Hiring a lens to take to the zoo

B

bombfrog

Suspended / Banned
Messages
190
Edit My Images
Yes
I've decided to try hiring a long canon lens before buying one (I currently only have a 17-50mm) and have decided a trip to the zoo will be great practice for when I go away to America next year. I may end up hiring two and seeing what the difference is but I'd like to know which of these would be the best to try out first on a trip to Woburn Safari Park or maybe Whipsnade.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L


or maybe I'll need something longer?

Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5/5.6L USM Image Stabilized
 
Am not familiar with Woburn so do not know the lengths required but...

In my bag at the mo I have both the 100-400 and the 70-200 f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 is an absolute monster of a lens and noticably better than the 100-400mm.

The 100-400 is a great lens but the 2.8 is stunning...
 
Cheers Nissan Man. Maybe I'll have to hire them both. It certainly sounds like if the reach is good enough then I'd be better off with the 2.8 but I won't know that until I try using it.
 
If you really are thinking of hiring two lenses then I would suggest a 300 f/4 IS instead of the 100-400. You lose a bit at the long end but the fact you will have a 70-200 will mean the loss at the short end won't be an issue.
 
Amp34 said:
If you really are thinking of hiring two lenses then I would suggest a 300 f/4 IS instead of the 100-400. You lose a bit at the long end but the fact you will have a 70-200 will mean the loss at the short end won't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I was unclear. Although I'm thinking of hiring both for comparison, I'm only going to end up buying one of them so I don't think I'll end up buying a prime.
 
Tough one - I found the walking around & monkey section perfect with a 70-200. But the other bits 300/420mm would be nice.

I guess since your on crop you could use a 70-200 the whole way around.
 
bombfrog said:
Sorry, I think I was unclear. Although I'm thinking of hiring both for comparison, I'm only going to end up buying one of them so I don't think I'll end up buying a prime.
Click to expand...

Oops, I missed the bit where you were saying buy one...:cuckoo::lol:
 
I have the 70-200 f4 non IS and the 100-400. If I was walking around town I'd take the 70-200 with me as it's about the focal lengh i like, but mainly because it's lighter and f4.

I only really ever take the 100-400 for shooting wildlife, so dependant on what you are planning for your trip.....70-200 f2.8 will be about the same weight as the 100-400 I think.

Personally unless you need to 300-400 I'd go for the 70-200 f4 IS (never used the 2.8 though, but it's too heavy for me to lug around).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top