Topside Canon lens for wildlife

I am just doing some preliminary research on some topside lenses and need some input/experience and suggestions. I am looking and comparing these two lenses.

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens

Now I understand the second is two stops different but, am I better off getting it because of this and then getting an teleconverter such as below. Thus the converter making similiar in stops to the first lens and in length.

Kenko 2x AF Pro 300 Teleconverter for Canon EOS

A professional grade teleconverter designed for ideal use with fixed focal length ultra-telephoto lenses. Will not work autofocus with these Canon lenses: 50 f/2.8 EF macro, 100 f/2.8 EF macro(non-USM), 300mm f/4.0 IS USM & 85mm f/1.8 USM. Will not autofocus with any lens slower than f/4, and will only AF with an f/4 lens if used with EOS 3, 7/7e or 1V/1V-HS.

The teleconverter and lens would be about about $400 more combined. But because my 100mm is a USM I can use the teleconverter with it and also get AF according to the recommendations.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

I don't know the Canon glass anywhere as well as I know the Nikon line, but I would be inclined to go for Canon's own teleconverters rather than the Kenko, and the 70-200 f2.8. With the 100-400 you're never going to be faster than f4, the 70-200 will give you f2.8 (obviously ), which is not to be sneezed at.

The 70(80)-200 f2.8 zooms are amongst the most highly optimized and "best" lenses made by the big manufacturers. The 100-400 (and 80-400) are not really in the same class. Which is not to say that they are bad.

Also, what do you mean by wildlife?? the 70-200 and TC, or 100-400, will be OK for BIG wildlife reasonably close to you. If you're talking about birds in flight, chipmunks at 20 paces etc etc you are getting in to the realm of those oh-so-sexy ultratelephotos (400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4...)

I am looking for something that won't cause a second divorce but get the job done reasonably with larger stuff. Not really a bird guy on a whole but you never know till you try I guess.

I will take a look at the Canon version of the teleconverter to see what it looks like too. I just looked but apparently the Canon version is not compatible with my 100mm macro where the other is which is something else I may use it for.

Thanks

Todd - The 100mm USM macro can be used with a Canon Teleconverter if you stick an extension tube (EF12 or EF25) between them. The lens response becomes really slow, and it's hard to tell if anything is in focus, but it works.

I love my 100-400 for outdoor use in bright sunlight. With a camera that remains clean at higher ISOs, you can get around the aperture limitations -- you're going to have to shoot high shutter speeds to get sharp shots, anyway. I tend to favor sharp and a bit noise to blurry and clean. Having said that, the 100-400 does get soft-ish wide open and near 400mm. But still -- you can get the shot because it's so versatile. It also focuses quickly. A 1 series Canon camera paired with that lens has no problems tracking birds in flight.

Thanks for the input Eric. So from that is it safe to say that should you be faced with my choice you would again go to the 100-400 vs the 2.8 and the 70-200?

Thank on the teleconverter also as I was hoping someone had tried this out.

Well, if I had to pick one lens, I'd get the 70-200/4L or the 70-200/2.8L IS. I have the 70-200/4L and love it. I don't have the 2.8IS -- it's just really, really heavy, and I haven't needed a lens like that for awhile (even though it would be very nice).

I think the 70-200/2.8L IS + 1.4X would be the best choice. I find that the 1.4X is a lot better than the 2X in producing sharp images...

You might find my early summer lens shootout to be helpful in deciding on a new Canon long lens. 70200 w/o and F8, 70200 w/1.4x w/o and F8, 100400 w/o and F8 and 500F4 w/o and F8.

http://www.pbase.com/robertotoole/lens_test

Robert

I might not quite have the knowledge as to what I am to be seeing. Maybe due to the preview size it is hard to compare them when having to open each card individually. Could you summarize your findings please as I feel they will be very helpful.

Sorry, it is most likely my lack of technical understanding but I assume in terms of sharpness I could compare the cards. Do the lines converging on the left in some instances also repesent a decline in sharpness?

Thanks, looking forward to understanding more.

I've got the 70-200 2.8 IS, which I love. I use it with the 2x Canon teleconvertor, and it is indeed a bit soft, the 1.4x is supposed to be better. I chose the 2.8IS over the f/4 version and never really thought about the 2.8 non-IS. I personally think the IS is very helpful if you don't like to use a tripod. Eric's right though, the 2.8IS is pretty heavy.

Well I decided one day to see which lenses I had were sharper. I know the 70-200 is sharp the 500 F4 is razor sharp but I wasnt sure about my 6 year old 100-400 @ 400. SO I printed out targets in Excel largest type to smallest with the lens' name on each. Then I place them in a plastic frame and shot away. Then I cropped the centers and uploaded them. They were all nice and sharp even the 100-400 wide open. The only soft result was the 70-200 with 1.4x wide open. At F8 it was decent.

Hope this is helpful. I would say my 500 and my 100-400 get the most usage and can take excellent images. The 70-200 is sharp but the lens is too short for most wildlife applications.

Robert

Well I decided one day to see which lenses I had were sharper. I know the 70-200 is sharp the 500 F4 is razor sharp but I wasnt sure about my 6 year old  100-400 @ 400. SO I printed out targets in Excel largest type to smallest with the lens' name on each. Then I place them in a plastic frame and shot away. Then I cropped the centers and uploaded them. They were all nice and sharp even the 100-400 wide open. The only soft result was the 70-200 with 1.4x wide open. At F8 it was decent.  

 

Hope this is helpful. I would say my 500 and my 100-400 get the most usage and can take excellent images. The 70-200 is sharp but the lens is too short for most wildlife applications.  

 

Robert

Awesome

That is exactly the kind of information I am looking for. Thanks a lot for the help and taking time to explain it for me. Know I need to raid the piggy bank.

OK, seeing as how there are some new Canon shooters on the block like Craig and James, I want to reopen this discussion.

I am still humming and hawing over which of these 2 lenses to get. I have a 1.4 teleconverter already and have the cheapo 75-300 4.5-5.6 few hundred dollars lens.

I want to be able to shoot wildlife with it. The cheapo was used in Indonesia for monkeys at dusk and high iso which resulted in some noise of course.

If shooting wildlife in a tree setting am I better with the 2.8 or will the 4-5.6 get the job done?

I was recently told that the 70-200 would be my workhorse lens.

I travel a lot with a 100-400 for topside wildlife. I find that a 70-200 is too short for a full-frame sensor. And while I've gotten wonderful shots from my 100-400, I find that it is fairly soft at 400mm, and wide open, so I try not to shoot at the extremes. But in practice, I shoot at 400mm at 5.6 quite often.

I've found the 70-200/4L and 2.8L to be noticeably sharper than the 100-400L.

I'm lusting after a 300/2.8 or 400/4DO. Test shots are wonderful from those lenses.

When I was picking out a telephoto, I looked at the 300/4IS+1.4x, 400/5.6, and 100-400IS.

I didnt consider either of the 70-200's because I felt that 200mm was too short. Actually I am finding that 400mm is too short too but I cant afford anything longer. The 400/5.6 does have IS so I quickly ruled it out too.

I desided on canon 300 f/4 IS and canon 1.4x. Rational was that the 300mm has a 1 stop advantage over the 100-400 @ 300mm and the 300+1.4x has 20mm advantage over the 100-400 @400. The 100-400 is too slow to AF with any teleconverter (except on 1-series cameras) so dont think that you can get more reach out of it by adding a teleconverter. Like I said the 300+1.4x has more reach at 420mm.

The 300 alone is much sharper than the 100-400@300mm and the 300+1.4x was in my comparison somewhat better than the 100-400 @400 in sharpness. I would not consider the sharpness alone to be worth giving up the zoom but combined with the larger aperature of the 300 I went with the prime.

If you go this route get canon's teleconverter, it doesnt work with shorter lenses (<135mm) but it degrades the image qualtiy very little on the lenses it does work on. I had a non-canon 2x teleconverter and it was awfull compaired to the canon 1.4x. I have heard others say that the canon 2x was not much better. And no 2x teleconverter will AF well with a lens slower than f/2.8.(on non 1-series cameras)

Here's my thoughts on Canon topside wildlife glass.

1)Make sure you choose a beige-colored lens, with a red ring around the end. That's the most important bit.

2)I shoot with the 400/5.6L mostly. It's not long enough for birds on FF, it's OK for this subject on the 10D. It does AF with the 1.4 TC on the 1Ds, but not on the 10D unless you tape the contacts.

I rarely find it too long for any use, which is why I'd be hesitant to get the 300mm. I did seriously consider the 300+1.4 combo as an alternative.

I use the 70-200/4 as my "whale and dolphin" lens, often with the 1.4 TC (the 70-200/2.8 with IS would be far better for this). I tried using this combo for birds on a trip last week with the 1Ds as I was feeling too slack to pack the 400/5.6. Definitely a waste of time. So personally I'd go with the longest lens you can afford, and if you can live without IS the 400/5.6 is worth a thought.

OK, I definately want the IS. All the caffine I drink gives me the shakes. LOL

Thanks for the insights as this is helping.

Now I don't see going to a 1 series until Eric, Craig or James buys me one for my birthday. So lets not factor that in for now.

It seems that for my application of wildlife and sports, the 100-400 is the better choice even though it is not a 2.8. Both have IS. Can still use the 100-400 for dolphins and whales as it is good on the short end according to Eric but may lack on the long end.

With the 1.6 multiplier on the Rebel or a 20D and the 70-200 plus a teleconverter most still feel I will not be happy with the reach.

I like the idea of a zoom for flexibility and because a serious single focus length lens is not in my picture until my wife leaves me. Which would be the same day she saw it on the credit card. Also on my birthday list. (the lens, not my wife leaving me)

My main worry with the 100-400 is lower light conditions as compared to the 70-200. Say I am in the forest shooting bears or monkeys will I notice a major difference with not haveing the 2.8 vs the 4-5.6?

Thanks again for the insights.

Hi Todd,

You might notice it on the AF speed as it won't have as much light and contrast to work with. But for the actual photos, this is where Canon's high ISO performance really comes in handy. An F4 lens shot at ISO200 is the same lens as an F2.8 lens shot at ISO100, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

For folks that are using the 100-400, how do you like the "push-pull" zoom? That is one thing that is keeping me from getting this lene - but if it's not a problem, then hey. I had a friend that had a Sigma 50-500 w/ the push-pull, and the front would "droop" out unless you kept it locked down - not very flattering.

Cheers

James

I've never had a problem with the "push-pull" design, though anyone who wants to attack the lens for any reason always pulls that out as the first discrepancy on their list. And my lens has never drooped when it wasn't supposed to. My, that came out sounding more interesting than it was supposed to -- what the heck, as long I'm already almost there I should add that the lens has a friction adjustment that I find to be absolutely hilarious. Look at the "smooth"/"tight" ring and the little graphics:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controlle...50&modelid=7344

Or maybe it's just my dirty mind . . .

Mike

Hi Todd,

 

You might notice it on the AF speed as it won't have as much light and contrast to work with. But for the actual photos, this is where Canon's high ISO performance really comes in handy. An F4 lens shot at ISO200 is the same lens as an F2.8 lens shot at ISO100, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

For folks that are using the 100-400, how do you like the "push-pull" zoom? That is one thing that is keeping me from getting this lene - but if it's not a problem, then hey. I had a friend that had a Sigma 50-500 w/ the push-pull, and the front would "droop" out unless you kept it locked down - not very flattering.

 

Cheers

James

So with the lens viagra adjustment then James are you saying you would get the 100-400 because at iso 200 you can still get the 2.8 effectively? I had not done the math that way in my evaluation as the 2.8 was what I was looking at for low light but, is the 100-400 that far off then...

My 100-400L is my most used topside lens, I use it so shoot images of birds in flight, some of which have sold for a good price! I have an 18x36 Pano shot of a hawk flying right at the camera me, shot with the 100-400L, ISO 400, @ 400mm f5.6. The image is outstanding. I've shot the 70-200 and it's almost as heavy without nearly the flexibility of the 100-400. I love the push-pull design as it makes for a very VERY fast zoom action for tracking flying birds. If it can track a peregrine falcon, it can track anything.

Stu