I want to start some serious wildlife photography, but funds are a bit limited.
Question is, which setup would you recommend?..
Canon EOS 7D + 300mm f/2.8 IS
or
Canon EOS 1D Mark IV + 300mm f/4.0 IS
I already have the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, I am not sure if I should keep that and add a 300mm f/2.8 IS to that. I am aware of the lower fps and limited AF.
What do you use your 5D II for? If you intend to do a lot of landscape, portrait, architecture type work then definitely keep it. If you want to mainly concentrate on wildlife then you could sell the 5D II to help fund an alternate kit.
The best entry level high quality option I can recommend with maximum flexibility would be 7D + 100-400L IS. The 100-400L has excellent IQ, a very short mfd and decent AF. I believe 400mm is the minimum FL for serious wildlife work. This would keep your cost to around $3K and give you and excellent startup kit. The alternate lens that has the IQ and fast AF is the 400 f/5.6L, which is a bit cheaper than the zoom. IQ is a tad better, but AF is a fair bit faster for action work. But it's much more specialised.
The next step up from this is going to be much dearer and you are looking at the superteles. I can vouch for the fact the 300 f/2.8L IS work extremely well with both a 1.4x TC and 2x TC, so gives you up to 600mm of FL and coupled with the 7D you will have some very good reach. I used the 300 + 2x for a couple of years on a 1D II and was very happy with the results. Now I use the 7D + 300 + 1.4x quite frequently for birding as it's still got very fast AF and is quite easy to hand hold for extended periods for BIF's.
The 1D IV is obviously a step up from the 7D but I'd recommend putting more money on the glass. A 7D + 300 f/2.8 will IMO do a better job than a 1D IV + 300 f/4 and the f/2.8 lens trashes the slower lens when you start adding TC's to the equation.
The third option if you sell the 5D II would be to replace the 300 f/2.8 option with a 500 f/4L IS.
The 300mm f2.8IS lens w & w/out converters is an amazing lens. This is a great way to start your wildlife kit, & the lens should outlive your current & future bodies. Buy the lens w/ a 1.4x & pair it w/ a 7D or 1DmkIIn & practice! You'll love what you can do with.
To see a library of wildlife work from East Africa to Costa Rica, check out my blog & dig through the archives. The majority of wildlife work was shot w/ my 300 f2.8 IS & a 7D or 1DII Http://bruceleventhal.blogspot.com
This is the best lens a stationary wildlife shooter can have. If mobility (long hot hikes) and finances don't limit your options, then you can't beat the 500IS. If you plan to travel & hike w/ your gear, the 500IS will be a burden!
Cheers,
Bruce
I have worked to build up a better wildlife kit over the last several years. I presently have a 7D, 200f2.8, ef1.4x, 300f4is, & 500f4. Lenses like the 500f4 have their use along side something more compact like the 300f4. I don't see a compelling reason to get the 300f2.8 over the 300f4 unless you want to use a 2x teleconverter. The portability of the 300f4 is an important attribute.
I generally do my wildlife shooting with my longest lens on the 7d, but have used the 5d2 from time to time. A great "non-photo" vacation/travel setup for me (if wildlife shooting is a possibility) is a 35-70 zoom, 1.4x, 300f4 & 5d2.
I also have the 300mm and 500mm f/4 and find that this combo works quite well. As noted above, for wildlife I see no need for a 300mm f/2.8. Sports...now that's a different story. One attribute that many forget is the short MFD of the 300mm f/4 which yields pseudo macro shots when needed. I find this to be very useful.
I just about started late last year with a 400/5.6 to begin with, then traded it for a 300/4 IS as I don't have steady hands. Thought a lot about trading my 7D & 5D-II for a 1D-IV but went for a 500/4 IS instead. 300/4 on the 7D and 500/4 on the 5D-II seems working for me though I have taken this combo out only once and have no photo to show
Regardless of the lens decision, it's always good to have a back-up body, so your 5DII would be useful unless you got another 7D. The 5D would be great for landscapes, low light shooting, and sleeping animals....
In Africa, I use the 100-400 90 percent of the time.
Good glass is essential. Bodies to a certain extent can be compromised. From there it depends on your subjects and conditions. Mammals and/or birds? Birds suck up every available focal length you can deliver. What about shooting platform? Car? Safari? Blind/hide? Tripod or hand carry? Ideally you need two lens to meet all these needs. First priority should be a lens that you can shoot w/o a tripod - lightweight and IS are major considerations - as well as zoom or prime. For me that lens is the 100-400 L IS.
Then you can start looking for that super telephoto. For me it is the 500 f/4. It is very fast and super sharp - but if I could only have one lens it would be the 100-400 - but only because its more versatile.
As for bodies - I would consider a good used 1Ds Mk2. An amazing camera for the price you pay today. (BTW I currently shoot with the 1D Mk4 and have the 1Ds Mk2 as a backup).
That is a tough call. I voted for the 7D because you more better reach and better glass. OTOH, there is nothing like a 1D series for action, IQ, reliability and AF.
