I agree with everything you mentioned. The 70-200 f/4 lens (I own two of them: Canon f/4L IS and Sony G OSS) is just "barely" satisfactory for wildlife. However, it is a super multi purpose lens. I do all of my dog portraits with that focal length but I don't use it for people portraits as much as I once did. People portraits are now the job of my 85mm f/1.8 (I also own two of these: Canon and Sony versions)...
Thanks so much. I got the gen 1 70-200 2.8 IS (I use 5D M2). I tried shooting thrushes from about 35 feet away. Brown birds in brown bushes, low contrast (not good) in daylight. I think the lens is just too short, like u say. I have the f4 non-IS, same thing, too short. I thought the 2.8 IS might improve? No. Thanks for the video I thought there was something wrong with the 2.8.
Agree I just bought 70-200 for sigma E mount, and you wont have the closest results as an 600 mm objective, event cropping wich gives you 310mm , but it is worth for landscapes and portrait photography, I think this objective is a must in your arsenal though, maybe in the future I would buy a 600 mm
It's okay for the casual photographer when photographing larger wildlife when combined with a crop body and or Tele converter. But 300mm - 400mm for any serious wildlife photography. And 500mm or beyond for small game or birds.
The rule for shooting 1/focal lenght is total bullshit, about 90% of my shots are taken with my 500mm f5.6 prime on a d500 with grip (750mm) and and I shoot mostly around 1/100-1/400s or sometimes down to 1/30s in extremely low light. And that is without my tripod
I use the Nikon AF-P 70-300 (fantastic for the price) and it’s barely enough. For raptors and smaller birds I wish I had more mm. 300mm FX is plenty for birds in their environment and song birds however. I’ve even caught rare warblers at 300mm in the dense redwood canopy. Personally I want 400mm-600mm. That would be plenty. (300mm with Teleconverter with APS-C body)
Hi, great video. Did you use a full frame or crop sensor? Would a 200mm lens work better for wildlife on an APS-C camera? For canon (1.6x) that would effectively give you 320mm. Would the 200mm f/2.8L be a better choice?
I like this lens. bought the IS version. I like the weight and quality it delivers. I had a Sigma 150-500mm some years ago, but that was heavy and took all the spave in my bag. Im gonna buy a camo tent to se ut near lakes for wildlife/bird photo.
Hi there, just ended up on your video and I was wondering if f/4 was ok for you or if f/2.8 would have been more suitable ? I'm about to purchase a new lens and I'm hesitating between the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400 f4.5 and I can't figure out if it really is an issue for wildlife photography or not
You'll have an easier time with the lens that goes up to 400mm. I use a 70-200mm f/2.8 for city wildlife that I post on social media, but I have to crop so much that it wouldn't be suitable for larger formats.
Hello mate, sorry for the late reply, I have been busy lately. I just had a look and the cameras you mentioned in your comment, I had never seen this category with fixed lenses! With 20-1200 I guess it will be perfect for hiking and take pictures of the retina of the birds you come across :D
Thanks for this awesome review, I am sort of in the same shoes as you were. I would like to use this for landscape, cityskapes and birds. Sadly the IS version is so expensive :c and used I could pick this one up for around 300 euros, which is not bad imo. Still thought, wonder if the quirks are too much.
Thank you for the comment mate. Yeah the IS is very expensive and harder to find second hand. The non IS is still a great lens and if you use it on a full frame you should get less noise
dan.gibson.photographer Insta merci pour le commentaire. Ça doit te faire un bon changement de shooter avec une 600m, surtout sur un APS-C! Peut être qu'un jour je me prendrais cet objectif. (Jesus I cannot speak French anymore!)
I agree with everything you mentioned. The 70-200 f/4 lens (I own two of them: Canon f/4L IS and Sony G OSS) is just "barely" satisfactory for wildlife. However, it is a super multi purpose lens. I do all of my dog portraits with that focal length but I don't use it for people portraits as much as I once did. People portraits are now the job of my 85mm f/1.8 (I also own two of these: Canon and Sony versions)...
Yeah the 70-200mm is great for portraits and also landscape photography :)
Thanks so much. I got the gen 1 70-200 2.8 IS (I use 5D M2). I tried shooting thrushes from about 35 feet away. Brown birds in brown bushes, low contrast (not good) in daylight. I think the lens is just too short, like u say. I have the f4 non-IS, same thing, too short. I thought the 2.8 IS might improve? No. Thanks for the video I thought there was something wrong with the 2.8.
You can use teleconverter with 70 200.. And get better pics for nature.. But not in low light situations
Good honest video. Helped me to make a decision!
Agree I just bought 70-200 for sigma E mount, and you wont have the closest results as an 600 mm objective, event cropping wich gives you 310mm , but it is worth for landscapes and portrait photography, I think this objective is a must in your arsenal though, maybe in the future I would buy a 600 mm
Superb images which camera u using
Hi, thanks for the comment. I was using the Canon 80D. I miss this camera.
The World of Pierre Nice ,I have canon 5d mark2
nice thought.
It's okay for the casual photographer when photographing larger wildlife when combined with a crop body and or Tele converter. But 300mm - 400mm for any serious wildlife photography. And 500mm or beyond for small game or birds.
The rule for shooting 1/focal lenght is total bullshit, about 90% of my shots are taken with my 500mm f5.6 prime on a d500 with grip (750mm) and and I shoot mostly around 1/100-1/400s or sometimes down to 1/30s in extremely low light. And that is without my tripod
Always use this lens
Thanks for your honest review! I'll have to keep on saving
Glad I could help mate :)
Do you think this will be good for flower shots or animal footprints?
Yes it will work for flowers, they do not move as quickly as birds, you will be able to lower the shutter speed on a tripod ;)
Great review. Thank you I am getting the refurbished IS version of this lens.
So in MFT its 35-100mm is Good for Safari!
Hello mate, in MFT it is 140mm to 400mm. It is not bad indeed for wild life, especially if your camera has IBIS.
great review, do you think 70-300 could be enough? or is it still the same problem? i am considering buying a cheap 70-300
Hi mate, an extra 100 will definitely help. If you can get a lens with IS that would be even better.
I use the Nikon AF-P 70-300 (fantastic for the price) and it’s barely enough. For raptors and smaller birds I wish I had more mm. 300mm FX is plenty for birds in their environment and song birds however. I’ve even caught rare warblers at 300mm in the dense redwood canopy.
Personally I want 400mm-600mm. That would be plenty. (300mm with Teleconverter with APS-C body)
Please reply i have a 70-300 1:4-5.6 and 70-200 2.8 which one is good for bird photography
Very well explained. Liked it
Thank you mate :)
Hi, great video. Did you use a full frame or crop sensor? Would a 200mm lens work better for wildlife on an APS-C camera? For canon (1.6x) that would effectively give you 320mm. Would the 200mm f/2.8L be a better choice?
Hello mate, thank you for the comment. I used an APS-C camera, the Canon 80D. I found out that 320mm (equivalent) is not enough ;)
Thanks for your honest review ♥
Prasad Balachandran I am glad you enjoyed it :) don't forget to subscribe
It’s a fantastic lens I bought one last month
I like this lens. bought the IS version. I like the weight and quality it delivers. I had a Sigma 150-500mm some years ago, but that was heavy and took all the spave in my bag. Im gonna buy a camo tent to se ut near lakes for wildlife/bird photo.
Thank you for the comment. I should have bought the IS version as well. Camo tent sounds like fun.
Hi there, just ended up on your video and I was wondering if f/4 was ok for you or if f/2.8 would have been more suitable ?
I'm about to purchase a new lens and I'm hesitating between the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400 f4.5 and I can't figure out if it really is an issue for wildlife photography or not
Hello mate, I would get the f/2.8 you still get a lot more light. If you ever need some extra range you can then buy a teleconverter.
You'll have an easier time with the lens that goes up to 400mm. I use a 70-200mm f/2.8 for city wildlife that I post on social media, but I have to crop so much that it wouldn't be suitable for larger formats.
Would this lens work well with a Canon C100 Mark i for wildlife and landscape filmmaking and photography? Great video btw
I got a canon 70-200mm today! but it's not IS.. :(
It's an f.28 though. :) So hopefully that's enough.
hello mate, yes 2.8 will work!!! Lucky you, it is a great lens
What are your thoughts about using something like the Nikon P900 (or similar, Panasonic FZ80, Nikon B700, etc) as a hiking camera?
Hello mate, sorry for the late reply, I have been busy lately. I just had a look and the cameras you mentioned in your comment, I had never seen this category with fixed lenses! With 20-1200 I guess it will be perfect for hiking and take pictures of the retina of the birds you come across :D
Thanks for this awesome review, I am sort of in the same shoes as you were. I would like to use this for landscape, cityskapes and birds. Sadly the IS version is so expensive :c and used I could pick this one up for around 300 euros, which is not bad imo. Still thought, wonder if the quirks are too much.
Thank you for the comment mate. Yeah the IS is very expensive and harder to find second hand. The non IS is still a great lens and if you use it on a full frame you should get less noise
Consider a 300mm f4. (Nikon has a good PF version)
Thank you for the comment. I just moved to Sony. Sony lenses are soooo expensive!!!!
That was helpful. It's too bad because the 70-200 is practical for so many things...
Thank you for the comment, glad I could help someone :)
@0.24 second of your video, it says 70-20mm instead of 70-200mm lol
Oops ;)
F4 is too slow
It is but I cannot afford the 2.8, way too expensive.
Wildlife and especially birding is with a 600mm f/4 lens at its best. A 70-200mm 2.8 I am using on an APS-C in case of closeup shots.
I just got a 70-200mm 2.8 for the intention of wildlife photography. Gonna take it out later today.
J’avais un 70 200 f4 pendant très longtemps et je devais faire avec et maintenant que j’ai accès à 600mm je ressens le plus grand soulagement 🤣🤣🤣
dan.gibson.photographer Insta merci pour le commentaire. Ça doit te faire un bon changement de shooter avec une 600m, surtout sur un APS-C! Peut être qu'un jour je me prendrais cet objectif. (Jesus I cannot speak French anymore!)
Hmm... :(
Thanks for your video though...
Sheikh Ahmad Shah Thanks for the comment! (The only one). I am glad you liked the video. I have a new video about photography coming up on Thursday.