Considering one of the above for wildlife photography (with the addition of extenders). I'd appreciate opinion about either lens and what extender would offer the best results. (I own the older 35-350mm but an extender is incompatible.)
Considering one of the above for wildlife photography (with the addition of extenders). I'd appreciate opinion about either lens and what extender would offer the best results. (I own the older 35-350mm but an extender is incompatible.)
In Africa, I was using a 70-200 2.8 with 2x on a 20d and that was barely acceptable for focal length.
You will lose autofocus with a doubler and those lenses. Not to mention the 100-400 doubled will be physically really long and awkward to control. I would seriously look at the long primes.
You will be at the long end of those zooms for most wildlife shots anyway. For extenders, the 1.4x costs you one stop of light and is really sharp, the 2x costs you two stops and isn't quite as sharp. For at least the 2x it seems to depend a lot on your specific copy, some of them are pretty good, but most seem to cost you a lot of optical quality.
Much depends on which wildlife you are after and their habitat and approachability. For most of my own wildlife excursions, I carry two tele-zooms; a 70-300, and a 200-500. I would agree with those who argue that for the longer focal length, a prime would be superior. If I had the $ today, I would opt for a 600 prime.
Speed and reach are your two challenges. Many wildlife shots are taken in contrasting bright sun and canopy shade - add to that movement and lens speed is necessary. On the other hand, a lot of wildlife won;t let you use your feet beyond a certain point - or, in the case of griz or lions, you don't want to get that close in most situations. Ergo, a really long prime is ideal.
The other issue is stability of a long lens. Practice, a solid tripod, use of a remote, and - if you can - image stabilization lenses are all important.
Taken in heavy canopy, Costa Rican rain forest, at 500 mm ...
[/IMG]
Considering one of the above for wildlife photography (with the addition of extenders). I'd appreciate opinion about either lens and what extender would offer the best results. (I own the older 35-350mm but an extender is incompatible.)
Wildlife photography is by far the most expensive photographic genre. (Well maybe second after some kinds of advanced astro-photography.)
One thing about both the 100-400mm and 28-300mm is that they are push-pull designs. Greater tendency to get dust inside them from all the suction.
I really lust after the Nikkor 200-400mm F4 AF-S VR. Wish Canon would make their own version.
Because its f2.8, you can still use a 2x TC and AF on most any Canon camera.
I've had my 100-400 for about 3 years now. In my experience (and that of others), the "dust-pump" idea is an urban myth - I've never seen noticable dust floating around inside my lens.
Secondly, the pump action isn't an issue in real life. Just think about how much twistage you'd need to perform to get a zoom of 100mm to 400mm. After using it for a short time, you'll find that the push-pull becomes natural. Most of the time, I'll simply lock mine at 400mm.
I've had my 100-400 for about 3 years now. In my experience (and that of others), the "dust-pump" idea is an urban myth - I've never seen noticable dust floating around inside my lens.
Depends on where you shoot- most wildlife doesn't hang out in dusty rooms
My experience with the Canon 100-400 lens is very positive. It is an excellent lens optically, the IS works well, the build is very good, it is a very versatile focal length range and it is affordable. I'll even put my photos where my mouth is; I've been primarily shooting with the 24-105 L IS and the 100-400 L IS for my day-by-day coverage of St. Louis' Forest Park: http://www.forestpark365.com
I use this lens extensively and recommend it unreservedly.
You can see more of what this lens can do in the travel and architectural sections of my web site http://www.edwardcrim.com