EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Bird and Nature Photography

[7Song]

Hello

I am new to dSLR's and recently purchased a Canon Rebel T3i, and was looking at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS lens. I want to use it mainly for taking photo's of birds and animals. I realize that there are better lenses for this, but I wanted to know if this lens would be adequate for the task. I want solid good photos, but I do not want to carry around a heavy lens and tripod most of the time. And the photos are mainly for myself and friends.
What do you think? Thank you.
--
7Song

 

[Gary S]

Handheld shots with that lens are no problem at all.

But 200mm is not very long for birds & wildlife, unless your talking about animals and birds that are normally close to people anyway. I use 400mm and 600mm (300+2x) for birds and a little wildlife and it's barely enough most of the time.

So it just depends on how close you can get.

 

[Digirame]

I'm sure it must be excellent if you can get close. It makes it more challenging with that shorter maximum focal length. With my old Olympus system, I'm getting 600mm EFL maximum using 10mp. With my new Canon system, I've started out at 400mm EFL maximum using 18mp (until I can afford more lenses with my dual system).

Here's what I could get with some cropping at 400mm EFL with the Canon T2i and the EF-S 55-250mm IS lens.

All three pictures:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=40428942

And one of the three photos:
Canon T2i (550D), 55-250mm IS lens, ISO800, F13, 1/800, 250mm FL (400mm EFL)

 

[kidcharles]

The 70-200 f4 IS is a great light lens but a bit short for birds. It's perfect for tame ducks and geese but not long enough for anything else. If you get a 1.4x teleconverter to go along with it (adding no real amount of weight) you can get up to 280mm which is starting to get more useful. The 70-300 L might be better for you but more expensive and a little heavier.

 

[bronxbombers]

Hello

I am new to dSLR's and recently purchased a Canon Rebel T3i, and was looking at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS lens. I want to use it mainly for taking photo's of birds and animals. I realize that there are better lenses for this, but I wanted to know if this lens would be adequate for the task. I want solid good photos, but I do not want to carry around a heavy lens and tripod most of the time. And the photos are mainly for myself and friends.
What do you think? Thank you.
--
7Song

if you don't want stuff as heavy as 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC or 100-400L then the 70-300L is much better than the 70-200. 70-300 is too short it self but far better than 70-200 for that sort of thing

 

[7Song]

Thank you all for you input. After reading your inputs I'd like to rephrase the question. For someone who wants to take photos of birds and animal life, but doesn't want to travel with a heavy lens (think backpacking) and doesn't need professional quality, what lens would you suggest for Canon T3i rebel.
Thank you
--
7Song

 

[danferrin]

With most birds, even at 300mm I have to do a lot of cropping to get a decent composition. The better quality lens you're using, the better that small image will look once cropped. I have been using the 100-300mm f4.5-5.6, which has resulted in getting photos that wow a lot of my friends and family, but leave me really wanting more reach, better contrast and sharpness, but it has given me a tool to work on developing my skills and technique. Whatever lens I upgrade to, and I hope to upgrade soon, will have to give me at least 400mm reach, whether the 100-400L, the 400L or the 300L f4 with 1.4 extender. And I won't personally be happy with anything other than "L" glass. I don't think it will improve my photography, but will definitely improve my photographs. To get an idea of what I've gotten with this very inexpensive lens, take a look at my zenfolio nature galleries. There is an info button in the top right corner of the images that will let you see the exif information (focal length, image size after cropping, etc). If you want lightweight and are not interested in professional quality, the 100-300 or the 70-300 IS (non L) might be a good starting point. But you will soon want more. And keep in mind that the 70-200L f4 might still be a good choice along with a used 100-300. There will be lots of stuff you might want to shoot other than birds and wildlife.

http://danferrinphotography.zenfolio.com/f340255429

--
My life is a circle of confusion - photography is my meditation.

 

[Peter too]

The 70-200 F4 IS is excellent for wildlife in Zoos and Wildlife Parks and also if you can get up close. For more distant birds I use a 400mm 5.6 which I find light enough to take for 8 mile walks and I am well past retirement age.

Taken at the Hawk Conservancy Trust.





Taken on the Island of Staffa - Puffins like people because they frighten away the Gulls so they get very close.





Red Deer on Mull

 

[Ferdels]

On a limited budget, The Canon 55-250 or the Tamron 70-300 VC, The other Posters are right , you never have enough lens for wildlife.

I have been down this track and ended up with awesome gear thats great if I am in the car or can set up a blind, but a ***** to carry far. if walking a 50D and the Tamron do very well. I got a lot of great shots with the 55-250 too.
Takes a while to learn to get the best out of the longer glass.
Main thing is practice and good field craft.

 

[Gelbvieh]

I have a 450D and it is usually paired with my 70-300mm L. When I go on day tramps I take this combo and my 17-55mm f/2.8 in the new Lowepro Photo Sport 200 AW backpack. This is a fantastic backpack. and my 450D fits in with the 70-300mm attached. I can also get in a bladder or drink bottle, rain gear, food, etc. No problem for me to carry this for 8 hours or more. When wandering about town for the day my 450D and 70-300mm L are mounted on a black rapid strap and I can carry this no problems for 6 or more hours. To put into context I am a moderately fit, middle aged, female.

I looked seriously at the 70-200 f/4 but like you want to shoot wildlife so I went with the 70-300mm L as it is lighter than the 100-400mm, has better IS, and when stored is shorter in length. I am thinking of getting a Kenko 1.4x convertor to go with this. I find the IQ of the 70-300mm L outstanding and so cropping is very feasible. I have never regreted getting the 70-300mm L and wouldn't part with it.

I suggest you have a look at the 70-300mm L and splash out that little bit more on the perfect day pack for camera and tramping/mountain biking. The photo sport 200 ia a proper backpack, very lightweight, heaps of room and the camera compartment can be tightened to protect your gear from movement.

 

[qianp2k]

I love this lens which is relative light/small and very sharp, excellent choice in travelling.







Also excellent in portrait









http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Thank you all for you input. After reading your inputs I'd like to rephrase the question. For someone who wants to take photos of birds and animal life, but doesn't want to travel with a heavy lens (think backpacking) and doesn't need professional quality, what lens would you suggest for Canon T3i rebel.

Same advice here as from some of the others - the 70-300L, regardless of the weight which is actually not too bad in practice.

The problem with all of the lighter (and more affordable) 70-300 class lenses is that they are weakest at the long end and wide open, which is exactly where you will want to use them. Because the 70-300L is very sharp at 300 mm, you can crop images quite heavily if you need to which to some extent compensates for not being quite as long as you might like. And unlike the alternatives you won't need to stop down to f/8 to get a decent image - it's sharp at f/5.6.