# "Budget" Wildlife Lens Option



## Fr3nzy Photography (Feb 8, 2016)

With tax season upon us (in the U.S. at least), I'm looking to have a budget for some new photography gear. One thing I would really like to due is acquire a lens to pair with my 7D2 for wildlife shooting while I'm out hiking. My current practice is to rent the 100-400mkII when I go on a big trip that might see some wildlife, but I would like to add a permanent member to my collection for any wildlife that might show up during my every day hikes and when I'm out on landscape shoots.

I technically can afford the 100-400mkII, but it would max out my budget and I wouldn't be able to get anything else. That said, I've narrowed down my options to 3 possibilities, primarily based on usability for wildlife or other subjects and IQ as based off of tests over at The Digital Picture. I do plan to rent all three of these items to test them during one of the coming up weekends, but I also wanted to get the thoughts and opinions from folks here who may have actually used the items in the field.


300 f/4L IS +/- 1.4t.c.
300mm could be good for larger/closer animals
Based on TDP, IQ seems excellent and still pretty good after adding 1.4t.c.
Could still rent the t.c. for big trips as 300mm likely will satisfy my casual wildlife interests.

400 f/5.6L +/- 1.4t.c
IQ is just about on par with the zoom @ 400mm, but it is likely too long for a wide variety of situations
Cheap enough that I could buy the t.c. with the lens if I wanted more reach.

200 f/2.8L +/- 2.0t.c (I realize this is kind of an oddball thought)
200mm f/2.8 is great for indoor sports, as a landscape telephoto and more, plus the IQ seems solid.
Adding the 2.0t.c. seems to take a decent IQ hit, but I have up to 3 different focal lengths with the 2 t.c.'s
Even with buying the t.c. it's the cheapest option.


I know that relying on teleconverters has it's own risks and concerns when in the field, but as wildlife is generally a secondary goal while I'm out, I'm comfortable dealing with whatever option is "stuck" on the camera at the time. I'm more interested in just having an option that I own so I can get used to it and know what I'm working with.

Thanks, in advance, for any thoughts or ideas. (I'm also open to other options, keeping in mind my budget.)


----------



## slclick (Feb 8, 2016)

The age old quandary. It's well documented the 400 has the fastest AF and the 300+ 1.4 still keeps it's IQ but doesn't get you too many keepers with the AF taking a big hit. As for the 200 + TC's, I haven't seen anyone comment on those combinations but it is one of the most underrated lenses with a AF, colors and contrast very similar to the 135L. I'd be interested in seeing examples of it's use in Servo with certain bodies. Most folks say get the 400 5.6 but if it's MFD doesn't work for your style of shooting then exploring the 200+ options would be interesting.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 8, 2016)

Can't address these specific choices but I've had a lot of experience with the 300 2.8 X2. Kind of irrelevant except in this regard. Everyone says that it is just too slow focusing but I did lots of BIF with it on the 1D IV and it worked well provided you were previously focused to the approximate distance and didn't initiate AF until the bird was under the focus point. Generally the IQ with X2 is quite good. If you can focus at F8, I'd be tempted to try the 300 F4 X2. 600 is a nice FL for birds and 300 is nice for larger animals. Of course, zoom is always nice but ....

Jack


----------



## candc (Feb 8, 2016)

Budget wildlife lens = tamron 150-600 or sigma C


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 8, 2016)

Don't waste your money or time renting. If you can afford the 100-400 II, as you say, get it. Best bang for the buck, most versatile, IS, longest reach. A stellar performer in every way, really works well with the 7D2.
If you only had a $1K, I'd say go with the 400 f/5.6. Super sharp, but no IS is a real problem in low light. 
Sure you can use teleconverters, but you will pay a penalty in AF speed that is worse than the stop of light you give up.
I can't recommend the 100-400 II for your situation highly enough.


----------



## dolina (Feb 8, 2016)

Check Tamron or Sigma.


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 8, 2016)

I have owned the 400 f/5.6 and now own the 100-400ii. I have sold stock photos using the 400 on a 5Diii and the 100-400 on a 7Dii with and without 1.4 teleconverter. Both lenses will produce acceptable quality images on your 7Dii but I have captured photos with the zoom that I could never have composed properly with the fixed 400. e.g. a leopard coming toward the camera. And the IS is invaluable in low light.


----------



## digigal (Feb 8, 2016)

Hi Fr3nzy--
I can answer your question about option #3 200/f2.8 + 1.4 and 2 x TC with the 7DMkII because this is the combo that I've been using for the past 3-4 yrs (with the 7D prior) Everyone knows what a dynamite lens the 200/2.8 II is bare and it's great for portraits (animals, people, concerts, events, etc) With the 1.4 III TC it still focuses fast, is great for safaris, big animals, close big birds, etc. The 2x III really needs focus assistance but still is great. I've done 7 Continents with that combination and a 24-105 and been a happy camper. I've travel with guys using the 1DX and big lenses and I can go toe to toe with them on many pictures but you have to know your settings well, have great hand holding technique and know what it will and won't do to maximize it. I've loved the versatility. THAT SAID, I'm thinking of switching to the new 100-400 which wasn't available when I started using this combo yrs ago. Why is that, you ask? The 200/2.8 is really really heavy on the front end and the 100-400 has the weight more in the back end of the lens so when they are on the camera, although they weigh almost the same, the 200/2.8 feels like a much heavier unweildy lens. Also the instant focusing of the 100-400 at all ranges is fabulous. I will miss being able to go to a fixed 4.0 with the 1.4 III TC on the 200 for the lower light situations and not having the 2.8 around too but for the birds and action, I think the new 100-400 is now where it's at. 
Catherine
PS With the 200/2.8 TC combo I had 3 photos finish in Audubon magazine Top 100 Bird Photos in 2014 I can post later if you like


----------



## unfocused (Feb 8, 2016)

Since you are in the U.S., be sure and register with Canon Price Watch for the 100-400 II refurbished. If you are both patient and quick to act, you can score one during one of Canon's 10-15% off sales, which brings it down to under $1,600. I got one before Christmas. I set the notification up and got a message in the middle of the night. Laid there for about 5 minutes contemplating and then got up, went to the computer and ordered it. By the time morning arrived, they were gone, so you have to act quickly. 

Also, for a more portable choice, consider the 75-300mm "L". This is a great hiking lens -- lighter than the bigger lenses and while it isn't as long, it is very fast focusing and high quality. 

The Sigma Contemporary and Tamron 150-600 zooms are good budget choices as well, but they are beasts and I wouldn't want to be carrying either one around routinely on hikes. Frankly, I'm not so sure I want to carry the 100-400 "L" around routinely either. 

One downside to the 400 prime is that it is physically a long lens. It's not heavy, but it can be cumbersome to carry around hiking.


----------



## PCM-madison (Feb 8, 2016)

Since you are asking about a "budget" option, you should seriously consider the 100-400L v1. It sells for very low prices now, and I have been happy with my copy on the 7DMII. Example of this combo from today, tufted titmouse.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 8, 2016)

If you're talking about wildlife then the two 400mm lenses are the only ones worth considering. You want the 400f5.6 if you need to save money or weight, otherwise the 100-400MkII is unquestionably the right choice.
And as soon as you say "400f5.6+TC" I say "you're 75% of the way to the cost of the 100-400MkII".

The only case where I can see buying the 400f5.6 making sense is if every picture you've ever taken with the 100-400MkII has been at 400mm.


----------



## cycleraw (Feb 8, 2016)

Fr3nzy, again if you can afford the 100-400 MII get it. It is a GREAT lens. I had the Sigma 150-600mm sport and sold it because once I got the Canon 100-400 MII I didn't use it any more. The Canon 100-400 MII with a 1.4 TC is just as sharp if not sharper than the Sigma at 600mm and the Sigma is worthless with TC's.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2016)

9VIII said:


> If you're talking about wildlife then the two 400mm lenses are the only ones worth considering. You want the 400f5.6 if you need to save money or weight, otherwise the 100-400MkII is unquestionably the right choice.
> And as soon as you say "400f5.6+TC" I say "you're 75% of the way to the cost of the 100-400MkII".
> 
> The only case where I can see buying the 400f5.6 making sense is if every picture you've ever taken with the 100-400MkII has been at 400mm.



I use the 100-400mm II 99% of the time at 400mm. But, the 1% at less than 400mm have been my very best shots. Also, most of the time I am using speeds of 1/250 - 1/500 s, which is below what I would be happy with a non-IS lens. If all you do is birds in flight in bright light or use a tripod, then the 400/5.6 is indeed fine.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The budget options for wildlife lenses are:
> 
> Tamron 150-600 Di VC USD (~$1050)
> 
> ...



OK dilbert, what is your personal experience of hiking and nature photography to make these pronouncements? I don't see any posting of images from you in nature-bird-related threads (Animal kingdom) on CR.


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 8, 2016)

If i were you, I'd save up a little longer and buy the 100/400 v2 .... you won't regret it.

I've owned both v1 and v2, and the v2 is superior by far.

It's my position always that you can buy less expensive gear twice or later upgrade, or excellent gear once. It also makes a difference if you Hobby, or Pro shoot too, and your budget. But for pure quality of image, the best lens at that length and that versatility, the 100/400 v2 stands alone in my opinion.

I've not field tested other lens manufacturers, so there is that ... but it's because I don't need to check ... what I have does the job for my needs in the field. Good Luck ...


----------



## AJ (Feb 8, 2016)

FWIW I own a 200/2.8 and a 2x TC. It's a very user-unfriendly setup. A steady tripod is required. I woould eliminate that option for hiking.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The budget options for wildlife lenses are:
> 
> Tamron 150-600 Di VC USD (~$1050)
> 
> ...



If you want to go for a budget option and don't mind the weight, the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 will get you the most reach, but at the expense of weight.....

You could go for the 100-400, but that kind of blows the budget.....

micro 4/3 is a lightweight option, but getting a decent body plus lenses blows the budget again.... Personally, I really like the Olympus..... but thats another $1000 to get a body....

you could always try one of those 24-280 or 300 third party superzooms, which gets you reach and light weight, but at the expense of lens speed and quality....

I don't think there is an option that includes budget, light weight, and quality....


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2016)

The Sigma 150-500 is a crazy good bargain at $525.....


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The Sigma 150-500 is a crazy good bargain at $525.....



Every review has it very, very soft at 500mm on FF. It must be unusable on crop?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.lenstip.com/184.4-Lens_review-Sigma_150-500_mm_f_5.0-6.3_APO_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-150-500mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-interchangeable-lens-review-13621


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2016)

AlanF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma 150-500 is a crazy good bargain at $525.....
> ...



The one I have is nowhere near as weak as that, but again, for the money it is a good lens. I haven't tried it on crop, maybe I'll try it later.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 8, 2016)

I have not upgraded yet to the 100-400v2. I use the 400mm f/5.6L, but I am a birder, and don't need 100-399mm. (I would like the much closer focusing of the 100-400v2 for butterflies and dragonflies). Lack of IS is a real issue, but one fix is to carry a monopod with tilt head. This can do double duty as a hiking staff, if you get the largest diameter monopod. It works fine as a staff for the very basic steadying across streams, muddy slopes, or clamoring over downed trees. A very few commercial hiking staffs come with 1/4" threaded bolt on the top, to which you could attach the head. If you are crafty and always shoot standing up, you could make your own staff. Then you learn how to use the monopod effectively. A collapsed monopod can be used sitting. You don't get the stability of a tripod, but it can help - I have taken pixel-sharp shots at 1/100 with the non-stabilized 400 on a monopod, and could likely do better than that. Anyway, the 400 f/5.6L takes some getting used to, but it is a great hand-held lens for birds in flight and other panning shots, given practice, and it certainly is light. Current price for good used copy is ~$900.00. I'd recommend this for a birder who is willing to spend some time tracking and shooting any-old-bird-in-flight. I have gotten technically excellent shots with this lens on my 60D.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 9, 2016)

AlanF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma 150-500 is a crazy good bargain at $525.....
> ...



Also I know and/or have spoken to numerous people who have owned this lens, having been attracted by the low price, and regretted it.

To the OP: you say you could stretch to the 100-400L II if you max out your budget. Ok it's easy to spend other people's money but my advice is do that - it's that far ahead of the other options.


----------



## Fr3nzy Photography (Feb 9, 2016)

Hey everyone, thanks for the advice/thoughts so far. I do appreciate getting real world users' thoughts as testing and weekend rentals can only go so far.

To add some clarification, weight is generally a non-issue for me. With my landscape gear, tripod, ballhead, hiking accessories, water, etc., I'm generally looking at 20-ish pounds, so I generally don't get bogged down in ounces unless I'm doing extremely long or overnight trips.

My biggest reasons for leaving off the Sigma C & Tamron were filter sizes (I've invested in good 77mm filters), autofocus performance, and copy variation. In my reading of reviews, the Sigma S performed better in the latter two categories (still diminished IQ above 400 and especially 500mm), but at that point I'm basically at the 100-400mkII and would be better served with that. I've generally no desire to chase animals that require 600mm on a crop camera to get close enough. As I mentioned earlier, wildlife is a hobby of my hobby for when I'm out hiking during landscape shoots.

I know the 100-400mkII is the best of these "budget" options, but I'm really trying to not blow my entire budget on the lens. As I mentioned, I'll be renting these in a weekend or two to see what everything looks like on the 7DII in a controlled test, and I might just end up with the mkII. I figure other options at least deserve a shot to see what they have to offer.


----------



## JBSF (Feb 9, 2016)

Fr3nzy Photography said:


> Hey everyone, thanks for the advice/thoughts so far. I do appreciate getting real world users' thoughts as testing and weekend rentals can only go so far.
> 
> To add some clarification, weight is generally a non-issue for me. With my landscape gear, tripod, ballhead, hiking accessories, water, etc., I'm generally looking at 20-ish pounds, so I generally don't get bogged down in ounces unless I'm doing extremely long or overnight trips.
> 
> ...



I recently started using 100-400 mk2 on 7D2, though I used the lens for part of last year on a 7D. It's great, but I understand your quandary.

I follow the work of several nature photographers on Flickr. One who has used 300 f4 + 1.4 TC for much of his work is Alan Schmierer, and you can search for him there. His work over the past year has been with 100-400ii, but if you scroll through to 2014 and earlier, you will see that he used the 300 almost exclusively, more often than not with the TC (and thereby identifying FL as 420mm). He has shot all of it on Rebel bodies with excellent results.

For the 300 f4/1.4 combo's ability to serve as a crossover between birds and insects, look up Vic Berardi online and look at his web publication on photographing dragonflies. He has gotten beautiful results with the 300. He often uses the 1.4 TC, and also uses an extension tube for some shots.

The 400 f5.6 doesn't work for me; I simply don't have steady enough hands, and I seldom use a tripod.


----------



## slclick (Feb 9, 2016)

This is one of those scenarios where you can pick two out of three of your criteria but not have all. 

My solution is patience. The price of the 100-400 v2 will come down and so will refurbs.


----------



## azhelishot (Feb 9, 2016)

I am in your exact situation...I hike a lot (always with my gear) and a landscape photographer. A side part of my hikes is to capture whatever wildlife comes my way...from lizards to birds to larger animals. I spent a lot of time finding the right backpack (an entire other story altogether) to hold my one body, 2 lenses, and 1 TC. Most importantly, the bag had to carry the 100-400 I had on-camera as it was nearly always the go-to lens for my style of work. I started with the original version that worked flawlessly for me for many years for BOTH landscape and wildlife. I recently upgraded to the MKII as I felt the upgrades were worth it for the amount of use I get out of it. I will usually add the 1.4 TC on it if I am specifically shooting birds, otherwise its 100-400 II on my camera 75% of the time. It is useful in so many situations and you will have the lens for many years...it is definitely worth it in my opinion.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 9, 2016)

Fr3nzy Photography said:


> I technically can afford the 100-400mkII, but it would max out my budget and I wouldn't be able to get anything else. That said, I've narrowed down my options to 3 possibilities, primarily based on usability for wildlife or other subjects and IQ as based off of tests over at The Digital Picture. I do plan to rent all three of these items to test them during one of the coming up weekends, but I also wanted to get the thoughts and opinions from folks here who may have actually used the items in the field.
> 
> 
> 300 f/4L IS +/- 1.4t.c.
> ...





The 300 f/4 has a really short minimum focus distance, which is *really* nice. The lens also has nice bokeh. It is lightweight and the built in hood is a plus.

However, AF performance (speed) with any TC, even the 1.4x, is not good at best.

I have not used the other 2 lenses you mention.

"Wildlife" covers a pretty wide range of stuff. Relying on TC's to get there is a spotty plan at best, unless you plan to leave the TC on the lens. Swapping the TC on and off in the field opens too many doors for problems- from small ones like dust to large ones like dropped equipment. 

I have learned that buying "one step down" to save money, even with workarounds on paper (TC's), is an exercise in futility. If the 100-400 VII is actually attainable in your budget, then you will be much happier with that lens than the others. 

I would STRONGLY suggest setting up an alert at Canon Price Watch for the 100-400II and then wait.

I just now got an alert that it is available for $1,583.28 refurbished.

I do not own the 100-400II, but by all accounts that I have read, it seems to be *the* choice for that focal range without going to the Big Whites.


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2016)

danski0224 said:


> Fr3nzy Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I technically can afford the 100-400mkII, but it would max out my budget and I wouldn't be able to get anything else. That said, I've narrowed down my options to 3 possibilities, primarily based on usability for wildlife or other subjects and IQ as based off of tests over at The Digital Picture. I do plan to rent all three of these items to test them during one of the coming up weekends, but I also wanted to get the thoughts and opinions from folks here who may have actually used the items in the field.
> ...



I got the alert as well and it was sold out when I got to it. Maybe 1 minute after the alert. Wow.


----------



## Fr3nzy Photography (Feb 14, 2016)

After some initial testing, I'm liking the results of the 300 f/4L + 1.4 & the 200 f/2.8L + 2. From an IQ perspective, I've noticed more CAs on the 300 combo (but not when it's used without the t.c.), but only when you really get close and pixel peep. I also am not sure about the 200mm combo since it lacks IS, but man if the pictures aren't great!

I'm hoping to try and do some SERVO work later, I've only been able to do still photos for now so I can test the focus tracking with each as compared to the 100-400 II, but for single shots, focus has been great. To try and keep the field level, I also AFMA'd all three lenses and the t.c. combos prior to starting my "testing."

Just thought I would let folks know since you took the time to give advice. Cheers.


----------



## Basil (Feb 14, 2016)

I have the Canon 300mm f4 and the 1.4 TC. Decent combo on my 7D Mark II. However, I just bought the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary on sale from Adorama and wow! If you can swing it, that's what I'd recommend.


----------



## Fr3nzy Photography (Feb 14, 2016)

So, having just done some AI SERVO shooting with both combinations using my dog as the subject, I have to admit that both perform exceptionally well - at least for my needs/tastes, others who shoot wildlife more often may be more strict with their requirements.

I'm convinced that I don't need the 100-400 II, no matter how awesome it might be. That said, the decision is a tough one. The 300 has IS, but with the teleconverter I saw some CAs when shooting the test charts. The 200 is a really nice focal length for any telephoto landscape work that might come up and the f/2.8 opens up some indoor shooting options. The 200 is also significantly cheaper; I can get the lens plus a t.c. for cheaper than the 300 lens alone. The cost isn't too big of a factor but, if all other things are equal, saving money or getting more for your money is nice.

I guess it comes down to "IS & longer native focal length" vs. "Cheaper & more flexible wide aperture."

I suppose this isn't the worst decision to have to make. 8) Any thoughts specifically relating to these two combinations (300 f/4L IS + 1.4x, 200 f/2.8L + 1.4x/2x) are always welcome.


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2016)

Fr3nzy Photography said:


> So, having just done some AI SERVO shooting with both combinations using my dog as the subject, I have to admit that both perform exceptionally well - at least for my needs/tastes, others who shoot wildlife more often may be more strict with their requirements.
> 
> I'm convinced that I don't need the 100-400 II, no matter how awesome it might be. That said, the decision is a tough one. The 300 has IS, but with the teleconverter I saw some CAs when shooting the test charts. The 200 is a really nice focal length for any telephoto landscape work that might come up and the f/2.8 opens up some indoor shooting options. The 200 is also significantly cheaper; I can get the lens plus a t.c. for cheaper than the 300 lens alone. The cost isn't too big of a factor but, if all other things are equal, saving money or getting more for your money is nice.
> 
> ...



I have the 200 2.8 Prime and a Kenko 1.4 Teleplus Pro 300 which work very well on the 5D3 but it is by no means a birding setup... larger slow moving wildlife sure, it's nice, light and very inexpensive. ($509 refurb + $128 Kenko) It's really a get by setup with a FL of 289mm f/4.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 14, 2016)

I have seen no mention of the 70-300mm L. For hiking, its going to be easy to carry, has a great IQ. It does not work with TC's at all focal lengths, but will work at the long end with Kenko TC's. 

You might want to look into that as a option. The small aperture is a concern at high shutter speeds, but the 7D MK II can use higher ISO's.


----------



## martti (Feb 19, 2016)

My first experience with the Tamron 150-600 was very positive. About half of the people taking pictures in Kruger Park, ZA, were using it. Maybe it is because it looks good and does not cost so much...
A lot of people also carrying the old dust pump Canon 100-400 which is hard to beat in value.


Do you want to take pictures or do you want to look good?
Do you want the last pixel stand out like a Koh-I-Noor diamond?
In that case, get something more expensive than the Tamron.


If you want good shots, an IS, reasonable picture quality at 600mm and excellent at 400, Tamron is your choice.

Probably you get 'sharper' shots with a prime and an extender shooting birds but HTF do you zoom back with that kind of a setup?


Going for a Safari you can upgrade your lodging quite a bit with 1000 dollars extra. Like 'quite a bit'.
Just saying. Choices.


----------



## martti (Feb 19, 2016)

*A young female spotted hyena with the stupid Tamron 150-600 zoom*


----------



## martti (Feb 19, 2016)

*Is Tamron a leopard lense?*


----------



## iaind (Feb 19, 2016)

I have the 100-400v2 and since getting it my 300 f4 has lost its place in my bag


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Feb 22, 2016)

Just came across this accidentally, but Sigma recently released a press release boasting a 20%-50% AF speed increase for both the Sport and Contemporary 150-600: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=561

As a 150-600 C owner, I'm certainly hoping they'll be able to deliver on this promise--and this might make these lenses more compelling, particularly the C, as good "budget" wildlife lens options!


----------

