Anyone use a 70-200mm f4 L for wildlife?

John Mc

John Mc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
742
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
As the title states, im curious. I want to get into wildlife photography, and i know the lenses to get the best shots are expensive as im aware i'll need a wide aperture and a fairly good IS system.

The 70-200 f4 is going to be the lens i next purchase (unless i have enough to get the 2.8). I Just want to know if it will do me for a few months while i save for a decent Prime (possibly the Ef 300m f4 Is/non Is if its a good price). I'm wanting the Zoom for portraits and landscapes and with it being around £360ish+ S/H, i think i'll be happy with one till i can sell my soul for a 2.8 version.

John

Edit:sorry, Sports aswell(even though i may struggle abit with it only going to f4)
 
I have the i.s version of this lens and it is a good lens. A touch on the short side for bird photography but it can be done this image was taken with it

h87.jpg


This image was taken with the 24-105mm F4 i.s

h33.jpg


The person you need to talk to is u8myufo he is normally found on the Bird forum and nature forums he uses the 70-200mm f4 PM him and blame me he's a really good guy. The longer the better is the rule with bird photography :D normally anyway :D

Regards
Richard
 
I too have 70-200 F4 IS its a great lens but as stated above its a bit short for wildlife, you can add a converter X1.4 to extend the range if required.

70-200 is a good alround lens and I would think it would be even better on a full frame body. On a crop I sometimes wish it was 50> as 70 can me a little long at times.

The F2.8 would be a better match for sports.

My longer term plan is to sell the F4 and get the F2.8 IS MKII but it will be years before I can aford the change.
 
I too have the 70-200/4 IS lens but previous to that I had the non IS version - both versions take a 1.4x tc very well which takes you up to 280mm (448 mm FOV on a 1.6 crop body). For wildlife this lens can be a bit to short unless you can get close to your subjects. Like Richard says, have a look at 'u8myufo' stuff in the bird section, he gets some great stuff with the 70-200/4.
Attached is a shot I took a few months a go with the non IS version and a 1.4x tc attached. Plus a shot I took recently with the IS version.

70-200/4 non IS with 1.4x tc
sardinian1.jpg



70-200/4 IS version
spoonbill1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply's guy's. So from what i've seen from your kind words of wisdom is, it's possible, just not the best lens for the job, which is what i wanted to know basically :)

Does the lens still auto focus with a 1.4 Tc on it though?(im aware it would be slower if it does) I also particularly love how sharp the lens is with using one.

I'm going to drop a Pm in a little bit to u8myufo and ask his opinion on the lens. Thanks for the responces :)
 
John Mc said:
Does the lens still auto focus with a 1.4 Tc on it though?(im aware it would be slower if it does) I also particularly love how sharp the lens is with using one.
Click to expand...
Its a f4 lens so a 1.4tc takes you up to f5.6 so no problems with AF on and Canon body. The AF slows a tad but is still very snappy (on the 7D and 40D anyway).
 
Let's be honest, if wildlife includes birding, 200mm is hopeless unless you can get very close, ie you're in a hide, or photographing large, tame birds.

Check the birding forum and see what those guys are using - 400/500/600mm, plus extenders.
 
If you want to see the good stuff that can be done with a 70-200mm F4 and a 1.4x have a look for posts by u8myufo in the birds forum. He uses that combination exclusively and gets exceptional results.
 
HoppyUK said:
Let's be honest, if wildlife includes birding, 200mm is hopeless unless you can get very close, ie you're in a hide, or photographing large, tame birds.

Check the birding forum and see what those guys are using - 400/500/600mm, plus extenders.
Click to expand...
My Sardinian Warbler shot above was not from a hide nor was it a tame or large bird ;) but I know what you mean, Whatever you have for birds it will never be enough. 400mm is reckoned to be the minimum, when I moved from a 400/5.6 to 600mm (300/2.8 + 2x) it made an enormous difference to the number of birds that came within range. Mind you I never shoot from a hide or managed reserve.
I have now sold my 300/2.8 and am back to 280mm max - It certainly teaches you about field craft and how to get nearer :shrug:
 
RichardtheSane said:
If you want to see the good stuff that can be done with a 70-200mm F4 and a 1.4x have a look for posts by u8myufo in the birds forum. He uses that combination exclusively and gets exceptional results.
Click to expand...
That has already been mentioned twice above your post Richard.
 
Last edited:
I contacted u8myufo and he explained why he was using this set up, which was understandable, sent me a few photos of other things and I'm pretty happy with the quality of the lens+tc. I know a prime would be better for wildlife and aswell as motorsport ect. But I can't find the money at the moment for both as I'd be using the zoom for portraits and landscapes aswell as sports and wildlife shots. The downside is now I have to get my old man's camo uniform out the loft if I want to get close to an animal!
 
This is a great lens for large mammal photography. I used my non IS frequently when on Holiday in Southern Africa, but I usually find it too short for bird photography.

(I would have attached a shot here, but I'm new to this forum and can't find out how?)
Cheers


Martyn
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top