I've scoured over tons of reviews, sites, forums, etc., discussing these lenses, but no one really seems to use them in situations that we as hunters tend to use them in. I'm looking to add a telephoto of some sort to my collection before hunting season, and I still can't decide. I know Ohiobuck over on AT loves his 300F4 for wildlife, and I like the idea of shooting a prime since they are sharper than variable focal length lenses 99% of the time. Plus with a 1.4x TC, it gets me above 400mm without losing AF. The 100-400 is tried and true, but old. I'm not a huge fan of the slowness and the push pull style. The 70-200F2.8 is a stellar lens that falls a little short for wildlife, but it's nice because I could also use this indoors when I'm not hunting (more uses outside of just hunting). I know a few here are shooting the 100-400, and I think one or two of your are shooting 70-200s, so I was wondering what everyone's experiences were (especially in low lighting that we often encounter).
I love my Canon Rebel and am really just learning how to use it so I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! LOL I just use my 75-300 lens almost all the time outdoors!
Never used anything over my 70-200mm2.8, put if I were to get a telephoto for strictly wildlife, I'd go with a 300mm for sharper photos and, with your TC, a little further reach. But that's just me. You're right about the 70-200mm. It just BARELY isn't enough for wildlife photos. Then again, I did buy mine for just wildlife. I use it for portraits, indoors, and a for a lot of filming as well. It's pretty versatile. Below are a couple shots I captured a couple weeks ago. The first pic the deer was about 40 yards or so and it was shot at 200mm. The second the deer were about 30 yards away and shot at 200mm as well.
Yeah I could see where having the extra 100-200mm would be nice in these situations. Btw, great captures, and I like the colors in both. That 70-200 is tempting though just from a pure versatility standpoint. I'm hunting way more than I would be photographing, and the 300, while I think would be my pick over the 100-400, still can't be used as much as the 70-200. If only it were possible for a 70-500mmf2.8 to exist...and it was under $2k:D
You mean you can't afford this? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732109-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html
I've rented both the 70-200 and the 100-400. I got them for drives in the evening and snaping some pictures. I found 400 really isn't even "enough". I was ALWAYS shooting at 400. I shot the below picture at like 10 yards, at 400. I'll get the 70-200 sometime - just because the 2.8 is freaking awesome. The 400 is a little slow, but that's to be expected, I think. The push pull wasn't too bad for me.
