Recommend me a good zoom for aircraft / wildlife (Canon)

Recommend me a good zoom for aircraft / wildlife (Canon)

Author
Discussion

havoc

Original Poster:

30,086 posts

236 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
I've currently got a Canon 70-200 f4 L IS, which is a lovely little workhorse on either the full-frame or the cropped body. And works well for most motorsport occasions.

I've also got a backup 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS, which is the big Mk1 bellows-zoom version. It's good, but it's quite heavy for fast panning and the bellows-zoom is yet another complication. But for aircraft photography this is the one I really need.


...so I'm thinking of swapping / upgrading. Obvious step is the smaller Mk2 with the traditional twist-zoom, which gets good reviews but is slightly heavier (1.66kg vs <1.5kg), so does anyone have any other suggestions?

Thanks.

bstb3

4,089 posts

159 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
I've been having quite some good results (for me) with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. Mostly wildlife where it seems plenty sharp enough. It is heavier than the 100-400 though, by some margin, which is the trade off for the extra reach I guess. Around 1.9kg I think. Traditional twist to zoom (but it's above the focus ring and turns the wrong way for me, compared to the Canon zooms I've been used to). Good image stabilization (enough to handhold at 600mm on an APS-C body anyway) and two custom options via switch on the lens body. These let you set the focus range limits (above the ones already offered on the body by standard) and various other parameters - you need also the Sigma Dock though to be able to access it via software.

Big advantage is it's very much at the budget end, but performs much better than it's price might suggest. I think around £900 new, I got mine for £500 used and it was in pretty much new condition.

Big disadvantage for me though is the lack of weather sealing - for that you need the sport version of the lens which is significantly heavier (and more expensive). The contemporary is a plastic body in places, which keeps the weight down but won't offer much protection if you drop / bang it around.

Might be worth checking out, unless weight is a key issue. I know quite a few people use them on gimbal mounts to save the weight when in location and that should be fast enough for your needs for panning etc - but then there is more potential expense ( and weight getting to location).

Edited by bstb3 on Saturday 16th March 21:22

havoc

Original Poster:

30,086 posts

236 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Thanks, but I'd like to avoid more weight - I'm not exactly a powerfully-built director, and panning aircraft is a headache as you can't tuck your elbows into your ribs to create a stable bridge, and you can't use even a monopod easily as they display in 3D.

Turn7

23,622 posts

222 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
70-200 2.8 with a tc ?

thebraketester

14,246 posts

139 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Turn7 said:
70-200 2.8 with a tc ?
Which would be worse than the 100-400.

I don't think you'll get much better than the 100-400 in all honesty. Sound perfect for what you want. I loved mine. So versatile.

tog

4,545 posts

229 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
If you want light weight maybe consider the 400mm 5.6L prime telephoto. Less flexibility of course, but sharp and light.

havoc

Original Poster:

30,086 posts

236 months

Thursday 21st March
quotequote all
Quick update - I went for the 100-400 L Mark-II - got a 2nd hand one at the Photography Show earlier this week.

...so I guess I just need to work on the upper-body exercises a bit more! hehe