# Wildlife lens setup



## Helios68 (Sep 19, 2014)

Hi,

I know this question may have been asked many times. However it is interesting to collect minds sometimes.
I am using an APS-C 700D body (why not 7DII in the future) and I am always wondering what will be my next investment or not.

I can't wait to see your opinion about this subject.

Regards


----------



## quod (Sep 19, 2014)

Of the lenses in the options you've presented, I have shot the 100-400 and 400/5.6. The more versatile of the two is the 100-400. The sharper of the two is the 400/5.6. Both have degradation of image quality (sharpness, contrast) when used with the 1.4x extender (as does my 500/4 version 1), but not to the point that I would not use one in a pinch. The 400/5.6 has much snappier AF, which is good if you are doing action shots. The image stabilization on the 100-400 is not very good (1.5 to 2 stops), but the 400 has no image stabilization. The 400 is light and has the built-in sliding hood, and to me is the more fun of the two to shoot. The bokeh of the 100-400 is pretty weird when you have a busy background. Since I shoot mostly at max focal length, I would choose the 400/5.6, but if I needed more flexibility, I would probably choose the 70-200 + 400/5.6 combo over the 100-400.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2014)

You are spoiled for choice. 

If you sit in a hide (blind) and use a tripod and have lots and lots of money, the 600mm f/4 II or the 500mm II are simply incredible. The I series are nearly as good, much cheaper but heavier.

If you don't mind less reach but more flexibility and be able to hand hold, and also have lots of money, the 300mm f/2.8 II plus 1.4 and 2xTCs or as seems likely the brand new 400mm DO II plus TCs are outstanding. (I don't get tired walking with and holding the 300mm f/2.8 II). The series I 300/2.8 is not as good with the 2xTC but still amazing native or with the 1.4xTC.

If you have much less money I would recommend the Tamron 150-600mm which is incredible value and as good as the 100-400mm L where they overlap and has the extra reach and better IS (I am very pleased with mine). The 100-400mm L is a very good lens and small, but you must check it out first as there are some bad ones out there. The new Sigma 150-600s are as yet untested, and the old 150-500 is not good at 500mm. The 400mm f/5.6L is a nice lens, very sharp and fast focussing but you are limited in its use as it doesn't have IS. The 300mm f/4 IS is very sharp but it is a bit short and it is not as sharp with the 1.4xTC as the 400mm native, but again it is very good value and has IS.

I started with the 400mm f/5.6 L, loved it, but changed to the 100-400 L as it was more useful to me with its IS and zoom, then did the 300mm f/2.8 II, which is my favourite, and now use the Tamron for travel as it is very good and more portable.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 19, 2014)

Not that easy to choose from. Had the same problem a few months ago. Concerning the big primes, you will miss the flexibility with those lenses. If you want to add a extender then every time you have the possibility that dust enters the camera. I would not choose them. Beside your camera can't focus automaticaaly with the 400/5.6 with 1.4 extender.

Concerning the zooms. I'm a hard believer in Canon lenses. Nevertheless, immediate after the press release of the Tamron 150-600 I was interested in that lens. For an affordable budget, this lens looks really great. Know however that quality will drop after the 500mm. Sigma, which is annouced during the last days, seems to be a real challenger, for sure the sport edition. However, keep in mind that Canon has now official annouced that there will be a successor for the 100-400. As you might have seen here on CR, this 100-400 also has a patent in DO technology, and if you look to the new 400DO, then Canon has really done a good job with that DO technology. So, if not directly needed (Tamron has a lot of delivery problems to follow the market request and Sigma is not yet available) I would closely look what Canon will do in this area in the comming months. They need to do something, otherwise Tamron and Sigma will split up the demand from Canon users in this area.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2014)

The Tamron 150-600mm is easily sharp enough at 600mm - if it wasn't I would always use the 300mm II + 2xTC. I post on a bird site that is an absolute stickler for sharpness. They used to reject loads of my efforts with the 100-400mm for insufficient sharpness but my latest ones at 600mm with the Tamron are invariably accepted and several getting on to the special lists.


----------



## candc (Sep 19, 2014)

the tamron is a great lens. there are users who own it as well as some of the much more expensive supertele primes. they use the tamron much of the time because of its versatility, light weight, and good image quality.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 19, 2014)

Other: 70-300L (+1.4x Kenko possibility). 

The 70-300L has ok iq and bokeh, as we know the difference of 100mm in the tele range is deminishing, and lugging around less weight, bulk (and price) can be a nice thing.

Last not least: I dispute the assumption that wildlife means tele, I shoot wildlife with my 17-40L or 100L all the time.


----------



## lol (Sep 19, 2014)

It really depends on what you're shooting. I own and primarily use the 100-400L. It is sharp enough through the range. It could have better IS, although for moving subjects that doesn't matter anyway. You will need faster shutter speeds to reduce motion blur unless that is what you're going for e.g. to give a sense of motion. While the push-pull zoom generates a lot of love-hate on forums, in practice I find it far better than the twist zooms e.g. of my 70-300L if you need to zoom quickly and accurately.

For flexibility, unless you know you only need one focal length, then I'd pick a zoom. Messing around with switching extenders is not fun in the field.

While I haven't used the Tamron, it has one major flow which might not affect everyone. The zoom ring works in a backwards direction compared to Canon.

Sigma generally do use the Canon zoom direction on their higher end lenses, so if the Tamron is a consideration, maybe waiting for the availability of the Sigma lenses is also a consideration.

The ongoing tale of the 100-400L replacement I personally wouldn't wait for. It's one thing for them to say they're thinking about it, but without some more definite confirmation of timescales you could be waiting a very long time.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 19, 2014)

I would disagree with the use without IS. When you are shooting wildlife you are probably shooting fast enough to make IS void.

70-300mm L is a really nice lens. The 400 F5.6 is probably the best bang for buck. More important is the understanding of the animal you are shooting.


----------



## the blackfox (Sep 19, 2014)

i,m waiting with baited breath on the sigma ,also hoping that the lower weight/priced C model will come in as a serious contender to the tamron .
at the moment with a 1D body i shoot with the 400 f5.6 and 1.4 tc and having micro adjusted both the bare and tc mounted versions find them a super combo .
reading between the lines of this years historic announcements also suggests that canon and sigma may well have been co-operating on development of the new lenses i.e the year of the lens etc ,added to that is the fact that the new sigma will a/f at f8 with there new 1.4tc and the 7dmkii will also a/f at f8 makes it seem like the combo to go for next year .
time ,money and circumstances will prevail on this but it looks like an exciting few months ahead


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

Of the lenses listed, I would go with the 400 5.6 or the Tammy. Maybe check out the Sigma 150-600 once that starts shipping and getting reviewed. The 400 is great for beginners and really gets you to focus on fundamentals to get shots. Its light enough that it isn't a burden to hike with and handhold. Its just enough reach to force you to learn how to approach. I really liked my time with this lens. The Tammy and, I would assume, the Sigma would both be pretty great I think, but I've not used them. I think if they'd have been around when I was starting out I would have loved to have that kind of cheap reach.



AlanF said:


> I post on a bird site that is an absolute stickler for sharpness.



What site is this? I'd like to see some moderated/judged wildlife shots


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> Of the lenses listed, I would go with the 400 5.6 or the Tammy. Maybe check out the Sigma 150-600 once that starts shipping and getting reviewed. The 400 is great for beginners and really gets you to focus on fundamentals to get shots. Its light enough that it isn't a burden to hike with and handhold. Its just enough reach to force you to learn how to approach. I really liked my time with this lens. The Tammy and, I would assume, the Sigma would both be pretty great I think, but I've not used them. I think if they'd have been around when I was starting out I would have loved to have that kind of cheap reach.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Birdpix.nl

The mods are so tough! But, I learned a lot from the rejections and the odd criticism from the mainly Dutch members.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 19, 2014)

My current WL setup: Canon 7D + 100-400L

In fact, I've owned the 100-400 the 40D first hit the market and it's always worked well. Even with BIF.

I've used fixed and shorter focal length optics, but the 100-400 is nice for it's flexibility. I can hand hold it.

Also, the IS, for as old as it is, is very useful. For a short time I had a XTi (while awaiting the 50D) and made this shot. It's sharp as sharp can be and the shutter speed is down around 1/15th second. Seriously.



Crow - beauty expressed in feathers by Christopher Mark Perez, on Flickr

I also owned the beautiful 300-800mm f/5.6 EX HSM Sigma. This was during the time I've owned the 7D (going on 5 years now). It's fabulously sharp and great, again, for the flexibilty. But it's heavy and you need to be careful about stability at anything over 600mm. I got some BIF using it, but it wasn't easy. I sold it when we moved to Europe. I'm not sure I miss it. Not yet, at least. But then duck migration season isn't here yet.


----------



## nc0b (Sep 19, 2014)

I only own Canon lenses that would work for wildlife, so I cannot comment on the other brands. I live in the country and see wildlife on most any 2 mile walk. Started using my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, with or without 1.4X or 2X III TCs. The 2X TC worked for antelope but not for BIF. First added the 400mm f/5.6, which is best all around choice for me with either my 6D or 60D. Recently picked up a mint 300mm f/4 IS, and got some really nice antelope shots with a 5D Classic. Just sold the 2X III since I no longer used it after buying the primes. Any of these lenses are fine for hiking over several miles and hand holdable. Doubt I will ever own a really expensive "big white" since I don't want to hike with something that heavy, don't use a tripod and have never been in a blind. While I certainly like IS, i can push the ISO up as needed with the 6D to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or higher when using the 400 5.6. For BIF I don't think the lack of IS is an issue.


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> I also owned the beautiful 300-800mm f/5.6 EX HSM Sigma. This was during the time I've owned the 7D (going on 5 years now). It's fabulously sharp and great, again, for the flexibilty. But it's heavy and you need to be careful about stability at anything over 600mm. I got some BIF using it, but it wasn't easy. I sold it when we moved to Europe. I'm not sure I miss it. Not yet, at least. But then duck migration season isn't here yet.



Ha, you didn't happen to live in Portland, Oregon before moving to France, did you?


----------



## sanj (Sep 19, 2014)

tomscott said:


> I would disagree with the use without IS. When you are shooting wildlife you are probably shooting fast enough to make IS void.
> 
> 70-300mm L is a really nice lens. The 400 F5.6 is probably the best bang for buck. More important is the understanding of the animal you are shooting.



No no no no no! Noooooo. IS is so important for wildlife. Many many great wildlife activity and sightings happen in low light and IS is paramount in those situations…. Not all wildlife photos are hunting cheetahs! And it gets worse in ever green forests like India and Costa Rica…


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 19, 2014)

sanj said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > I would disagree with the use without IS. When you are shooting wildlife you are probably shooting fast enough to make IS void.
> ...


IS is great and as sanj points out, many shots are taken well below 1/focal length, but IS isn't necessary. I made do with the 400 f/5.6 for many years. I had to use a tripod in low light, well most light, but it's a great lens. Tough, top notch USM autofocus, light, sharp and with great color and contrast. Take a look at the sample thread to see lots of examples, including a few of mine.


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

sanj said:


> No no no no no! Noooooo. IS is so important for wildlife. Many many great wildlife activity and sightings happen in low light and IS is paramount in those situations…. Not all wildlife photos are hunting cheetahs! And it gets worse in ever green forests like India and Costa Rica…



Nah, its helpful but really once you get down to the point that IS becomes necessary the movement of the bird will blur the shot. Its extremely difficult no matter what equipment you have to shoot in heavy forest. You really need to use a flash in those cases, both for illumination and to freeze motion.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 19, 2014)

Which Sigma lens are you talking about? Both the C and the S are DG OS HSM. Also, if there are no images from either of those lenses, how are we supposed to have a valid opinion about them?


----------



## NancyP (Sep 19, 2014)

Oh, great - a recommendation for a good curated European bird photography site! I haven't been to Europe, I know nothing about the bird species, this must be a good site to learn from.

I bought my birding set-up 3 years ago - EF 400mm f/5.6L no-IS, used on my 60D. I also had (and have) a 70-200 f/4 L IS and a 1.4x TC II, so there's some broad focal length coverage. I might have gone for the 100-400 if I didn't have the 70-200 already. The 400 was therefore strictly aimed at bird photography, where maximum possible focal length is ideal. I wanted to do bird-in-flight photography, and the 400 f/5.6 was highly recommended for that due to fast AF and feather-light weight of 1.25 kg. I was willing to accept the steep learning curve of shooting without IS. I had thought that IS would be completely useless for fast shutter speeds, but it turns out that even shooting at 1/2000 and higher requires excellent (learnable with a little practice) panning skills to get a tack-sharp BIF. I don't know if IS would have helped me get good shots earlier on. For stationary bird shots, I developed some better lens hand holding technique, and started using a monopod for "stake-out" shots.

If I were to start now, particularly without a pre-existing 70-200 f/4L IS, I would definitely be looking at the Tamron 150-600 (1.95 kg), and maybe the upcoming Sigma Sport (2.86 kg) or Contemporary (less than 2.8 kg, more than 1.9 kg, I presume - weight not shown at B and H page). However, I love my featherweight "toy lens" - it is so well balanced, it is a pleasure to use, and I can hike all day without it feeling heavy. I have put in the sweat learning this no-IS lens, so I feel attached to it. Next purchase will likely be the 7D2 body. My attitude about ISO is, push it as high as you need to, and don't worry about noise. Better noisy than motion blurred.


----------



## icassell (Sep 19, 2014)

Birds or other wildlife? It makes a big difference. As a bird photographer, I lean towards the longest lens I can get (I started with the 400/5.6 and now have a 500/4 that usually has my 1.4x mounted) on a crop sensor camera. If you are after larger beasts, these might be too long. When I should larger animals at the Zoo, I use my 70-200.


----------



## Yankeedog (Sep 19, 2014)

As noted, it really depends on (a) what kind(s) of wildlife you like to shoot and (b) where and under what conditions you expect to shoot.

I myself am mostly a wildlife & adventure tourist who likes to take good photos of the animals I see. I need a zoom telephoto with a wide range to take advantage of fleeting opportunities. I might be relatively wide taking shots of big bull elephant when suddenly a malachite kingfisher shows up and I want to zoom in as much as possible, stat.

What I shoot with must travel on my back, sometimes for fairly long hikes through difficult terrain. Furthermore, small aircraft flights into remote areas can have strict baggage weight limits. So I need to keep my total gear package fairly light.

Good IS is essential for what I do. Yes, you are usually using a higher shutter speed for wildlife to freeze subject motion but some types of wildlife can stand VERY still so subject motion is not always a concern. Some of my best shots have been of stationary subjects in dim light at low shutter speeds. Weight and bulk of a decent tripod is out of the question for me.

Right now, I rent my big zooms from LensRentals, and while I sometimes use others, lately I've mostly been renting the Canon 100-400 as it offers the best weight/bulk vs. IQ/versatility compromise I've been able to find. I usually have a couple of smaller lenses in my bag as well for wider stuff.

It's not an ideal lens -- I wish it focused faster and there are definitely times I wish I had another stop of aperture to work with. But I can't get either of these without giving up zoom range and/or adding weight, so the 100-400 is the best compromise for my purposes, with the 70-300L coming a close second. I do want to give the new Sigma lenses a try, and I'm very curious to see what Canon comes up with as a replacement for the 100-400. If the new 100-400 (or whatever it ends up being) is good enough, it might even induce me to buy rather than rent.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > No no no no no! Noooooo. IS is so important for wildlife. Many many great wildlife activity and sightings happen in low light and IS is paramount in those situations…. Not all wildlife photos are hunting cheetahs! And it gets worse in ever green forests like India and Costa Rica…
> ...



+1 to Sanj. The little birds etc don't move perpetually but do have periods of keeping still, which is why you can get sharp shots at 1/15s etc. IS is very useful and expands the range of what is possible. I could not go back to non-IS now.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Sep 20, 2014)

Right now my setup is normally the canon 1D IV with the sigma 120-300 and often one of the teleconverters for the longer stuff and I keep the Sony A6000 with the 70-200 for the shorter reach stuff. I can't wait to see the new sigma 150-600 sport to see how it compares to my current setup especially weight wise.

Funny how over the last couple of years I have pretty much replaced all my canon L lenses with sigma or tamron, (and lately with sony camera/lens options) with the exception of the 100L. 5 years before that there was almost nothing to compete with canon L.


----------



## Omni Images (Sep 20, 2014)

I only have Canon lenses so the other options are out, full stop.
I use the 70-200F2.8IS right now, do have a 2xIII but am loathed to use it, for image quality hit and slow AF.

My pick was the 300F4.
Main reason is that I usually can get very close and the 300 can focus down to 1.8m .. the 70-200 to 1.4m I can get that close ... small birds will let you get that close, or just come up to you if you are still.
I pretty much always use a monopod, and yes they are always in shadow ... I am loath to use high ISO .. I want images I can print up and look good .... if an image is full of noise, then it's trashed really ...
So many times I use a flash so IS is not a big issue ...
The 400F5.6 would be my second choice, but min focus of 3.5m ... wow thats a long way away for many small birds, great for BIF and larger wildlife.
Extension tubes or a tele converter would help to get closer and fill the frame.

I don't see the point of lugging around all that glass in the 100-400, when I would also want it at 400 ..
So light weight prime for me would always win.

Of course if I had the money a 500F4 or 600F4 would be my pick for sure ... but these are not in the list to pick ... it's for us guys who maybe will never be able to afford a great white.

So the 300F4 for it's close focus ... slightly over the 400F5.6 ... I may get both.
But both are so old ... I am waiting for a new version of both .... !
Come on Canon pull your finger out.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> I don't see the point of lugging around all that glass in the 100-400, when I would also want it at 400 ..
> So light weight prime for me would always win.



The 100-400 weighs only 110g more than the 400 prime, 1360 vs 1250g. The difference in weight is not that big a deal.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 20, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The 100-400 weighs only 110g more than the 400 prime, 1360 vs 1250g. The difference in weight is not that big a deal.



I don't know about the specific models, but it's not just the weight itself but the *distribution*.

For example the long 70-200L/2.8 creates much more torsion on the wrist than to be expected even considering the weight difference to the 70-300L. The more glass is on the front and the longer the lens, the worse this effect gets.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 20, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 weighs only 110g more than the 400 prime, 1360 vs 1250g. The difference in weight is not that big a deal.
> ...



If the lens is properly supported there should be little to no torque tension to the wrist. The left hand should be supporting the lens at least half way to the end. Not only does this balance out the set up it makes IS even more efficient due to you not struggling to balance the lens and camera.

To the OP my only experience is the 100-400L. My choice was based on the fact is is a zoom. There will be times your subject is larger than will fit in the field of view of a fixed length lens.


----------



## Vincwat (Sep 20, 2014)

Hello,

I used the 7D with the canon 100-400. I had great results with this combo. It is best to use the 100-400 until 370-380mm at 400mm the IQ was not as good. Now I am using the 5dmk3 and the Tamron 150-600. It gives great results as well even at 600mm. As long as you are stable and close the aperture at f8,0. With that aperture the background is still blurred since you are at 600mm.

Of course if you have the cash get a canon 200-400 or a 300mm f2,8 or 400mm f2,8. I used the 300mm in Botswana, it is an amazing lens, event with a 1,4 converter. But personally I don't have the budget to buy this lens.

IS is very useful, I have found that most of the time my position to shoot wildlife is not very comfortable and not stable.

A canon 70-200 can be very useful as well for wider angle and low light photos.

Vincwat


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 20, 2014)

2n10 said:


> If the lens is properly supported there should be little to no torque tension to the wrist. The left hand should be supporting the lens at least half way to the end. Not only does this balance out the set up it makes IS even more efficient due to you not struggling to balance the lens and camera.



Sure, but it depends on what "wildlife" you shoot. If you do it from the comfort of a zoo bench or a safari pickup, you have both hands available to hold the camera at all times. Nothing wrong with that, mind you.

It's just that with my wildlife, I often need a free hand to stand up, lie down, remove clutter from the view, prevent horses from eating my gear or balance myself in an awkward position like when standing in water. That's why I'm very happy with the right-hand only button layout of 60d/6d and a weight I can handhold with one hand (just supported by a wrist strap).

I sometimes see another photog shooting the same scenes, but with a 5d3+70-200L/2.8 - moving in a different way means shooting in a different way. Of course if you get a top notch bokehlicious shot with a heavy prime or 200-400L zoom, nobody cares how you did it. But when doing "dynamic" wildlife weight is something to think about.


----------



## Drum (Sep 20, 2014)

I voted for the 150-600 I find the focus fast and quiet and the images are sharp. I had a 100-400 beforehand and that is a good lens too (I was using a 60d with the 100-400 and a 5d3 with the Tamzooka) The biggest difference between them is that the 100-400 will zoom to the focal length that you want far quicker than the tamron because of the push pull zoom (some people hate it- I never had a problem with it). Also the Tamron doesn't have a dedicated panning mode in IS whereas the 100-400 does. OK it sounds like i'm slamming the Tamron I'm not it is a very good lens for the money - the least expensive choice of your options. If you are going for a zoom over a prime lens, I would thoroughly research both lenses as both have pro's and con's


----------



## Chisox2335 (Sep 20, 2014)

I shoot a 70d with a canon 100-400 and a 6d with a tamron sp70-200 f2.8. The combo has served me well. It lets me cover most focal ranges I'm looking to shoot. With that said I will be trying out a 500mm f4 in Botswana in but I'm only renting it.


----------



## Phil L (Sep 20, 2014)

I currently shoot wildlife action with the choice that seems to be getting the least amount of votes, the 300 f4 with a 1.4 extender.
I have tried and tested the 100-400 and the 400 5.6 and prefer this combo.
Virtually every image on my wildlife photography blog was taken using the 300 and 1.4 on a 7D and I have always found the AF to be fast and accurate and the IQ, even when shooting jpegs, is quite good in my view.

Here's my post for today:

http://phillanoue.com/2014/09/20/big-breakfast/


----------



## JorritJ (Sep 21, 2014)

Call me crazy but I'm still hoping next month aside from a high MP body, the next 100-400 will be officially announced. If not, I'll have to get something else for next year's safari.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 21, 2014)

Helios68 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I know this question may have been asked many times. However it is interesting to collect minds sometimes.
> I am using an APS-C 700D body (why not 7DII in the future) and I am always wondering what will be my next investment or not.
> ...



I voted for the tammy but the new Sigma (Sport or Contemporary?) might be better. Zoom lenses offer flexibility but the 400/5.6 is sharper than all others in the same range up to 400mm, once you add the 1.4x IQ degrades and fall below the tammy.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 21, 2014)

God Dammit! I KNEW it was you!!

I love the shots you posted recently to these forums. It is brilliant all the way out to 800mm, isn't it? Sometimes I regret selling it, but we don't have anything like Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge back in the "old country." 

How are you and how's that Sigmonster working out for you??? ;D ;D ;D



Steve said:


> ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> 
> 
> > I also owned the beautiful 300-800mm f/5.6 EX HSM Sigma. This was during the time I've owned the 7D (going on 5 years now). It's fabulously sharp and great, again, for the flexibilty. But it's heavy and you need to be careful about stability at anything over 600mm. I got some BIF using it, but it wasn't easy. I sold it when we moved to Europe. I'm not sure I miss it. Not yet, at least. But then duck migration season isn't here yet.
> ...


----------



## Steve (Sep 22, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> God Dammit! I KNEW it was you!!
> 
> I love the shots you posted recently to these forums. It is brilliant all the way out to 800mm, isn't it? Sometimes I regret selling it, but we don't have anything like Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge back in the "old country."
> 
> How are you and how's that Sigmonster working out for you??? ;D ;D ;D



Haha, the internet is a small world. Its really great, I love the extra working distance and I was surprised to find that the zoom range is extremely useful. Its a beast, though. I just got back from backpacking in the Washington mountains looking for goats and there was no way that was coming with me, heh. But yeah, tack sharp, responsive AF, and reach for days - I'm happy with it for sure. 

Hopefully France is working out well for you! Its so awesome that you were able to make that move.


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 30, 2014)

Thanks for your answers !

Still waiting on first reviews of 7D II and then why not combining it to the 400mm f/5.6 +1.4x 8)


----------



## Davebo (Sep 30, 2014)

If birds are your target…you cannot go wrong with the 400 f5.6. When I first got it I ,too, regretted that it didn't have IS.
Initially my keeper rate was very low and I was more than a little frustrated..…however being stubborn, I persevered and with practise this lens (w/7D) is a deadly combo. Once you really learn how wonderful this lens is ,you won't leave home without….I don't, and I also own a 500 f/4. If you are shooting things that move 'fast'…. IS may only serve to slow your AF.


----------

