# What lens would you buy.. if You....



## Dholai (Apr 25, 2015)

.. Shoot wildlife and birds


...already have 200-400 F4L
....600 mmF4L MKII
... 70-200 2.8L MK II

... to be used with

..1Dx
..7D MK II
..5DsR

And...
You can not handhold a camera with most lenses due to physical condition but want a lighter lens to try without compromising image quality ???


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 25, 2015)

The new 100-400? It's only a whiff heavier than your 70-200.

Jim


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 25, 2015)

Try using a Rebel on the 400f5.6, plastic bodies weigh a lot less. That combo is probably the lightest supertelephoto setup on the market.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2015)

Let's change the point of view.

Don't bother try to find light-weight-superb-quality-long-range-lense.
Let's improve your skill of crawling-forward.

Wear camouflaged clothes.
Paint your face camouflaged.
Lie down on the ground and crawl toward the target very,very slowly.

Don't make a sound.
Move a foot per hour.

This case, you don't need a supertelephoto lense for birds.



Caution: If you make birds fly away, you'll get hundreds of boos and stones from behind, lol.


----------



## Dholai (Apr 26, 2015)

Jim,
I was thinking the same as far as handholding goes. Any comparison to the IQ of the 200-400 ?

98
I would buy the 400 5.6 MK II when it comes out. Present version without the IS would be useless for me. Rebel is not an option

Masa
Thanks for those extreme suggestions but I am not as dedicated as you! Will look for easier alternatives.

Thanks to you all.

Dholai


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 26, 2015)

I choose the 500mm f/4 II because it is lighter than the two big whites you have. With a 1.4x it is excellent at 700mm.



An option I have considered is the 400 DO II as a portable option to keep with me in my truck.


----------



## candc (Apr 26, 2015)

The 400doii if you can find one. Or the 300ii


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 26, 2015)

Dholai said:


> .. Shoot wildlife and birds
> 
> 
> ...already have 200-400 F4L
> ...



I have carpal tunnel, and now, they have found a pinched nerve in my neck that prevents my right hand from holding heavy objects. I sold my 1D MK IV and 600mm f/4, and use a 100-400mm MK II. I had the 400mm f/5.6, and the 300mm f/4 as well, but they have too many drawbacks so I sold them. Now I use a 5D MK III and the 100-400mm MK II, as the best I can get away with holding, or using with a monopod when its for more than just a few minutes.

I do lose IQ over the big whites, life is full of compromises.


----------



## monkey44 (Apr 26, 2015)

Figure out the best combination for weight and steady hands for yourself.

Then, learn to shoot the photos you CAN, and forget the ones you CAN'T. Too many photographers try to get shots that are near impossible given the physical capacity of humans. A photographer can try for the impossible or unlikely shots and miss ones that are truly remarkable, but closer. Think INSIDE the box ... or as was also suggested - get yourself inside the box.

I'm not suggesting all distant shots are impossible or worthless, or no one should challenge his/her skills in that realm. But, we can get caught up in distance and ignore what's right beside us.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 27, 2015)

I have the 500MKII and hand hold it but it is only 1-1.5 lbs lighter than the 600MKII or 200-400, I can't imagine this is going to make a huge difference if you have serious physical restrictions.

I would try a monopod or the new 100-400 (which is only in the 3.5lb range, about half the weight of the 500MKII).


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 27, 2015)

Do you really need another lens? Seems to me that you have it covered. I would spend the money you have on travelling somewhere, and using the gear you have when you get there.

Or, if you really want to splash some cash, then save it until the 1D X ii comes out as I am sure you will want one of them too.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 27, 2015)

If your problems are arms, neck and/or back, there are options where you may still be able to carry your long whites. I am using a flag bandoleer as a carrying harness. A solid belt, which leaves most of the weight on your hips and good shoulder straps for added support. Below are a couple of pictures from when I originally got it. 

I have made some improvements since then. I have broader shoulder straps, for better support and I use a Benro Gimbal GH1P head, which is both small and functional. The gimbal head makes it a lot easier to balance the lens and camera, than with the RRS monopod head. I have also attached two straps from the shoulder straps to the camera, so I am able to leave it just hanging, while I operate another camera. While walking, I just tilt the lens downwards and carry it next to my body.

I can walk around with this for days with no problem.


----------



## bod (Apr 27, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I had the 400mm f/5.6, and the 300mm f/4 as well, but they have too many drawbacks so I sold them. Now I use a 5D MK III and the 100-400mm MK II



Would you mind expanding on the drawbacks compared to the zoom? I have been comparing these three lenses as regards getting the 400 or the 100-400 for bird photography and would value your feedback. Thanks.


----------



## Dholai (Apr 28, 2015)

Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for your inputs. 
Sorry, could not come back earlier- work load!
The main reason I want it is the handheld shooting but at the same time I don't want to compromise the quality MUCH! That is why I need your input. I know I have the big whites but I miss a lot of shots as they are always tripod mounted.
The advantage of lifting a camera and instantly shooting an action resulting in a memorable moment can not be overstated, right?
I am seriously considering 100-400 MK II. Have used the original version- did not like it a bit at 5.6 ! Is this one significantly better? 
Is 400 5.6MK II coming up anytime soon ?
Eldar,
Nice set up. May actually try something like this. How free is the angle of rotation and inclination?

Thanks 

Dholai

Thanks guys


----------



## Eldar (Apr 29, 2015)

Dholai said:


> Eldar,
> Nice set up. May actually try something like this. How free is the angle of rotation and inclination?


The limitation of the rig is that you need to set the hight where you want it, simply by adjusting the monopod. You can still cover a fair vertical angle by bending forward or backward, but to be comfortable, you should set the angle you want. Rotation is pretty much as if you handhold the lens.

I can shoot anything from down a hill, to straight forward, to follow birds in trees or birds in flight, almost straight up, with all weight carried around the hip, with some on the shoulders. It is easy to remove all weight from the shoulders or limit to just one, if that is an issue.

With the gimbal head it is easier to balance the lens/camera, but your carrying situation is less good, since the lens don't tilt down completely, but rests against the foot of the gimbal head. I have padded that point to avoid damage to the lens.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Apr 29, 2015)

Dholai said:


> I would buy the 400 5.6 MK II when it comes out. Present version without the IS would be useless for me. Rebel is not an option



I second the idea of a 400 5.6 II with IS. It would be wildly popular as long as the price was accessible.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 29, 2015)

Eldar, nice setup. Did you make a custom belt attachment? One thing I considered in the past is a marching band flagpole carrier belt or a sport-fish fishing rod carrier belt.

Cotton Carrier has a chest-mounted item called the Steady Shot.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 29, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Eldar, nice setup. Did you make a custom belt attachment? One thing I considered in the past is a marching band flagpole carrier belt or a sport-fish fishing rod carrier belt.
> 
> Cotton Carrier has a chest-mounted item called the Steady Shot.


The belt shown in the image is a standard flag bandoleer, bought online at:

http://www.flagg.no/flaggshop/fane-banner-bandoler.html

I´m sure you can find similar solutions elsewhere.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 25, 2015)

Eldar said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar, nice setup. Did you make a custom belt attachment? One thing I considered in the past is a marching band flagpole carrier belt or a sport-fish fishing rod carrier belt.
> ...


Good solution, thanks for sharing.


----------



## RGF (May 26, 2015)

Dholai said:


> .. Shoot wildlife and birds
> 
> 
> ...already have 200-400 F4L
> ...



100-400 II will give you IQ but will not match either 200-400 or 600 II.

Might be able to handhold the 100-400 on 7D M2, not sure about your condition. The 100-400 II weighs about the same as the 70-200 F2.8

Unless you want to handhold body, lens, you are set. Save you $.


----------



## scyrene (May 27, 2015)

Extenders add a lot of focal length without much extra weight. A monopod would help support whatever you choose without being too bulky or getting in the way as much as a tripod. And as already said, working on fieldcraft is pretty useful - although no good for a lot of situations.


----------



## danski0224 (May 28, 2015)

EF 500 f/4.5 USM non-IS


----------



## Solar Eagle (May 28, 2015)

How about the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary? It's light, sharp, and affordable. Great for hand holding from what they say. Nearly at sharp as the Sport model but much lighter. Somebody said at f8 its nearly as sharp as his 600mm f4 II......


----------



## TheJock (May 28, 2015)

For me the ultimate combo would be the 200-400L plus a 5DIII. Love the Bandoleer idea Eldar, you've inspired me to devise my own now, I have a standard belt with a neoprene single lens pouch are lying at home unused at present, guess what that's being transformed in to!!


----------



## Bennymiata (May 28, 2015)

A neoprene pouch won't be good to carry a monopod.
The pod will bounce up and down, and eventually you'll rip it to bits.
An aluminium cup would work with a loop screwed to the back of it.


----------



## NancyP (May 28, 2015)

A hunter's blind and a tripod with gimbal mount and your existing lenses.
That allows you to set up in comfort. You can move around (quietly) inside the blind. Birds see you when you have camo on and are outside the blind - they aren't fooled, they have better eyes than we do. The trick is to get them to believe that you aren't a threat. Just sitting there in full sight, minding your own business, and moving forward an inch at a time every few minutes while looking the other way - not a threat, usually.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 28, 2015)

bod said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I had the 400mm f/5.6, and the 300mm f/4 as well, but they have too many drawbacks so I sold them. Now I use a 5D MK III and the 100-400mm MK II
> ...



The 400mm f/5.6 has three features I found that made it difficult to use for my photography.

1. A long MFD means low magnification, you can't get close to small birds or animals to fill the frame.

2. No IS. This means using a high shutter speed to capture static objects or a extremely stable platform, tripod and head. That high shutter speed usually relegates you to bright sunlight or excessively high ISO settings. For moving subjects at a distance, the 400 f/5.6 is fine.

3. A long lens and will not fit in ordinary camera bags like the 100-400 or 300mm f/4.



The 300mm f/4 makes a loud clunk when IS engages, but has a nice short MFD. It fits in a case as well. I'd take it over the 400mm L.

1. Poor IS, but better than none.

2. Generally not a long enough focal length for birds, so a TC is needed.

3. I was not impressed by the sharpness of my copy, its good if you stop it down, but wide open, its lacking and a TC will make it worse Testing seems to bear this out.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/611-canon300f4ff?start=1








Although Zooms are a compromise, the 100-400mm L MK II is pretty good.


----------



## YellowJersey (May 29, 2015)

Invest in a sherpa, not another lens. 

Ok ok, in all seriousness. My only question is: do you even need a new lens? Sounds like you have a more-than-awesome kit as it is. 

The only thing I can think of is the 400mm 2.8, and only if you need that extra stop of light.


----------



## Ozarker (May 29, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Then, learn to shoot the photos you CAN, and forget the ones you CAN'T. Too many photographers try to get shots that are near impossible given the physical capacity of humans. A photographer can try for the impossible or unlikely shots and miss ones that are truly remarkable, but closer. Think INSIDE the box ... or as was also suggested - get yourself inside the box.
> 
> I'm not suggesting all distant shots are impossible or worthless, or no one should challenge his/her skills in that realm. But, we can get caught up in distance and ignore what's right beside us.



Great advice! My longest lens is the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6. Until recently, I've been disappointed in most of the photos I've taken with it. Same thing with my 70-200 mkII. The reason I was disappointed is that I was having a lot of trouble getting clear shot of birds because I was never near enough and then had to massively crop the photos. The problem wasn't the lenses. The problem was my technique and trying to do the impossible. I've since learned patience and to attract the birds to get them closer. Wait for better opportunities. I'm a fairly new hobbyist, but learning. I don't waste thousands of senseless shutter clicks anymore either. Used to go out for an hour and come home with hundreds of useless photos. Now I go out and come home with less than 20. Enjoyed your post. What you wrote is spot on!


----------



## wsmith96 (May 30, 2015)

Dholai said:


> .. Shoot wildlife and birds
> 
> 
> ...already have 200-400 F4L
> ...



I don't own either one, but if you are looking for a wildlife lens that is light, sticking with canon, I believe your only options are the 300 and 400L's. I left off the 100-400 as you listed the 70-200 in the list as a potential weight problem. I hear good and bad on the 300, but the 400 gets praises for cost/weight if you can live without is and with f5.6.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 31, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> I don't own either one, but if you are looking for a wildlife lens that is light, sticking with canon, I believe your only options are the 300 and 400L's. I left off the 100-400 as you listed the 70-200 in the list as a potential weight problem. I hear good and bad on the 300, but the 400 gets praises for cost/weight if you can live without is and with f5.6.



300L II and 400L II are way hevier than the 70-200L IS II.
The lightest and most flexible combo, from what you said, would be the new 100-400L II + 7D2. This combo is very hanholdable and with good technique you'll amazing results.


----------



## danski0224 (May 31, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't own either one, but if you are looking for a wildlife lens that is light, sticking with canon, I believe your only options are the 300 and 400L's. I left off the 100-400 as you listed the 70-200 in the list as a potential weight problem. I hear good and bad on the 300, but the 400 gets praises for cost/weight if you can live without is and with f5.6.
> ...



The person you quoted was not referring to the VII f/2,8 lenses if you check the last sentence.


----------

