View Full Version : Long lens for wildlife - Your thoughts and reviews !!??


Mat Thompson
October 29th, 2007, 10:20 AM
Hi guys

I'm interested in pooling some of the experience out there on the long lens set ups you use for wildlife tele work. I have the XL2 and I've used 2 different 100-300 lens with it. I have gone for zooms because it gives great flexibility along side the stock 20x lens and takes me from wide all the way to over 2000mm equiv.

The Canon 100-300 F4.5-5.6 USM was my first stop. Its small size makes it very easy to carry and its pretty cheap to buy. However I was only to aware that the optics were a big quality drop in anything but the best light and focusing the thing was really tricky with the tiny ring and high mag factor.

So I moved to the Sigma 100-300 F4 (non-dg) Great step forward, waaay sharper and easier to focus with a huge manual collar. It is quite heavy but worth the weight. I have noticed that the sharpness falls off at 250mm+ although in really good light this could be helped by closing it down a bit. I have to say though although this is a £600 lens I still don't think the image quality is as good as the stock x20....especially not at the long end.

I also have a Canon 50mm F2.5 macro - This really does rock with enough light. As good an image quality as the stock lens in my opinion.

I'd be really interested in all your views on the lenses you use, especially at the long end. If anyone has used the 100-300 sigma DG and the non-DG then please let me know if you think the coating upgrade is worth while??

Per Johan Naesje
October 30th, 2007, 03:18 AM
Hi Mat,
I'm afraid I can not help you about the 100-300mm Sigma, but I think it has been discussed here earlier... maybe take a search?

Anyway, my opinion is that prime lenses is a bit sharper than zooms, at least in the telephotend. And of course brighter lenses like f2.8 are better than f4.5-5.6, but I think you are aware of this.

My arsenal of ef-lenses consist of the following:
- Canon 70-200mm f2.8
- Canon 300mm f4.0
- Canon 500mm f4.0
- Sigma 150mm macro 1:1 f2.8

As you see mostly prime lenses. The pros of the primes is IMHO that they gives a better and sharper pictures, cons is that they don't allow you to change the segment of the picture without swap lenses!

I'm doing some shooting from hides/blindes where primes are very suitable. You can put the bait/carcass in a perfect distance for your prefered prime lens.
On the other hand shooting birds can be real difficult with prime lenses, cause birds change position real quick, here a zoom lens will be more suitable.

It's important to note that anything beyond 2000mm is difficult to handle, if you want good footage. So I think zoom lenses in 100-300mm area will be the best alternative.

For me a 100-300mm zoom will also be interesting to consider. So I also hope that someone will chime in for some interesting reviews!

Mat Thompson
October 30th, 2007, 04:25 AM
Hi Per
Wow you have some selection there. I bet that 300 F4 is pretty sweet but as you say it just doesn't have the multi-functionality that I need my long lens to have.

I'd be interested on your views on that 70-200 2.8 ?? Have you used it with a 1.4x. That would give 280mm@F4 would it not? But still have the increased aperture used stand alone....hhmmm

I have to say I've also wondered about the ef adapters extra glass and to whether using Nikon lenses and a glassless adapter wouldn't give sharper results....anyone tried both?

Yeah I'm hoping this thread will provide a good place to swap lens reviews....so come on people!!!

Markus Nord
October 30th, 2007, 05:01 AM
Hi Mat and Per...

I just got a EF 50-200 f3.5-4.5 L lens. It is and old (1989) L lens but still sharp as a knife. I have just tried it out once, but the image came out so clean and that was in full zoom. And the price was low... I could recomend this lens any day, try look for some old L lenses on ebay or sites like that.

Cheers brothers...

Markus Nord

Per Johan Naesje
October 30th, 2007, 05:25 AM
I'd be interested on your views on that 70-200 2.8 ?? Have you used it with a 1.4x. That would give 280mm@F4 would it not? But still have the increased aperture used stand alone....hhmmm

I'm quite satisfied with it, albeit in cold weather there can be some struggeling to get proper focus, the ring is very tiny compared to huge lenses.
One other important thing is to find what aperture brings the sharpest picture. Among +/- f8.0 is the best area for my 70-200. I will say that it's quite sharp all the way to 200mm.
I have not tried it with 1.4 extender, I will make some tries and report back.

One other thing a found using ef-lenses is that they transfer the light into the mirror/ccd in the camcorder in different ways compared to the stock 20x. Often I get a greener pictures with ef-lenses with the same preset. I have been struggeling a lot to tune my presets to adjust for this. To make it even more confusing different ef-lenses seem to vary in how much difference in color you get!!

Hi Mat and Per...

I just got a EF 50-200 f3.5-4.5 L lens. It is and old (1989) L lens but still sharp as a knife. I have just tried it out once, but the image came out so clean and that was in full zoom. And the price was low... I could recomend this lens any day, try look for some old L lenses on ebay or sites like that.

Cheers brothers...

Markus Nord
Interesting to know Markus. By the way what camcorder did you use, the Canon XL-series?

Mat Thompson
October 30th, 2007, 06:31 AM
Per- Thats very interesting about the greens and general colour differences. I always end up pulling down my greens in post when I've used my EF lens. I have been meaning to spend some time playing with my presets....I think you've spured me into a preset session this afternoon !! Small focus ring -Yeah as I said a small focus ring can be a real pain at these focal lengths, I constantly missed focus on the canon 100-300 I had because of the tiny amount of ajustment between 'sweet' and 'doh!'

Markus- Just the sort of heads up I was hoping this thread would produce. I will have a read about this lens. Do you use it through the EF adapter?

Markus Nord
October 30th, 2007, 06:44 AM
Helloooo...

I use XL2 (and ofcourse the ef adapter). The pricetag was low becouse of the slow autofocus and the age, but neither of that makes any different for us. The lens got a “pull zoom” so you can quick change between 50-200.

edit:
I have not notes any greenish colour yet, but I will check this later.

Paul Mailath
December 22nd, 2007, 05:56 AM
Among +/- f8.0 is the best area for my 70-200. I will say that it's quite sharp all the way to 200mm.
I have not tried it with 1.4 extender, I will make some tries and report back.

Hi Per Johan

How dod you go with the 1.4 extender?

I have a sigma 70-200 2.8 series 1 to use on the Extreme (I want to shoot some surfing footage) and I'm wondering about a 1.4 or 2x extender - that should give me a 400mm 5.6

Lauri Kettunen
December 22nd, 2007, 10:07 AM
I'd be interested on your views on that 70-200 2.8 ?? Have you used it with a 1.4x.

Well, if you add the extender between the lens and EF-adapter the camera functions but the image is rather poor.

Meryem Ersoz
December 22nd, 2007, 04:06 PM
woopsy, double post...

Meryem Ersoz
December 22nd, 2007, 04:07 PM
i haven't had good luck combining extenders and long lenses for video either. the only time the image doesn't suffer is with something super-fast, like the 200mm 1.8 prime. baddest lens canon ever made....

how about the bigma 50-500mm? i was on the verge of buying one but sold my XL2 to make room for a RED...it's not that expensive, either. i have not used one for video, but maybe someone else has. i'd be interested to hear if anyone has...

i have a 70-200mm 2.8 and the 400mm prime and just found it way to hard to get things in the viewfinder with the prime. it was actually easier to use the sigma 300-800mm zoom, but it's not mobile at all. not at all.

i miss my long lenses, once you start seeing the world through the long bombs, it is hard to go back....

Don DesJardin
December 22nd, 2007, 04:45 PM
I'm currently using an old manual Nikon mount Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 coupled with a Nikon TC14A (1.4x) between the lens and the Canon to Nikon adapter with the XL H1, and with very good results. Both the lens and TC are very sharp. I try and stay between f11 and f5.6, and found that f8+/- 1/2 stop give the best quality. With this combination, it gives me ~2000mm at the big end, which in most cases works well. I have a Canon EF adapter, but at the moment I don't have any Canon lenses to use.

Attached are 4 frame grabs show how this combination works in different situations. The fly is at ~5 feet, the hummingbird at ~8 feet, the woodpecker at ~25 feet, and the surfer at ~250 feet. The surf video grab isn't that great, because I was shooting at 1/60th and everything was moving very fast, the surf, the surfer, and the pan. Also, these grabs were from down converted footage. All of these were 3/4 to near full zoom, since when I go to full zoom, I tend to pull it back just a tad.

Paul Mailath
December 22nd, 2007, 09:19 PM
how about the bigma 50-500mm?

Ha Ha great name! - It's certainly looks the money but I'd be hanging it off the Lex adapter with no way of adjusting aperture.

Bob Thompson
December 23rd, 2007, 07:13 AM
Well I may have the oldest lens but it is pin sharp and the focus as smooth as silk, it also doesn't seem to have any color shift. Its a Canon 300mm f2.8 FD lens. I use it with a Les Bosher adaptor on a Canon XL2 and with other adaptors on a Sony 600 SP Betacam and a Arriflex 16SR2 film camera.

The lens is an Optex (yes they no longer exist) modified mount. The lens also has a 2x extender but quality does drop off

Bob

Bob Hart
December 23rd, 2007, 08:28 PM
Meryam and Paul.

If you go here

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DARANGULAFILM

and look for the clips "Tiger Balm" and "35 versus 300", both of these were shot with the Sigma 50mm-500mm but through a home-made AGUS35 35mm adaptor into a Sony HVR-Z1P.

The relay for "Tiger Balm" was aerial image ie., groundglass removed and "35 versus 300" was shot with the groundglass in place.

Neither is a fair representation of the lens's resolution when shooting direct-to-camera as you would with the XL camera family as there are anything up to 12 extra pieces of glass in the path by the time you count in the in-camera lens of the Sony and the necessary relay dioptre.

The lens seems less sharp by the time you put a doubler on it. By this time you have haze and other atmospherics at play, so my assessment is not a fair one as I have not shot closer subjects with the combination.

For its available focal lengths, this lens is quite compact, a plus if you are carting it around on foot. The trade-off is a varying aperture of f4 to f6.3. As a stills lens this is not as critical as with video.

There was a favourable report on this lens by a sports shooter awhile back on a stills forum. I don't know where this is now.

He bought one in an emergency circumstance on an assignment - he had left his Canon behind where he had placed it where he wouldn't forget it packing up the day before.

This moving groups in this lens unfortunately are not sealed from the environment as effectively as the physically larger Canons and Nikons. The zoom function physically extends the front element far forward of the main body.

The junction, though a close fit is over a matte finish so the effectiveness of the seal in drizzly weather would be questionable.

This extension attribute has caused a rather unkind rude nickname to be coined for this lens. So if pose value alone is what you are looking for, you may not find it. This lens is pure workhorse, available in any colour you like as long as it is black. The extension occurs outboard of supporting bearing surfaces so the action can be quite stiff to operate until the lens settles down with use.

The rearmost element also travels forward in the zoom function. There is no seal, so chances are any dust in the front of your camera body may get sucked into the lens, or blown back onto the sensor window. Normal best practice cleanliness next to godliness and common sense are required.

Those caveats aside, I am pleased with what I have. There are areas of vignette and corner brightness falloff in my YouTube images. These are attributable to my home-made adaptor.

Per Johan Naesje
December 24th, 2007, 04:58 AM
Here's a sample from yesterday. Was out shooting the moon who was almost full this evening.
There are 3 sequences, first and last is with Canon 300mm f4.0, aperture at f11.
The middle sequence is shoot with the 20x HD lens at full telephotoend, aperture 8.6.
Camcorder Canon XLH1 at 1080i50, 1/50, gain -3. The sequences is of an average length of 10 minutes each and speeded in post.

In the clear and cold weather I have just a few miles from Oslo and a little higher up, it's amazing to view how sharp the moon surface is, even with the 300mm ~ 2160mm 35mm equivalent!

This short sample also show how much more photographic enlargement (details of the moon surface) you get using ef-lenses compared with the stock lens.
My advise will be to use an adequate ef-lens instead of any 1.4/2.0 extender toghether with the stock lens. My opinion is that extenders soften the image more than ef-lenses.

Link to the sample:
http://www.video-film.no/snutter/fullmoon.wmv (11.4 MB) Please download before viewing!
Sorry only wmv available this time!

Dale Guthormsen
December 24th, 2007, 02:16 PM
Good Afternoon,

No mention of the canon 100-400. I( purchased this lens and have been very satisfied with it on my xl2. No it is not as sharp as a prime, Zooms never are.

However, I shoot mostly birds and a zoom offers the flexability of easier composition and the ability to find the subject more readily without an exterior sight.

Truth be known: the 100 to 400 is at its very best up to about 325mm. I shot plenty at 400 and I would like it to be a tad crisper to be honest.

Seldom do I really need the full 3000 mm reach of the 400. also keeping it dead steady is no easy feat and it also requires a rail of some sort and a heavy duty tripod. ( I got an older f series miller head on a manfrotto 525 set of legs, it works but i still need to be careful!)

An aquaintence has the big mama 50 to 500 sigma. He sold his canon and swears the sigma is clearer. I have not had it beside mine to compare, but, but I trust his opinion.

FD lenses. I have a non lens adapter for canop fd lenses. I have several of them. It was using these lenses that led me to purchase the ef adapter and move onto the L series lenses. It was not that they were poor, but rather i know that the L series lense offer more quality and who would not go there if the funds arre avai9lable.

Willard Hill
December 25th, 2007, 12:10 AM
Dale,
The 100-400mm was my favorite on the XL-1s, but its lack of sharpness at 400mm really shows on the XL-H1, so I have quit using it for the time being.

My current favorite is the 70-200mm f2.8L, but it is obviously somewhat lacking in power by comparison. I have been using the 300mmF4 and 500mmF4 for long shots, but the 500mmF4 is too bulky and there is the fixed power issue with both. The 300mmF4 is better than the 100-400 at full zoom, but it is not in the league of the normal lens or the 70-200mm. In fact I don't think any of the EOS telephotos equal the normal XL-h1 lens, or at least they don't beat it.

I have found that some judicious tweaking of levels and sharpness in post can make many lackluster shots with the big lenses look better. My brother currently has my 100-400. I quit using it in the spring and have not edited much of the footage shot before that time yet, so I am not certain if this will improve it greatly at full zoom or not.

Dale Guthormsen
December 26th, 2007, 12:47 PM
Will,

Curiously, is the h1 still substantially better with the 100-400 than the xl2 is with the 100-400??

Also, can an xl2 adapter for my fd lenses go onto the h1??

Eric Gulbransen
December 26th, 2007, 04:07 PM
I've recently joined the world of far reaching video, and like Meryem suggests, I don't expect I'll ever not want more..

It seems there are a lot of setups using the XL--- series Canon cameras. I'm setting up a JVC and while I'm completely new to all this (haven't played with color settings, detail, etc. etc. - YET) I do have a couple of raw Moon frame grabs to show at least the minimum of what this combination can produce.

Interestingly, Per, I believe we both shot the very same moon on the very same night. Must be a Norwegian thing...

Half Moon - Nikon 80-200 ED @ 200mm (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/Moon3.jpg)

Full Moon - Nikon 300 ED @ 300mm (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/moon12-24-07.jpg)

Sunrise - Nikon 28-80 ED @ 28mm (http://www.gotagteam.com/HD200_Zork/orangecrush.jpg)

Willard Hill
December 26th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Dale,

"Curiously, is the h1 still substantially better with the 100-400 than the xl2 is with the 100-400??"

I can't give a certain answer as I used the XL-1s, but the h1 is substantially better than the XL-1s at somewhat less than full zoom. It has that blistering high definition look, but at some point it loses it and from then on looks like very good standard definition. I would guess that 300mm or slightly more is the point where it changes from the high definition look. My lens is on loan to my brother so I can't test it at the moment, but I intend to pursue this further when I get it back and come up with a better answer.

"Also, can an xl2 adapter for my fd lenses go onto the h1??"

Again I don't know from personal experience, but I am almost certain it would as the EF adapter works exactly the same way on either camera.

I bought the H1 very reluctantly because of the high price in relation to the xl-1s and xl-2. I do this as a hobby but I must say I have never been sorry. The footage from this camera is simply stunning when shot right. It s' main downfall other than price is the difficulty in focusing it accurately with the big lenses as the color viewfinder is hard to use. I use the fu-1000 b&w finder in cold weather to eliminate the strobing and smear and find that it is easier to focus. A slight miss in focus is much more disastrous in high def. than in standard def. It takes very little error to degrade the image.

Dale Guthormsen
December 27th, 2007, 08:25 AM
Will,

thanks for the response!!

Heck I have enough trouble focusing my gl2 and xl2, particularly on flying birds!

maybe i will buy a 30 foot sailboat instead of an H1!!!!

Willard Hill
December 27th, 2007, 08:11 PM
Dale,

The sailboat would probably cause you less problems and it should have good resale value years from now!

I am not good at shooting flying birds and I miss focus quite a bit on rapidly moving big game animals, but all in all I end up with quite a bit of good footage.

It definitely was simpler and cheaper in the old XL-1s days.

Visit my wildlife blog at: http://pawildlifephotographer.blogspot.com/

Tony Davies-Patrick
January 15th, 2008, 05:39 AM
Even though I do own a number of SLR/DSLR zoom lenses and both 1.4 X & 1.6 X converters, I rarely use them for video.

My most-used lenses for video tend to be the Canon AF 3X zoom; the Red Eye .5 & .7 X Wide adapters; the Canon AF 20X IS zoom; the Nikon Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 IF-ED/N, and the Nikon Nikkor 600mm f/5.6 IF-ED.

Eric Gulbransen
January 15th, 2008, 10:28 AM
Incredible photos Tony. Just incredible.

Is there a sample you can show of your 600mm in video action? And what's the story with the guy walking off the cliff?

Tony Davies-Patrick
January 15th, 2008, 10:56 AM
Thank you for the kind remarks, Eric.

The 'cliff-jump' was taken in a deep canyon off-shoot section of the mighty Zambezi River gorge near the borders between Zimbabwe and Zambia. It is the world's highest "free-Jump" and you literally throw yourself straight off the cliff face!
I was strapped to a harness and rope hanging off the edge off the cliff face to make the shots.
This was part of a 4-month tour of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Namibia and South Africa using 4WD, dug-out canoes, Microlights, Rafts etc to obtain photos for my worldwide magazine feature articles and my latest book - Globetrotter's Quest.

I'll be flying out to South Africa again next month, this time to not only take more stills shots, but also to make a new major film for the DVD series.

I don't have any footage on my four main websites, but do have some taken with the 600mm in my previous two double DVDs in the GlobetrotterWorld series.

The long Nikkors will be used quite lot in Africa, especially for wildlife, big-moons and giant-sunsets etc.

The biggest problem with the 600mm is cutting through rippling heat waves during warm weather, and in this respect the 300mm is far easier to use. However, the 600mm does allow me to get in tight to wildlife that is too far off my position, especially when filming across water.
The resulting 4500mm lens on the XL2 takes practice and patience to get stable footage...but sometimes those short clips sectioned into the main film footage can be awesome and lift the content to a higher level.

Eric Gulbransen
January 15th, 2008, 11:07 AM
I agree Tony, lots of "stuff" in the way when you're shooting through half a mile of air. Moisture, heat, etc. I struggle with this while shooting surfers here at the Pacific shore. Very rare for it to be crystal clear conditions. That's what I was most curious about with respect to your 600mm. That thing must see plaque on a water buffalo's teeth from a quarter mile..

Still though, I'm with you. Once you peer through good long glass there's no turning back.

Sassi Haham
March 30th, 2008, 05:30 AM
Hi Mat, guys.

I have experience with only two lenses, sigma 50-500 EX nikon fit ant canon 500/4.5 L non EF.
I use them a lot to shoot birds for the last two years (xl1s and xl2).
I was reluctant a bit to post because I don't have an answer to the question "which lens best for nature..." , actually , if I had to pick up one lens I would opt for sigma 100-300/4 EX that you own and use.

Any lens to choose from should have enough optical quality and good focusing ability , focusing should be tight and smooth with a long turn of the focusing wheel.

There are those lenses that can be attached to the camera without additional support. Few zooms (lower quality usually) that don't fit the bill, or 200mm prime lenses.
I once considered the sigma apo 70-300 but didn't even check image quality because focusing was rough, maybe someone have tried new nikon 70-300 vr ?
Any lens that fit this category would be valuable because you can very easily swap this lens with the stock lens.

The other bunch of lenses must have some kind of support.
I think that zooms wins hands down because of the nature of the media and the subject (be ready for the unexpected).
There are some instances that a prime lens can be useful as a second lens.

On the film era two of the converted slr lenses to be used for nature films where Canon 50-300/4.5 L (1.8kg) and 150-600/5.6 L (3.5kg).
Current lenses to be considered (longer than 200mm), are:
Canon 100-400 L
Sigma EX 100-300/4
Sigma EX 50-500
and I think there is also a 200-400/4 from nikon.

Never used the Canon 100-400 L ,but I am sure it is the most popular for the task. It is a push pull zoom that can deliver great results but suffers from sample variation problem.

Sigma 100-300/4 according to reviews on slr lens tests has great IQ one that rivals prime lenses at that range and works great even with TC, never used that one either.

The Sigma 50-500 EX is a lens I used a lot for almost two years it has some good qualities for the task ,but only yesterday I compared its resolution to the Canon 500/4.5 L.
The focusing on this lens is great better even than the prime, perfect for follow focus. Contrast is also great, and CA non existent.
As for resolution (my own non scientific tests) shows that on the best apertures this lens loose nothing to the prime lens on all focal lengths up to 420mm. On 480mm (I think it is the true maximum focal length) quality drops considerably. (nonetheless I like the canon image better)
Overall good performer and if you go only up to 420mm a very good alternative.

The canon 500/4.5 is great lens. One obvious advantage over the zoom lens is that it performs better on windy conditions.
adding a 1.4XTC (700mm) the lens loose some of the crispness but is still very sharp and much better than the Sigma 50-500 EX on the 500mm end.

Hope that helps the discussion .

To get the most out of your lens, be sure (I am sure that you know this) to stable the camera-lens combo perfectly on the tripod and get yourself a good sighting device.
As mentioned on previous posts I think focusing is a pitfall.

Last. Yesterday I spent an hour on testing the equipment (I think it was well spent), I found that if I have done this test from the beginning some of my past footage would have been better.
I actually found which aperture gave better IQ on each focal length, I thought that there is a difference between consecutive apertures but not so pronounced. This is a diffraction issue an its behavior is different than on slr cameras!!
Few observations...
On both lenses f11 was unacceptable, 420mm on the sigma gave excellent performance on f/8 but was terrible on f/5.6 or f/11 and the Canon 700mm performance best on f/11 f/22.

Attachments
Yellowhammer - Canon 500mm f8
Teal - canon 700mm f8
20$bill - canon 500 f/5.6 20m away

Sassi

Mat Thompson
March 30th, 2008, 10:05 AM
Very interesting reading sassi !! Many thanks for this. I have to say I do think the 100-300/f4 is a great lens although I do try and back off from the last 30mm as the image does seem to degrade there as well !

Per Johan Naesje
March 30th, 2008, 03:01 PM
...and the Canon 700mm performance best on f/11 f/22.
Sassi,
thanks for your excellent review about your lenses! Are you sure about your findings regarding what I have quoted here?
Even if you use a 1.4 extender how could such a small aperture be the best!? My findings regarding the 500mm f4.5 is that it is sharpest between f7.3-f11.

Also to maintain the best and sharpest aera, I've using different grades of ND's. Shutter speed normally is 1/50 (PAL), so ND is very important to adjust the amount of light to hit the ccd. ND 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 is my most used set for the ef-lenses.

Steve Siegel
March 30th, 2008, 03:24 PM
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Canon 70-300mm f /4.5-5.6. It is lightweight, costs less than half as much as Canon's 100-400, and (to my eyes, at least) is tack-sharp if you stay below f /11.
One problem with shooting birds these days with the really high-power zooms (300 and up) is that the horizontal format of a 16:9 screen forces you to back off top zoom if you want to get the whole bird, sitting in a sort of upright posture. Thus the practical difference between 300 and 400 mm becomes less important than it used to be shooting for a 4:3 screen.

Mat Thompson
March 30th, 2008, 04:21 PM
Steve. F11 !! Oh if only I lived somewhere I could get an aperture like that, in the UK, fast glass in needed oh too often! I had the 100-300 Canon (F4.5-5.6) and while it was very portable the focus ring was very tricky and when you put it side by side with the simga F4...well its obvious what all that extra glass get you.