# 70-200 2.8II or F4 for Zoo Shoot



## keriboi (Nov 17, 2014)

Going to the Zoo this weekend and hiring a Canon 6D and some lens. Will also take my 50D. Unfortunatly no 7d2 for hire.

Forecast is for cloudy. How much better off will I be with the 2.8II than the F4 Non IS?
If I get the f4 I can also get a 24mm 1.4 to play with over the weekend. 

I could get a longer lens but I will be doing some portrait stuff so I need the 70mm


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 17, 2014)

If you will rent a 70-200 lens, choose F2.8II. Will make much difference in the minimum shutter speed, and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.


----------



## MiG31_Foxhound (Nov 17, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> ...and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.



Not to mention whatever dust, fingerprints, or other imperfections might be on the glass in some enclosures. Definitely go with the /2.8.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 17, 2014)

The 135/2 is my zoo go-to lens.
Easy to carry, fast as heck!


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 17, 2014)

If you have the chance: Go for the f/2.8. Preferably with IS.
I have the f/4 in its IS version, and it's at least as sharp and good as the f/2.8, but, as mentioned, a thinner DOF will help you in blurring fences and the such. The "magic" of the f/2.8 is worth it.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 19, 2014)

The zoo I go to has indoor and out door exhibits. F2.8 is better for indoors, but I'd encourage you to maybe go even wider, maybe the sigma 50 art. For distance shots, I'd suggest the f2.8L unless weight is a concern then I would suggest the f4L.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 19, 2014)

Most of the time I am at the zoo i use my 100-400L. But at the Nürnberg Zoo animals can be quite far away. 
So 200 mm is not always enough. So reach depends on your circumstances.



keriboi said:


> I could get a longer lens but I will be doing some portrait stuff so I need the 70mm


Reading this and understanding, that you want the 70-200 also for this portrait stuff I'd say the F2.8 (esp. V2 with IS) is a *must *for that purpose.
Enjoy the trip and the great equipment.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 19, 2014)

I've owned all of the Canon EF 70-200mm lenses, and currently have the f/2.8 MK II, merely because I use it in extreme low light. Otherwise, for outdoor use or carrying around, my f/4 IS was my choice. 


The f/4 IS lens is wonderful, and plenty good wide open. You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 19, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've owned all of the Canon EF 70-200mm lenses, and currently have the f/2.8 MK II, merely because I use it in extreme low light. Otherwise, for outdoor use or carrying around, my f/4 IS was my choice.
> 
> 
> The f/4 IS lens is wonderful, and plenty good wide open. You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?



It really depends on whether he will be shooting in indoor facilities. Honestly, if he opts to do two lenses, I would lean to the f4, but one alone, I'd lean towards the f2.8.... but one stop of light is just that, one stop... even with the 6d... that's why I suggested the 50 art.8x more light than the f4... reptiles , mammals and birds.... oh my.


----------



## caMARYnon (Nov 19, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The f/4 IS lens is wonderful, and plenty good wide open. You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?


Agreed. I own both and my option is f4IS.


----------



## keriboi (Nov 19, 2014)

Thanks guys, getting the 2.8is


----------



## ihendy (Nov 19, 2014)

keriboi said:


> Thanks guys, getting the 2.8is



Good choice. I've own the 2.8 II and owned the non IS f4 which I sold shortly after the 2.8 purchase. If I want light - I'll use the 135 f2.0. 2.8 is great for zoo as it easy to use indoors and out and a great focal range. It blurs the background better. Add a 2x III tele and you got 400 mm at 5.6 which is good for zoo animals who tend to be more static. Definately a versitile choice. Grab a BR type strap though because it's heavy.


----------



## icassell (Nov 19, 2014)

I shot gazillions of excellent zoo images with the Sigma 100-300 f/4 before I bought my Canon 70-200/2.8 II. The f/4 was usually plenty wide and the 300mm end was nice. Now that I have the 70-200, I will often put on a TC, so the f/2.8 is helpful as it gets cranked to f/4 when I put on the 1.4X. I actually miss the Sigma a bit when I'm shooting at the zoo -- the FL range was perfect.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 19, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If you will rent a 70-200 lens, choose F2.8II. Will make much difference in the minimum shutter speed, and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.



This is the best answer you have received so far.
Last year I went to shoot the tiger cubs at the zoo. They were fun to shoot but F/2.8 II was a must because of the chain link fence and the position you I had to shoot from. I also had my 300mm F/2.8 with me which even worked better when the tigers were far enough away.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 19, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If you will rent a 70-200 lens, choose F2.8II. Will make much difference in the minimum shutter speed, and will also help blur the railings and fences that surround the animals.
> ...



I hate fences... so much. I was shooting at f/1.2 and that damn fence was still there.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Nov 25, 2014)

If you're renting, consider the 70-300IS.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 25, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> If you're renting, consider the 70-300IS.



The 70-300 is a bit soft from 200-300mm. The 70-300 L maybe but the variable aperture at f5.6... losing 2 stops of light might be a big downer.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 25, 2014)

I do a lot of zoo shooting (in fact I recently self-published a book called Zoos Of The Southwest). As others have alluded to, the main issue is shooting through fences. For this you need a long focal length and a large aperture. I have found a longer focal length to be the more critical of the two. 300mm seems to be the magic number for getting through a fence. Even a 300 5_6 works well much of the time. 200mm is almost too short and will only work with an aperture of at least 2_8. The 200 f4 may blur out fences in ideal circumstances, but often not. It sounds like you already decided on the 2_8, so that is a good choice.

I also briefly had the Sigma 100-300 f4 someone else mentioned. I bought it used for a good price, used it for a year and loved it, then the autofocus died and repair parts were unavailable. So now I use a Canon 70-200 2_8 (non IS) sometimes coupled with 1.4xii extender. This is a good combination, but the upcoming 100-400ii will really be the ideal zoo lens.


----------



## Yeti (Nov 25, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?



Odd and definitive point of view, others have given good reason to go for the 2.8. 

As for the latter half of your statement, "monster"? That lens is hardly a monster lens unless you're Monty Burns...


----------



## Khristo (Nov 26, 2014)

Yeti said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > You will not have a need for f/2.8, so why carry that monster around?
> ...



I don't think it's too odd to say you won't need f/2.8 much. Zoo shots are going to be mostly about up close and recording detail and you could lose a lot of that with shallow DOF. OOF fur not too interesting! 

Depends on the zoo of course, but my last zoo trip was about shooting over fences or through glass - not so much through fences. On that trip I used my 400 f/5.6 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Having checked those shots, there are a lot with the 400mm, but those with the 70-200 tended to be at 200mm and few at wide apertures. 

Only exception was a close up (through glass) of one gorilla grooming another - that was at f/3.2 and did benefit from a portraity shallow DOF. But definitely the exception. 

So, I think there's little to be lost with the f/4, and if it allows you to play with a 24mm f/1.4 as well - bonus!


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 26, 2014)

Khristo said:


> Yeti said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



You haven't been to our local Zoo then. All the big cats are behind chain link or thick glass which is usually dirty.
The problem is that the 200mm is almost to short for the ground layout. I have some great 300 mm f/2.8 baby tiger pics. 

Some of me favorite pics are from the 24-70mm F/2.8 shot at or near wide open. They are orangutan and upland gorilla portraits.

If I am going to photograph the zoo I am taking the big guns, if I am taking the grandkids I am packing light.


----------



## Ryan85 (Nov 26, 2014)

You should be just fine with the f4. Especially since you're shooting a 6d and can shoot with a high ISO if needed. I would personally take the 2.8is so I could shoot faster shutter speeds and blur the background more if I wanted. Also since you said you're doing portraits too and I love shooting that lens at 2.8 for portraits. But that's just a personal thing and the f4 will be fine. I would consider renting a 100-400 or 70-300 if you can so you have more focal length if you need it.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 26, 2014)

keriboi said:


> Thanks guys, getting the 2.8is



You won't regret your decision. For portraiture is one of the best.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 26, 2014)

We are visiting a zoo this weekend. This will be my first zoo visit since I graduated from point and shoot cameras. I will take my 6D and either 70-200 2.8 II or 135L along with my 35mm f/2 IS for wider shots. Its a mid sized zoo and most of the animals are reasonably close, mostly within 50 yards/meters.



sagittariansrock said:


> The 135/2 is my zoo go-to lens.
> Easy to carry, fast as heck!



Noticed you choose your 135/2 over your 70-200. Do you find the 135 has enough reach?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 26, 2014)

bholliman said:


> We are visiting a zoo this weekend. This will be my first zoo visit since I graduated from point and shoot cameras. I will take my 6D and either 70-200 2.8 II or 135L along with my 35mm f/2 IS for wider shots. Its a mid sized zoo and most of the animals are reasonably close, mostly within 50 yards/meters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, as you said- in a mid-size zoo (Houston) the animals are pretty close, so the 135 works very well (although I take a standard lens on a second body).


----------



## bholliman (Nov 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > We are visiting a zoo this weekend. This will be my first zoo visit since I graduated from point and shoot cameras. I will take my 6D and either 70-200 2.8 II or 135L along with my 35mm f/2 IS for wider shots. Its a mid sized zoo and most of the animals are reasonably close, mostly within 50 yards/meters.
> ...




I think I will take the 135/2 and 35/2 and see how it goes. We will probably be there for most of the day and I'm not sure I like the idea of carrying the 70-200 that long. The f/2 lenses should do well for the indoor exhibits also.


----------



## Stu_bert (Nov 27, 2014)

I just did Loro Parque in Tenerife (Canary Islands). Most of the enclosures where i wanted to shoot were glass fortunately. The problem I find with fences is that the larger glass does not lose the fence enough. I've done a private zoo in the UK (big cats mostly), and the 300 f/4 was more practical as you could get it in-between without issue.

In Tenerife, based on the predominancy of glass enclosures, the 300 MK II and the 70-200 MK II sat on 2 bodies the whole day, and I preferred the flexibility in some lighting conditions rather than adjust ISO but that's a personal thing. Based on distance to most subjects the DOF didn't impact sharpness. I also just preferred the speed as there were a number of shows worth capturing. Only once or twice did I need to step back to mitigate wider than 70mm, most of the time I shot at the 200-300mm with an occasional 1.4x or 2x converter (reptiles) but that's just my preference...


----------



## Hannes (Nov 27, 2014)

It really depends on the zoo like others have said but for the ones I go to a 135mm wouldn't be ideal. London Zoo has a lot of glass and relatively small enclosures however the whipsnade zoo I would want a 150-600mm zoom for (think safari). Monkey world (of animal planet fame) you need longish fast lenses as everything is chain link. My go to zoo lens is the 70-200 2.8 IS but on a 1.3x crop body. I would personally rather have a zoom with IS even if it means loosing one stop of light compared to the prime. 

Shooting through the fence requires the fence to be close to you and the animal farther away if you want to make it disappear.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 27, 2014)

If you have a decent 1.4x and 2x TC, then go with the 200mm f/2.8. If you don't, then I tend to agree with the folks saying that a 200mm lens probably won't cut it, no matter how wide the aperture. I'd try to rent a 100–400 L or a 150–600 if you can, or failing that, a 70–300L.


----------

