That's typical when I shooting video. You will not be disappointed with a Sigma 50-500mm lens.

 

[matthewo]

Simply put, a prime lens is unsuitable for wildlife photography

I wouldn't say that, but i do agree that in this case the OP wants wider range of focal distance over quality, so it probably makes more sense for him to get a zoom.

Your 400mm 5.6 is a good lens, i just hope you are not disappointed by quality going to a similar priced zoom.

And pro say get a large prime because they are simply the best. As long as price and weight are not an issue. As well as most pro carry 2 bodies, one with a long prime 400, 500, 600mm, and another with a 70-200mm. Doesnt really mater sports or wildlife that will cover everything great. Of coarse the 400 is for sports

 

[coastalconn]

Simply put, a prime lens is unsuitable for wildlife photography

I wouldn't say that, but i do agree that in this case the OP wants wider range of focal distance over quality, so it probably makes more sense for him to get a zoom.

Your 400mm 5.6 is a good lens, i just hope you are not disappointed by quality going to a similar priced zoom.

And pro say get a large prime because they are simply the best. As long as price and weight are not an issue. As well as most pro carry 2 bodies, one with a long prime 400, 500, 600mm, and another with a 70-200mm. Doesnt really mater sports or wildlife that will cover everything great. Of coarse the 400 is for sports

Very well put, Mr Matthew.. I think the op should post some samples of the shots that he is missing.. I have seen thousands of great shots with the combo he has, perhaps something is wrong with settings?

 

[Gavjenks]

I have seen thousands of great shots with the combo he has, perhaps something is wrong with settings?

With a 18-55 kit lens and a 400 prime...? Not exactly a popular combo. I'm a bit confused where you have seen thousands of shots' worth of photographers work using those two lenses together.

 

[amolitor]

Does anyone use gyro stabilizers any more?

 

[coastalconn]

I have seen thousands of great shots with the combo he has, perhaps something is wrong with settings?

With a 18-55 kit lens and a 400 prime...? Not exactly a popular combo. I'm a bit confused where you have seen thousands of shots' worth of photographers work using those two lenses together.

Lmao, the kit of 7d and the 400 f5.6... wasn't talking about a "kit lens"

 

[pahranagatman]

The shots missed are hand held opportunities. It's just the limitations of the lens. Not enough light to keep the shutter speed fast and the ISO down to something reasonable. Would be awesome if the 400 prime came with IS option. Going to go with Gavjenks recommendation and get a used 70-300.

The fall migration has started in southern NV so I'm going to be getting a lot of use out of the 400 prime from inside a portable photo blind. Tripond, chair, cable release and hundreds of waterfowl should make my time out there pretty productive.

(just for the curious. the 18-55 EF-S IS lens came with a 60D. I had 60D kit and either I damaged the camera and one lens or well I'm not sure..... All my shots just got super weird and bad. Local shop couldn't figure it out but Squaretrade was awesome and sent me a check for both. Really cool. I then upgraded to 7D and got the 400 prime.)

 

[Gavjenks]

I have seen thousands of great shots with the combo he has, perhaps something is wrong with settings?

With a 18-55 kit lens and a 400 prime...? Not exactly a popular combo. I'm a bit confused where you have seen thousands of shots' worth of photographers work using those two lenses together.

Lmao, the kit of 7d and the 400 f5.6... wasn't talking about a "kit lens"

That's great, except he never mentioned any such lens, and he did specifically mention an 18-55 low end body kit lens.

I'm recommending based on what the OP said he had. Which means that the 70-300 is perfect. It is a great lens, its entire range is unavailable to him from the lenses he listed, and it leaves only trivial gaps in his overall capabilities for a good price.

You'll be very happy with it, as long as youre okay with f/5.6, OP. Which I assume you are, since you didnt say aperture was the issue with the 400 for what you do.

 

[coastalconn]

What are you talking about gavjenks? The whole post is about the 400 f5.6 that he already has.. except the last sentence that he mentions the kit lens...

 

[Gavjenks]

Right, so the "combo" he has is:
1) A 400mm 5.6 lens
2) an 18-55mm kit lens.

Like I said originally, I doubt you have seen "thousands of great shots with the combo he has," because that's a pretty rare and terrible combo to do almost anything with (as the OP has obviously figured out all too well, hence the thread), and I really doubt any experienced or pro photographers would go out with that if they could possibly afford a different combo, or that many people ever even end up with this combo in the first place.

 

[Overread]

Actually its a pretty common combo for early bird photographers because they get the camera - the kit lens and then rush out and get the 400mm and burn all their money away fast


As for what to do a few thoughts to consider:

1) 1/400sec is pretty much on the cusp for action/wildlife photography if you want to start eliminating blur from motion of the subject. As a result most of the time you should have enough shutter speed to counter hand shake and should be able to get a handheld shot. If you do need further support consider a monopod - quick to use and light to carry and easily deployable for a grabshot. Tripods are great, but they are slower to set up and use, sling it over your shoulder/backpack till you're in place to wait for the shot.

2) A zoom lens is a good idea and there are a wide range of options; image quality won't be as good, but it will be more than usable with most market options, provided you stop down around 2/3rds to a full stop from wide open.

3) 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII (yes the big and very expensive one) works well with a 2*Teleconverter (MII or MIII) and can give you a 140-400mm f5.6 IS lens that is just as good as the 100-400mm. If you're considering good zooms this lens might let you get two for one if you feel that you do want a good 70-200mm lens on its own.
Sigma make a 120-300mm f2.8 that might be more suitable for wildlife, but on the flipside its much bigger and significantly heavier (you want a monopod with it).

 

[pahranagatman]

Can you clarify Overread. When you said "usable with most market options, provided you stop down around 2/3rds to a full stop from wide open" do you mean the F stop or the zoom? I've heard that I should avoid the max and min of a zoom. Or do you mean by stopping down to slightly over expose?

Thanks for reminding me about the monopod. Yeah, I need to get one.

 

[Overread]

A zoom you can't use at its longest is a pointless zoom to buy. Modern zoom lenses are not "that" bad and even super zooms like 18-200mm lenses produce decent results; softer than primes and not "as" good but not horrific.

The stop comment refers to the aperture since just as a zoom lens is typically weakest at its longest focal length (and oft strongest at its shortest) its also weaker (sharpness and clarity wise) at its widest aperture (this is the same for all lenses). As a result when you've a superzoom lens like a 100-400mm, 50-500mm, 150-500mm etc... and you're at the long end of the zoom its advisable to stop down by around 1 stop or just under (most DSLR cameras default move the aperture by 1/3rd of a stop per "click" on the wheel - you can change this to be full stop moves if you want in the camera menu). Some you can still use at the wide open aperture, but you might find the sharpness takes a noticeable dip.