# Renting a wildlife lens



## adhocphotographer (Mar 26, 2013)

Hi,

I'm heading off on a last minute safari in India, and wanted to hire a 100-400L, but unfortunately it was unavailable... my alternatives are the more expensive Canon EF 400mm f/4L IS DO or Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM. having never used either of these lenses i was hoping for some input from you guys upon choice...

Thanks for anything,

John


----------



## vlim (Mar 26, 2013)

With the incredible wildlife there, tons of birds, mammals... For me it's a no brainer the 500mm with your 5dIII will be a terrific combo !


----------



## LuCoOc (Mar 26, 2013)

Since you have a 70-200 2.8 IS II mentioned in your signature you should consider getting/renting a 2x extender. It will keep your kit lighter and cheaper. The IQ is said to be almost as good as with the 100-400mm.
Have a fun and safe trip.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 26, 2013)

LuCoOc said:


> Since you have a 70-200 2.8 IS II mentioned in your signature you should consider getting/renting a 2x extender. It will keep your kit lighter and cheaper. The IQ is said to be almost as good as with the 100-400mm.
> Have a fun and safe trip.



+1. Superteles are much heavier. Depending on how it's used, it might necessitate bringing a tripod too.


----------



## RGF (Mar 26, 2013)

I have the 500 Mark 1 and previously owned the 400 DO.

The 400 DO is not as sharp as the 500, takes a bit work in PS to bring out great image (but it can be done).
500 is a great lens and for birds is wonderful (though I find my self often shooting with the 1.4x on a 1D M4).

Have you considered buying a 100-400 versus renting the 500? For 2 week trip, costs may be similar and in the end you could either keep the 100-400 or sell it and get a good bit of your money back.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Mar 26, 2013)

RGF said:


> Have you considered buying a 100-400 versus renting the 500? For 2 week trip, costs may be similar and in the end you could either keep the 100-400 or sell it and get a good bit of your money back.



it is just for 3 days (i live in India)... it is an option, but since i don't use telephoto that much, i would be more inclined to buy the 2x TC...

thanks for the info.


----------



## RGF (Mar 26, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Have you considered buying a 100-400 versus renting the 500? For 2 week trip, costs may be similar and in the end you could either keep the 100-400 or sell it and get a good bit of your money back.
> ...



Anything in the used market?


----------



## adhocphotographer (Mar 27, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> I own a 500 f4 USM IS (not II). It is an outstanding lens for wildlife but it is big and heavy. I've seen people hand-hold it but I don't think you are able to take full advantage of the resolution of that lens doing it. You'd need a sturdy tripod and ball head or Wimberley type mount. If you're flying, it might fit in the overhead in its case by itself.
> The IQ however, is much better than the 100-400 or the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter.



I will be driving, and have a manfrotto 055xpro (8kg) tripod which i think should be ok... 

Thanks for the advice, i'll let you all know what happens, and photos of course... I'm hoping for some big cat action!


----------



## eml58 (Mar 27, 2013)

I shoot wildlife (1Dx) pretty well exclusively, given the time frame you mentioned my suggestion would be the 70-200 f/2.8 V2 with a 1.4x & 2.0x extenders, keeps the weight down and gives you versatility (try to get the V3 extenders, much better optically than the V2 units), I use the 300/400 & 600 V2 lenses as well as the 70-200 and find with all the large Lenses I still use the 70-200 around 50% of the time, with the 70-200 you can zoom in, attach the extenders where required, but with something like the 500 your pretty well stuck if you need to move back, often not an option and by the time you set yourself back up to get the full animal in the shot, the animals long gone, and although the 500f/4 is not a monster, you will note the weight when compared to the 70-200.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Mar 27, 2013)

eml58 said:


> I shoot wildlife (1Dx) pretty well exclusively, given the time frame you mentioned my suggestion would be the 70-200 f/2.8 V2 with a 1.4x & 2.0x extenders, keeps the weight down and gives you versatility (try to get the V3 extenders, much better optically than the V2 units), I use the 300/400 & 600 V2 lenses as well as the 70-200 and find with all the large Lenses I still use the 70-200 around 50% of the time, with the 70-200 you can zoom in, attach the extenders where required, but with something like the 500 your pretty well stuck if you need to move back, often not an option and by the time you set yourself back up to get the full animal in the shot, the animals long gone, and although the 500f/4 is not a monster, you will note the weight when compared to the 70-200.



Thanks for the advice eml58 - I think that that is what I am going to do... I can always rent the big lens next time!


----------



## adhocphotographer (Apr 3, 2013)

So the 70-200 + 2x TC III worked a charm, it gave the flexibility to have a shorter tele with 2.8 in dense forest bits with low light and longer possibility when needed and/or when the light was better!

2000+ photos later, here are a couple of my shots.. (was lucky enough to spot a couple of Tigers and Leopards too)!


----------



## adhocphotographer (Apr 3, 2013)

another one....


----------



## adhocphotographer (Apr 3, 2013)

Last one....


----------

