I don't think there is a photographer that shoots any sort of wildlife whether as their primary passion or just recreationally that doesn't want more reach. When it comes to wildlife photography, you just can't get close enough. And that is certainly the case for me even though my wildlife shooting is pretty tame compared to a lot of the really great contributors on this site.

To date, my wildlife setup consists of my Canon 70-200 F4L IS which is a very sharp zoom with the added benefit of being relatively compact and pretty light. I'll add the Canon 1.4X telextender to this lens and it gives me a 98-280 F5.6 IS lens with adequate reach and yet a portability that I as a 66-year old guy who's had 5 knee operations really appreciates . But as much as I like this set-up and how it works with my Canon 7D, I've lusted for more reach. And so, with a little time this Fall, I rented the Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS USM to test drive shooting the things I typically shoot both in terms of wildlife, semi-macro, and dog show ring candids -- that latter category being one in which I make my professional living.

The lens arrived on Monday and I immediately went into the back yard to shoot a few of the subjects I typically shoot with my regular setup. Butterflies.



And flowers.



OK, not exactly wildlife but at least parts of the natural environment .

On Thursday, we had a visit from friends and Steve is also an avid photographer so I let him shoot my regular setup and I took the 100-400 and we spent a few hours at Orlando Wetlands Park on the last day it was open for this season. I shot stationary birds like this Tri-Colored Heron.



And this Great Blue Heron.



As well as birds in flight like this Great White Heron.



And this Turkey Vulture.



And toward the end of our visit, we came upon this slithery little critter: a Pygmy Rattlesnake. Sometimes having 400 mm distance between you and your subject is a really good thing .



On Friday, Steve and I visited Leu Botanical Gardens here in Orlando and I was able to capture semi-macro shots of flowers like these roses in their second bloom of the season.





And butterflies like this Monarch.



On Saturday, we drove to Ocala (about an hour from Orlando) to shoot some client dogs showing in the Conformation ring there. This is Cali (GCH Loral's Valley Girl) showing in Best of Breed on her way to winning Best of Breed and 4th place in the Group.



And later, I used the 100-400 to shoot this head & shoulders portrait of Chase (GCH Avatar Summer Storm Chaser RN).



Today, I took the lens out in the yard for one last shoot using it and my 1.4X telextender to create a 140-560 F5.6-8 behemoth. That combination does not autofocus on my 7D (it would on a !D Series body) but at least the IS does work so I tried the combination hand-held. And managed to get these two shots.





I really do not advise the use of the combination hand-held. You have to both hold that lens and focus with your left hand and it's very heavy and kind of unwieldy. Plus, a 560mm lens has a depth of focus that is razor thin and hand-holding gives you very little margin for error. If I ever use that combination again, I'll put it on a very sturdy tripod.

So, what is my conclusion about how that lens will fit my shooting habits? It's a lens that was introduced in 1998 and one of the first IS lenses from Canon. It's still a competent producer of sharp images with good contrast and color. The IS is good for at least 2 stops of hand-holdability. The push/pull zoom action is not as counter-intuitive as you might think and it actually works quite well. And, the bottom line, it can be had for around $1,000 in excellent condition in the used market. To me, it's one of the great values in a quality lens that is built like a battleship and takes pictures as good as any lens in that focal length -- for a zoom. No, it is not as sharp as the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM. Nor does it cost $11,000!! So, yes I'll be getting one. Now to come up with a good business case to convince Linda how it will pay for itself over time. Glad I got those dog show shots on Saturday .

Jim

Beautiful, Jim. Really well written.

James

James,
what is it about us that we always have to second-guess our decisions LOL? After my review of the 100-400L, I began to think about the positives as well as the negatives. And to question whether or not there was an alternative that would give me most of what the Zoom would give me without so much weight. Keep in mind that I shoot almost 100% hand-held so that weight is a major factor in my purchase decision.

So, I decided to test-drive the Canon EF 300 F4L IS. This is also an older lens in the Canon line-up having been introduced in 1997. It has a first generation IS, good for about 2 stops of hand-holdability vs current models that claim 4 stops. It's not small but it is much lighter than the zoom. And, it can take the 1.4 Extender and retain autofocus as a 420mm F5.6 lens.

My first test day was limited to the back yard because of Holiday activities. So I did the best I could to test how it works in the semi-macro stuff I like to shoot both with and without the 1.4 Extender. This shot, of a Cloudless Sulphur, was taken with the extender and from about 30 feet away.



This shot of one of the Candelabra Plants was also taken with the extender from about 15 feet.



And this shot of the woodpile, also with the 1.4 extender, was taken from the other side of the yard.



Compare that with this shot taken without the extender to demonstrate how sharp the lens is at native focal length.



Day two I managed to get out a bit and stopped at a local pond where there were a number of birds hanging out. This is an Anhinga drying its wings. Shot with no extender.



Over at the pasture along which I like to walk the dogs, there were a group of Longhorns milling about. This bull got curious and decided to come over to visit.



This guy managed to look up when I took his picture but wasn't interested in coming over.



And this boy just wanted to pose for me. Very pretty guy.



All three shots were at 300mm.

My conclusion: the lens is sharp enough at normal focal length to not give anything up to the 100-400 and it's actually sharper at 420mm with the extender than the 100-400 at 400mm. It's faster at 300mm (f4.0) than the 100-400 at 300mm (F5.6). It doesn't have the flexibility or versatility of the zoom and it's too long in certain situations like shooting ring candids at dog shows were my 70-200 is ideal. But I'm primarily looking for a wildlife lens and I think it has a lot to offer for basically the same price as the 100-400 zoom. So, now I have a conundrum: which of these two lenses will provide me with the reach, IQ and portability I would like as part of my Wildlife Photography kit. I'll let you know when I finally make up my mind.

Jim

Hey Jim,

I am really - really curious. I also had debated bewteen those two lenses before optimg for the higma 120-300.

James

James,
do you have the OS version of that lens? I've tried to stick with lenses that I'll be able to hand-hold and for me, IS is absolutely necessary at that focal length.

The other issue for me is the price. I can get either of the Canon lenses used in excellent condition for around $1,000. The best used price I've seen on the Sigma OS version is around $2,700. I'd have to see a LOT better IQ out of that lens to spend the extra cash. And it would have to be just as portable as the 300L and the 100-400L. Yes, the F2.8 would be really nice but not all that necessary for the type of shooting I'm planning to do with it. Maybe for fun I should rent it and see how it compares and then post my impressions here. Gives me a great excuse to get it in my hands and see how it works for my wildlife excursions.

I'll let you know what I find out.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Yes, I have the OS version of the lens. It is a very - very - different lens though from the 100-400L or the 300 F2.8. The lens is a monster comparatively...but that is the price of the F2.8 aperture and the relatively long zoom range. I wrote an article about the lens a couple of years back:

http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=37426#Post37426

Without a converter, the focus is super fast. As good or better than my 70-200 F2.8 (1st gen). It is definitely good enough to use a converter with, though focus definitely slows down...the 2x is definitely a bit compromised in low light.

In terms of image quality, the 1.4 shows very little compromise. The 2x is a bit dicier, but I use it regularly and it gets surprisingly good results. For me, the bigger issue is the impact it has on AF speed.

At $2700, the lens is half the price of a 300 F2.8 Canon prime and even less than the 200-400F4. That was where I put my money, and I am very happy with it...but I don't hand-hold frequently with it. I don't have the biceps for it. :P

James

James,
just saw a couple of early reviews of the new Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 VC and it looks like I'll have to rent that guy once the rental places get in some stock and see how it compares. Looks like a lunger in terms of hand-holding but a lens with reasonably good IQ that goes out to 600 mm and has VC is something I need to check out more thoroughly. Look for a review update sometime soon.

Jim

100% agreed. I have also read that it is super sharp. I am hoping I can convince them to send me with one to Yellowstone later this year.

James

. Let me know if they say "yes". I'm thinking that the supplies won't be adequate at the rental places until the end of March but I'll definitely rent one then and test it out. I'm thinking it might be a bit much for hand-holding but only one way to find that out.

Jim