Reading mode: Light Dark

Best wildlife lenses when hiking?

Go to last post
B

Bill Israel

Well-known member
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
Location
Parker, CO, US
I do a lot of long distance hiking in the Rocky Mountains. I can do landscapes with the lenses I already own. I am now looking for the best lens combo for wildlife (mammals). I am willing to carry about 10 lbs in lenses. My current camera is a Canon 10D, hope to upgrade to full frame one day.

Already own:
17-40 f4 - 1.1 lbs
50 f1.4 - 0.6 lbs
85 f1.8 - 1.0 lbs

1st Option
300 f4 - 2.6 lbs
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a good 420 f5.6.

2nd Option
300 f2.8 - 5.6 lbs The best 300 around!
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a great 420 f4.
2.0 ext - 0.6 lbs This should give me a good 600 f5.6 (?)

I always carry a tripod and use it when I can.

Any comments or experience would be welcome.
 
Its 50 to 500mm reach is well-worth the mere 4 lb weight. The 50mm wide end is useful for occasional scenic shots.
I still like to use my Bigma for causal walks even I have other big guns.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
Would you be happy with the sharpness if you printed at 13x19 with some cropping, perticulally at 500mm?
drip said:
Its 50 to 500mm reach is well-worth the mere 4 lb weight. The 50mm
wide end is useful for occasional scenic shots.
I still like to use my Bigma for causal walks even I have other big
guns.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
 
Bill Israel said:
Would you be happy with the sharpness if you printed at 13x19 with
some cropping, perticulally at 500mm?
Click to expand...
I have never printed 13x19 so I cannot answer you question. But here are some 100% crops from Bigma, some are at 500mm. See if you can estimate the max size you can print from them (they look pretty damn good on my 19" CRT set at 1600x1200 res):
http://www.pbase.com/drip/50_500_99

The Bigma is just as good as the 300/4+TC, and trust me, I once owned it. And you know why I don't own it now?
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
For mammals I'd go with the 300/f4 or 100-400L or maybe the 400/5.6. The 400/5.6 is pretty light and slim.
Bill Israel said:
I do a lot of long distance hiking in the Rocky Mountains. I can do
landscapes with the lenses I already own. I am now looking for the
best lens combo for wildlife (mammals). I am willing to carry about
10 lbs in lenses. My current camera is a Canon 10D, hope to upgrade
to full frame one day.

Already own:
17-40 f4 - 1.1 lbs
50 f1.4 - 0.6 lbs
85 f1.8 - 1.0 lbs

1st Option
300 f4 - 2.6 lbs
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a good 420 f5.6.

2nd Option
300 f2.8 - 5.6 lbs The best 300 around!
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a great 420 f4.
2.0 ext - 0.6 lbs This should give me a good 600 f5.6 (?)

I always carry a tripod and use it when I can.

Any comments or experience would be welcome.
Click to expand...
--
Gene (the hawkman) - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/

 
I use a Canon 400 f/5.6L with my 10D for just the kind of thing you want to do. It weighs in at a light 2.8 pounds so it makes the perfect light weight hiking lens. Focus is lightning fast. Little to no lose of image quality with the Canon 1.4xII extender. It is very sharp even wide open and gives me results like this.





--
Bill
http://www.pbase.com/slowpokebill
'The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.' Unknown
'Every man dies; but, not every man lives' Braveheart
'Sometime the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't' Little Big Man
 
Judging from the lenses you already carry and assuming you can afford some good lenses I would choose the 200mm 2.8L. I dont have the lens but only due to budget constraints. If you go http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon and scroll down you ll find many superb photos taken with this lens. I ve read in many reviews that this lens outresoves the 10D/drebel censor. The following is my response to the debate between L glass zooms at the 70-200mm and the 200mm f2.8L which I pasted from an earlier thread. Also notice that you will need a tripd mount for the lens for 200mm if you really want to have very sharp images. I ll buy this lens for sure one day. If you want a 300mm they are slower or more expensive and significantly heavier, maybe a 1.4 or 2x TC would provide some extra reach. Below I ve paste a zoom vs this prime post i wrote in a thread early this week:

"Well zooms are obviouly better for both of you. Just a question. Have you tried to print at a size bigger that 12 x 18 with standard zoom lenses and compare them with primes ? I printed a 18x27 and I see artifacts because the kit lens image had to be sharpened using USM in photoshop. My print guy may have exaggerated but he was trying to sharpen the image and we only found out once I had an $45 18x27 print on watercolor paper. If you need a zoom get it, but dont be swayed by those who say that their sharpness difference is not worth the versatility. See printouts yourself and compare. And remember printouts. Monitor resolutions rarely get high enough to be able to see the difference. Also remember that attaching a teleconverter to your zoom lens means that your aperture will decrease by the factor of maginification. A 2x TC on the 70-200 L f/4 will give you 400mm reach but at f/8 and that with the lens wide open (not very sharp). On the 200mm f2.8L II it will give you an f5.6 which apparently is sharp even wide open.

Oh and there is no comparison between non-L (Canon) or non-APO (Sigma) lenses with prime lenses.

It is best if you think about a lens for your needs. Indoors with 200mm f/4 may be too slow for you. Also this lens is soft when wide open so you ll likely have to have it at f/5.6. Thus you ll need to slow down the shutter speed a lot indoors. That could lead to camera shake when the 200 2.8L will be sharp enough. Real versatility comes with a price, more than $1000 for the non-IS 70-200mm f2.8. If you really really want zoom then do have a look at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX but notice that it weighs more than twice the weight of your drebel."

Yiannis
--

Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them. Aristotle
 
Brian,

Were those staight out of the camera or
processed for sharpness? I agree they look
awfully good.

Bob Watt
drip said:
Bill Israel said:
Would you be happy with the sharpness if you printed at 13x19 with
some cropping, perticulally at 500mm?
Click to expand...
I have never printed 13x19 so I cannot answer you question. But
here are some 100% crops from Bigma, some are at 500mm. See if you
can estimate the max size you can print from them (they look pretty
damn good on my 19" CRT set at 1600x1200 res):
http://www.pbase.com/drip/50_500_99
The Bigma is just as good as the 300/4+TC, and trust me, I once
owned it. And you know why I don't own it now?
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip
Click to expand...
 
...and it is a good price.

Maybe I should buy one...
 
I was seriously considering this lens also, but the lack of IS and even an 1.4 extender would push this lens in manual mode on a 10D.
 
Bill Israel said:
I do a lot of long distance hiking in the Rocky Mountains. I can do
landscapes with the lenses I already own. I am now looking for the
best lens combo for wildlife (mammals). I am willing to carry about
10 lbs in lenses. My current camera is a Canon 10D, hope to upgrade
to full frame one day.

Already own:
17-40 f4 - 1.1 lbs
50 f1.4 - 0.6 lbs
85 f1.8 - 1.0 lbs

1st Option
300 f4 - 2.6 lbs
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a good 420 f5.6.

2nd Option
300 f2.8 - 5.6 lbs The best 300 around!
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a great 420 f4.
2.0 ext - 0.6 lbs This should give me a good 600 f5.6 (?)

I always carry a tripod and use it when I can.

Any comments or experience would be welcome.
Click to expand...
 
Bill Israel said:
I was seriously considering this lens also, but the lack of IS and
even an 1.4 extender would push this lens in manual mode on a 10D.
Click to expand...
I have never found the lack of IS that big a deal or much of a draw back. With wildlife to freeze subjects you need a fair bit of shutter speed, usually something over 1/400 sec anyway. So IS isn't all that needed. You mentioned you also plan on using a tripod most of the time so again you won't need IS. I find for good sharp wildlife photography that you plan on making large images like Super B or maybe a little larger then a tripod is an absolute must. As far as the extenders with Canons you can do the pin tape thing and trick it or go with the cheaper Tamron 1.4 which doesn't report to the camera the change.

I have been very happy with mine. I do plan on adding a Canon 500 f/4 IS L in the future but if a good deal is found ona a 500 f/4.5 L comes along that will do because this going on the tripod for sure.
--
Bill
http://www.pbase.com/slowpokebill
'The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.' Unknown
'Every man dies; but, not every man lives' Braveheart
'Sometime the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't' Little Big Man
 
Your going to find 400mm (640mm 35mm equivalent) is about perfect for big game portrait work and maybe a bit to much if you want to include more of the animals environment.
--
Bill
http://www.pbase.com/slowpokebill
'The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.' Unknown
'Every man dies; but, not every man lives' Braveheart
'Sometime the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't' Little Big Man
 
Even with a 400 + 10D you'll have to get very close to a wild mammal, even a large one (excluding elephants and half tame safari critters) to get a frame filling shot. I enjoy shooting critters and living in Southeast Alaska I have plenty of opportunities to shoot large (bears, deer, sea lions, seals, whales) mammals and small (red squirrels, porcupines, etc.) mammals. I spent all last summer when not at work wandering around with a 300 f/4 IS L + 1.4 TC Canon combo (420mm) and always wanted more reach. Even with the 420 I had to get dangerously close (40-60 feet) to bears to get shots that I could crop into frame fillers. As for smaller mammals, you need to get in their faces with 420mm to get anywhere near frame filling images. For wildlife you should get the longest, fastest lens you can afford or somehow justify. I ended up buying a 500 f/4 IS that my 1.4 TC essentially llives on (700mm). I'd like even more reach but it comes at a weight/money cost that I can't/won't justify or pay. So far this year I haven't been able to tkae the 500 out for any mammal shooting other than seals and sea lions where it worked as expected - too short. I'm looking forward to finding some cranky, hungry bears and early season mountain goats to try the combo out on in a month or two! The 500 works great for birds tho!

Cheers!

Absol
Bill Israel said:
Bill Israel said:
I do a lot of long distance hiking in the Rocky Mountains. I can do
landscapes with the lenses I already own. I am now looking for the
best lens combo for wildlife (mammals). I am willing to carry about
10 lbs in lenses. My current camera is a Canon 10D, hope to upgrade
to full frame one day.

Already own:
17-40 f4 - 1.1 lbs
50 f1.4 - 0.6 lbs
85 f1.8 - 1.0 lbs

1st Option
300 f4 - 2.6 lbs
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a good 420 f5.6.

2nd Option
300 f2.8 - 5.6 lbs The best 300 around!
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a great 420 f4.
2.0 ext - 0.6 lbs This should give me a good 600 f5.6 (?)

I always carry a tripod and use it when I can.

Any comments or experience would be welcome.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Get the longest, fastest lens + TC combo you're willing to carry! You'll find, I'm afraid, that the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC combo will still leave you wanting more reach. The 300 f/2.8 IS + 2 TCs is a viable option as is a used Canon 500 f/4.5 or new sSigma 500 f/4.5 or perhaps a 500 f/4IS + 1.4 TC or even a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 + TCs.

I live and shoot and hike in Southeast Alaska and have a summer's worth of experience with the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC. I was never in a situation where that combo was too long and was nearly always in a situation where it was too short :-) I now own a 500 f/4 IS + 1.4TC combo and altho I've really only been able to use it for eagles so far it's wonderful (but even at 700mm I'd like more reach).

Also, give serious consideration to the benefits of IS if you start buying long glass! Canon's 2nd/3rd generation IS on their big glass (300 f/2.8 and up) works even when the lens/camera are tripod mounted and it's truly wonderful. The IS on the 300 f/4 is 1st generation and only works handheld.

Cheers!
Bill Israel said:
I do a lot of long distance hiking in the Rocky Mountains. I can do
landscapes with the lenses I already own. I am now looking for the
best lens combo for wildlife (mammals). I am willing to carry about
10 lbs in lenses. My current camera is a Canon 10D, hope to upgrade
to full frame one day.

Already own:
17-40 f4 - 1.1 lbs
50 f1.4 - 0.6 lbs
85 f1.8 - 1.0 lbs

1st Option
300 f4 - 2.6 lbs
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a good 420 f5.6.

2nd Option
300 f2.8 - 5.6 lbs The best 300 around!
1.4 ext - 0.5 lbs This would give me a great 420 f4.
2.0 ext - 0.6 lbs This should give me a good 600 f5.6 (?)

I always carry a tripod and use it when I can.

Any comments or experience would be welcome.
Click to expand...
 
The 100-400 is a good all around lens and comes with IS. Really good choice. The 400 5.6 is a nice light weight prime. The 300 F4 IS / non IS is a good choice also and then the Sigma 50-500.

If you dont mind the weight and size of the 300 2.8 it would be a good choice combined with both extenders.

I prefer primes and if you dont mind the 300 2.8 you could also go with a 500 F4 IS which would be the best lens IMHO. Put on a kinesis belt and suspenders and a long lens case on the back and you are all set.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
I already have a Kinesis belt and backpack. I love the belt and holster, but quite frankly I haven't been able to visualize how to carry the larger lenses or more of them in the backpack. Have any photos of your setup?
PalmsWestPhoto said:
The 100-400 is a good all around lens and comes with IS. Really
good choice. The 400 5.6 is a nice light weight prime. The 300 F4
IS / non IS is a good choice also and then the Sigma 50-500.

If you dont mind the weight and size of the 300 2.8 it would be a
good choice combined with both extenders.

I prefer primes and if you dont mind the 300 2.8 you could also go
with a 500 F4 IS which would be the best lens IMHO. Put on a
kinesis belt and suspenders and a long lens case on the back and
you are all set.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
Click to expand...
 
Bob Watt said:
Brian,

Were those staight out of the camera or
processed for sharpness? I agree they look
awfully good.
Click to expand...
All were post-processed except the falcon shot (7672) which is unprocessed but compressed to level 8 JPEG. My post-process is simply leveling plus either 300/0.4/0 USM or edge sharpening (FM CS Pro).

--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top