# Lightweight lens for wildlife/birding



## Ryananthony (Oct 3, 2016)

Hey all, 

I own a 5D3 and use a Sigma 150-600C for wildlife, and I am more then happy with my results from this combination. My wife comes out with me often, and she is currently using a 70-200 f2.8 IS version 1 on a 7D.

unfortunately for her, this is not enough reach obviously and it is really a shame. We really enjoy going out looking for wildlife and birds, and I want to get her closer to the action with out breaking the bank, but more importantly with out a lot of weight. For now, I don't think adding a tripod will be an idea. We have a monopod, and are going to start trying it out. 

the options I'm aware of:
300mm f4 - Not a lot more reach, but could take x1.4, IS, close focusing distance, lightweight
400mm f5.6 - same ''reach'' as my Sigma, lightweight, but will not take 1.4 with current 7d,
150-600mm(sigma/tamron) - redundent, plus it is generally too heavy.
70-300mm f4-5.6L - seems small and light enough, still only 300mm but has IS and versatility of the zoom.
70-200mm f2.8Lii - Replace my 70-200mm and looks like it takes extenders well.
100-400mm f4.5-5.6ii - The best of everything, and what I'm leaning towards, but the weight will be the biggest issue.


Am I missing anything? I know it is up us to decide but Im curious for the opinions of the more experienced and knowledgeable 

I should add, when the price of the used 5D3 comes down, I want to upgrade the 7D.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 3, 2016)

It's a problem I have wrestled with for ages but always come back to the 100-400mm II. The real lightweight Canon alternative is to give up the DSLR and go for a G3 X or even an SX50 or SX60, which can give very good or ok results for static subjects. The lightweight non-Canon alternative for an interchangeable lens of long zoom is the Panasonic 100-400 f/6.3 plus the G80/5 or earlier body. But, that would be expensive.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 3, 2016)

have you thought about buying the 2x Mkiii extender to go with the 70-200 f8? I have seen some excellent shots with the combination, even birds in flight. 

But personally I think Alan's suggestion is the top one, and the lens is not much larger than the 70-200 f8.


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 3, 2016)

400 f/5.6 obvious choice. Half the cost of 100-400 V2, put the money saved into a used 5D3 then have f/8 center+4 AF, allowing the 1.4EX which gives you 560mm on a full frame. Super sharp, even decently so after the extender is added. Get one at the Canon refurb store.
Don't waste your time or money trying to get more for free, that doesn't happen.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Oct 3, 2016)

Hey Tony,

I can higly recommend the 300mm 4L IS in combination with the 1.4 II or III extender as THE light outdoor lens.
It is the most versatile lens when having a no-zoom.


Just 1 kg, with extender 1.2kg
you can have 300 or 420mm.
you can have 4L when birds are sitting in shadows.
Also with extender you have a lens with quite good Macro capabilities.
IS

Cheers,

Steve


----------



## hendrik-sg (Oct 3, 2016)

on the 7d (ii?) a 100-400ii is a great lens, but with this dense sensor even this great lens is close to the limit of it's possibilities. I tried it with the 1.4iii but the gain in reach was always destroyed by less sharpness, worse AF, motion blur and of course my poor skills. 

My result wat, that the lens gave fantastic results but trhe extender gabe no benefit, maybe it would give under ideal conditions but the risk is to ruin the shot and have nothing instead of cropping.

maybe a compromise would be to change the 7d (original) for a 80d with better sensor and even more density.

other than he expieriences described abovee, on a 500 4.0 ii / 7d ii combination even the 2xii gave clear benefit and maybe the 1.4xiii was the sweet spot, but this ignores you wish for going light and is a different price league


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Oct 3, 2016)

the 400l 5.6 is a very good choice I use it on my 70 D and 5d mk3. its compact lite and takes the 1.4 mk 3 extender well. one con no is but its not needed for birds in flight and a good mono pod saves the rest.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 3, 2016)

The 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II is the way to go with maybe a 7DII or a 80D fro the extra reach.
Weight wise...man up...it aint that heavy. I use a 400mm f2.8 LIS and it's REALLy heavy. So I go to the gym...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 3, 2016)

On average, I bump into 10-20 bird photographers a week and chat with many of them in hides (blinds). The most popular camera is Canon by a long way. By far the most popular lenses are the old and new 100-400mms, mainly on crop bodies, with a surprisingly large number of the Mk IIs. There is a sprinkling of Tamrons and Sigmas, and even more 500mm f/4s that the real enthusiasts have on their expensive tripods and gimbals. The 400mm f/5.6s are not often seen and there are just very few 300mm f/4s, whose owners all complain they are too short.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 3, 2016)

Here is a basic question: what is your wife's aim with the new lens. A lot of people are happy with their camera as a 'wildlife spotter' aide, to record what they have seen. Other want the best possible lens to record in the higherst possible quality to proudly show off to other people. 
For the former, then I think any of the four lenses will do: 400mm prime, 300 mm prime (+tc?), 100-400 MkI, 100-400 MkII. YOu may even want to consider a high-quality spotting scope with adapter for a camera (be it compact, MFT or DSLR). I have seen some excellent shots like this.
If her aim is to have high quality images to display to other people it becomes a bit more complex. 


I recall looking at the 400mm f5.6L and the 300mm f4L before I bought my 100-400 (MkI). Nearly all reviews said that the 400 prime had the advantage of weight and just about the edge on image quality - but I saw nothing at the time that suggested it was so much better as to offset the flexibility of the zoom. 
Similarly putting the (then MkII) extender on the 300mm prime reduces image quality to the point that its real advantage lay in size and weight. 

I find the MkII significantly better than the MkI - a lot of reports say that the centre is not really an improvement in sharpness but to me there is something about the quality unrelated to pure IQ that gives a significant jump over the MkI and I suspect it is the coatings or other materials adding a level of contrast that helps definition. So if you add this to the comparisons of the primes with the MkI, I am not sure either prime will touch the MkII zoom. 
The primes do not suddenly become bad lenses because of the new kid on the block but a better quality image from the lens adds a further ability to crop which is another plus for the 100-400 MKII. 

To paraphrase the old adage "Cost...image quality...size/weight. Pick 2 from 3"


PS Plus the short minimum focussing distance on the new zoom makes it an excellent close-up lens in the field for those times the birds refuse to cooperate and flowers or bugs become an interesting diversion.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 3, 2016)

AlanF said:


> On average, I bump into 10-20 bird photographers a week and chat with many of them in hides (blinds). The most popular camera is Canon by a long way. By far the most popular lenses are the old and new 100-400mms, mainly on crop bodies, with a surprisingly large number of the Mk IIs. There is a sprinkling of Tamrons and Sigmas, and even more 500mm f/4s that the real enthusiasts have on their expensive tripods and gimbals. The 400mm f/5.6s are not often seen and there are just very few 300mm f/4s, whose owners all complain they are too short.



Of course, if you are bringing a pop-up blind and a chair, you are not dealing with a lightweight setup.....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 3, 2016)

If you want high IQ and a long focal length, all the glass necessary to do it is heavy. Its a compromise.

After owing the 600mm f/4L, a 400mm f/5.6, and a 300mm f/4, not to mention lesser lenses like the Tamron 200-500mm, I chose the 100-400mmL and upgraded to the mark II. I did have a older used Tokina 400mm f/5.6 which is lightweight and has passable optics, but a long focal length with no image stabilization is very limiting.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 3, 2016)

AlanF said:


> It's a problem I have wrestled with for ages but always come back to the 100-400mm II. The real lightweight Canon alternative is to give up the DSLR and go for a G3 X or even an SX50 or SX60, which can give very good or ok results for static subjects. The lightweight non-Canon alternative for an interchangeable lens of long zoom is the Panasonic 100-400 f/6.3 plus the G80/5 or earlier body. But, that would be expensive.



Thats an idea, and probably the lightest of the bunch, also one I didn't think about. It has been a trick getting her to learn the 7d, and I don't want to throw another camera at her! For now, I would like to stay with in the Canon system. I will keep this in mind.



Mikehit said:


> have you thought about buying the 2x Mkiii extender to go with the 70-200 f8? I have seen some excellent shots with the combination, even birds in flight.
> 
> But personally I think Alan's suggestion is the top one, and the lens is not much larger than the 70-200 f8.



I was under the impression (possibly false) that the mk1 version of the 70-200 does not take extenders well.



wtlloyd said:


> 400 f/5.6 obvious choice. Half the cost of 100-400 V2, put the money saved into a used 5D3 then have f/8 center+4 AF, allowing the 1.4EX which gives you 560mm on a full frame. Super sharp, even decently so after the extender is added. Get one at the Canon refurb store.
> Don't waste your time or money trying to get more for free, that doesn't happen.



This sounds like a good idea that also takes into account a new 5d3. Thanks for the response.



Steve Dmark2 said:


> Hey Tony,
> 
> I can higly recommend the 300mm 4L IS in combination with the 1.4 II or III extender as THE light outdoor lens.
> It is the most versatile lens when having a no-zoom.
> ...



I thought this would have been chosen more. the close focusing also is pretty attractive.



GMCPhotographics said:


> The 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II is the way to go with maybe a 7DII or a 80D fro the extra reach.
> Weight wise...man up...it aint that heavy. I use a 400mm f2.8 LIS and it's REALLy heavy. So I go to the gym...



This is for my wife, Not I. It is heavy for her.



Mikehit said:


> Here is a basic question: what is your wife's aim with the new lens. A lot of people are happy with their camera as a 'wildlife spotter' aide, to record what they have seen. Other want the best possible lens to record in the higherst possible quality to proudly show off to other people.
> For the former, then I think any of the four lenses will do: 400mm prime, 300 mm prime (+tc?), 100-400 MkI, 100-400 MkII. YOu may even want to consider a high-quality spotting scope with adapter for a camera (be it compact, MFT or DSLR). I have seen some excellent shots like this.
> If her aim is to have high quality images to display to other people it becomes a bit more complex.
> 
> ...



For now, we would like to have comparable quality to the 5d3 with 150-600C. I really don't like seeing the difference between the two and knowing her shots could be much better. 

Im a little surprised no one has suggested the 70-300mm L. I was seriously considering this one. 

Thanks for the responses everyone. I honestly appreciate the help. I will have to speak to my wife and decide if the versatility of the 100-400ii beats the weight savings of the 400mm, and lack of IS. I think those are the best options.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 3, 2016)

About the 70-300 - when I had the 7D2, that's the lens I used it with for animal shots. Worked well, but found it a tad short for most birds. 400 would have been ideal, I thought. The IQ was more than adequate if you got close. 

Oddly enough I am now happier with the 5D3/100-400 combo even with the net loss of reach (not a big difference TBH) - I feel the improved image quality more than makes up for it however. 5D images seem to take extensive cropping significantly better than 7D shots (in most cases). 

Can't go wrong with either 70-300 or 100-400 - just have to figure out whether the extra weight of the latter is worth the extra reach. Honestly the difference between 200 and 300 isn't that significant unless you are shooting across a field or something ...but the difference between 200 and 400 will be noticed no matter what. Also, the 100-400 I think is around the same weight as the 70-200 (but due to the design of the zoom controls I tend not to notice it as much)


----------



## AlanF (Oct 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > On average, I bump into 10-20 bird photographers a week and chat with many of them in hides (blinds). The most popular camera is Canon by a long way. By far the most popular lenses are the old and new 100-400mms, mainly on crop bodies, with a surprisingly large number of the Mk IIs. There is a sprinkling of Tamrons and Sigmas, and even more 500mm f/4s that the real enthusiasts have on their expensive tripods and gimbals. The 400mm f/5.6s are not often seen and there are just very few 300mm f/4s, whose owners all complain they are too short.
> ...



The Old World has bird hides in most reserves that would pass off as luxury hotels in the Yukon where you portage your pop-up blinds and portaloos on your treks through the icy wastes.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 3, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I tend to go light myself, but I ran into one person last winter with an adult version of the kid's wagon, on little skis, http://www.leevalley.com/en/gifts/page.aspx?p=58425&cat=4,104,55972,58425 and had a chair, a pop-up blind, foam pads for the floor, a small kerosene heater, and a cooler (warmer) full of camera gear..... Surapon would have been jealous!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 3, 2016)

AlanF said:


> The Old World has bird hides in most reserves that would pass off as luxury hotels in the Yukon...



More information please! What countries? How do you find out about them? I want to go to there!


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 3, 2016)

To the OP: You wrote that your wife is currently using the 70-200/2.8L IS (v1), and that weight is an issue, but you didn't say that the 70-200 is too heavy for her.

No one else has mentioned this yet, but according to DPReview, the 100-400II is the same weight -- to the gram -- as the 70-200/2.8 I:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_100-400_4p5-5p6_ii&products=canon_70-200_2p8_is

If she is comfortable with the 70-200's weight, and the 100-400 is within reach financially, I'd say that's the way to go.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 3, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> To the OP: You wrote that your wife is currently using the 70-200/2.8L IS (v1), and that weight is an issue, but you didn't say that the 70-200 is too heavy for her.
> 
> No one else has mentioned this yet, but according to DPReview, the 100-400II is the same weight -- to the gram -- as the 70-200/2.8 I:
> 
> ...



Firstly, thanks for that link. I didn't realize there was an easy way too compare lenses like that. 

She can handle the 70-200mm just fine right now. If weight saving was included in an option that worked, it would be a benefit. I think we have decided to get the 100-400mm ii. Hopefully I don't end up liking that lens too much more then my sigma. Then we would have another problem. ;D


----------



## j-nord (Oct 3, 2016)

Having owned the 70-300L, 400 f5.6L, 300 f4L IS, and now the 100-400ii. As a general wildlife and bird lens, this is hands down the best in the bunch (70-300L and 100-400ii have similar IQ but the 100-400ii has a few advantages for wildlife, most notably the extra reach and closer focus). The only exception is the 400 f5.6L is better for BIF in bright sunlight. I carry the 100-400ii/6D in hand for many hours when hiking. I don't find it too heavy but I certainly would think long and hard before adding too many more ounces.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 3, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> Firstly, thanks for that link. I didn't realize there was an easy way too compare lenses like that.
> 
> She can handle the 70-200mm just fine right now. If weight saving was included in an option that worked, it would be a benefit. I think we have decided to get the 100-400mm ii. Hopefully I don't end up liking that lens too much more then my sigma. Then we would have another problem. ;D



Very welcome. I owned the 70-200/2.8 IS (vI) for about 8 years, and upgraded it to the vII a couple of years ago. Then I bought a 100-400 II about 6 months after that. It's remarkable how close in size the three lenses are (when the 100-400 is retracted).

Your biggest problem may well be that you will like the 100-400 II better than your Sigma. The only way to prevent that is to never mount it to your 5DIII, nor handle your wife's 7D with the 100-400 II attached!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2016)

unfocused said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The Old World has bird hides in most reserves that would pass off as luxury hotels in the Yukon...
> ...



In the U.K., the largest organisation is the RSPB, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Look at their website. We have various Wild Life and Wetland Trusts in our different counties. I pay for membership of three of these. These organisations are just so good. Some just have a reserve plus hides. Others have cafes and nature-related shops as well. The Dutch are great birdwatchers as well, but I don't have details on their facilities.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 4, 2016)

AlanF said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



And I would add, even most of the small local nature reserves have a hide or two, although they tend to resemble sheds.


----------



## applecider (Oct 6, 2016)

As I recall the 7 D doesn't do f8 autofocus, which would only be a problem with say the 100-400 ii with a 1.4 tele converter. Which of course would make a great holiday present or birthday gift. And YOU and her are going to want it. 

Of course this applies to some of the other suggestions with teleconverters, and the 7D.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2016)

scyrene said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



All they lack are birds. I'm not joking. It's long patient waiting much of the time. Thousands of bird reserves but a shortage of birds. It's the thrill of the chase that keeps you going here.


----------



## SteveM (Oct 6, 2016)

The 100-400 mkll has 4 stops stabilisation; the 300f4 has 2; and the 400 f5.6 has no stabilisation. When you are shooting Deer, for example in a wooded area, the 4 stops stabilisation is very very useful - unless you want to be carrying a tripod... I've never been happy with trying to combine stabilisation with a monopod, and find a monopod is probably worth about 2 stops of stabilisation. The 100-400 will let you get down to about 1/80th second, hand held, and it carries the new 1.4 converter very well on the 5D Mklll. 
Once you use the 100-400 mkll you may as well weld it on your camera, it is unlikely you will want to take it off.
Wait for the cash backs before buying, maybe sort out the 5D Mklll first before they disappear.


----------



## SteveM (Oct 6, 2016)

Why not upgrade the 7D to a 7D mkll?


----------



## scyrene (Oct 6, 2016)

AlanF said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Lol. Well I tend only to go to places when I've seen reports of something interesting. Fortunately, my local bird club posts incredibly thorough and detailed daily news


----------

