choice of tele lens

[kianhock]

Had the same question too before I went on my alaskan trip earlier this year. I ended up buying the 70-300 IS intead of bringing the 70-200 F4L and felt it was a good decision.

Most of the chances to shoot wildlife came during boat tour, bus tour, or even flights during the day. These are not very stable platforms to shoot from, so the IS comes in very useful. The longer reach was also important as well, as we were usually quite far from the targets. The 70-300 IS was also pretty good in the sharpness and contrast, so had no issue shooting wide-open. The focussing was also pretty fast on the 400D.

Also, the lightweight 70-300 IS as opposed to the 100-400 L (another lens to consider as well) helps prevent shoulder/back ache (70-200 F4L is light as well)

Hi mpenza,

thanks for the great insight! based on your comments, the IQ at 300mm is good?

can i assume u bought the lens this year? that means not affected by some barrel sagging problem earlier right

 

[mpenza]

Hi mpenza,

thanks for the great insight! based on your comments, the IQ at 300mm is good?

can i assume u bought the lens this year? that means not affected by some barrel sagging problem earlier right

The pics were mostly shot at 300mm. No complaints abt the IQ Bought it second hand. First owner had sent it to Canon to fix the problem. Another lens, u could consider is probably the 400mm f5.6L. Greater reach but heavier and less flexible (shd be ok for wildlife, since I was shooting at full 300mm most of the time).

 

[engrmariano]

have the same problem at the moment. the difference is, i'll be using the lens to watch F1 at sepang KL next april & F1 SG next sept. currently i only got the 17-85 kit on my 400D + 50f1.8II.

i'm, confused between these glasses...

70-300 IS USM or 70-200f4 USM + TC1.4X = 98-280f5.6
and
100-400L or 70-200f2.8 IS +TC2.0X = 140-400f5.6

suggestions pls...

 

[mpenza]

70-300 IS USM or 70-200f4 USM + TC1.4X = 98-280f5.6
and
100-400L or 70-200f2.8 IS +TC2.0X = 140-400f5.6

suggestions pls...

all pretty good choices. a lot depends on ur budget and strength i guess. the f2.8 zoom and 100-400L are both rather big and heavy.

 

[engrmariano]

all pretty good choices. a lot depends on ur budget and strength i guess. the f2.8 zoom and 100-400L are both rather big and heavy.

yup,they are. tried both lens on a 2nd hand shop,must have strong grip to handle the stress.:sweat:

if budget is not a problem,what would you rather choose between.:think:

<up tp ~300 range>
a.70-300 IS USM
b.70-200f4 USM + TC1.4X = 98-280f5.6 (280 would be fine)

<up tp 400 range>
a.100-400L
b.70-200f2.8 IS +TC2.0X = 140-400f5.6

choose the correct answer:bsmilie:

 

[mpenza]

yup,they are. tried both lens on a 2nd hand shop,must have strong grip to handle the stress.:sweat:

if budget is not a problem,what would you rather choose between.:think:

<up tp ~300 range>
a.70-300 IS USM
b.70-200f4 USM + TC1.4X = 98-280f5.6 (280 would be fine)

<up tp 400 range>
a.100-400L
b.70-200f2.8 IS +TC2.0X = 140-400f5.6

choose the correct answer:bsmilie:

There's no correct answer. It all depends on the individual and his/her needs. For me compactness and weight is a major issue and I would go with either the 70-300 IS or 70-200 F4L and choose the earlier cos of longer reach (for the F1 races and my main purpose is to watch and enjoy, not going for a photography expedition). With the 100-400 and f2.8 zoom, I'll likely need to bring along a monopod which will increase the total weight of equipment signficantly.

For others, a 300 f2.8L, 500 f4L, etc could be the min equipment that they would consider.

 

[engrmariano]

thanks for the advice.
off corse, people watch F1 to enjoy but i also want to enjoy my hoby at the same time while watching my fav sport.
thats why i'm gearing up for this event, and also to share my photos and experince to all of you.

 

[hbchew]

I just came back from Alaska 4 months ago. I faced the same dilemma like you.....eventually I settled for a 70-200 f2.8L lens with a 1.4x extender. I realized that you need as long a lens as possible when shooting wildlife in Denali National Park. I was quite happy with my setup. Don't bother about IS or a tripod since you do need to set as fast a shutter speed as possible to capture animal movement. Especially if you take a cruise out to see wildlife at Seward, the seas can be rough, and a high shutter of 1/1000 maybe necessary to obtain sharp images. Try to get an f2.8 lens if you can. A good alternative is the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS lens.

 

[mpenza]

u went later in the season i was there in June.

 

[calebk]

The reason why no one gets a 28-300 for Safari use is image degradation. With a superzoom, you lose out on quality by quite a noticeable lot.

 

[xunjas]

70-200mm f/4 or 70-200mm f/2.8 (up budget by 1k) n bump up the iso.. f/2.8 would be better. on 1.6x body, u get 320mm perspective.. stay in vehicle and shoot bear bear. =)

70-200 is a gd lens to use, can invest in one for your long months alaska trip. dun miss the photography opportunity.

 

[calebk]

70-200mm f/4 or 70-200mm f/2.8 (up budget by 1k) n bump up the iso.. f/2.8 would be better. on 1.6x body, u get 320mm perspective.. stay in vehicle and shoot bear bear. =)

70-200 is a gd lens to use, can invest in one for your long months alaska trip. dun miss the photography opportunity.

200mm is still short for safari, even on a 1.6x crop.