Lighter weight bird-mammal lens for hiking

While the Canon 500mm F4 IS has been my bird-wildlife lens for years, I am soon purchasing a "pack canoe" that will allow me to go deeper into the backcountry. I may hike as far as a mile into remote ponds and wetlands for subjects such as moose, loons, otters, etc. Canoe, paddle, portage packs, and camera gear. No tripod. I need a lighter weight option other than the 500mm for subject in habitat type shots. While the perfect lens for this does not exist, I am struggling to find a decent option. My sold Canon 100-400 was the right idea and found nearby subjects shot to have excellent image quality, degraded quick when off in the distance.

The new Canon 70-300 L is perhaps a decent size and great for composing. Certainly short for loons other than those that dive next to my canoe! Moose if approached cautiously- perhaps good for habitat shots. No Canon teleconverter option. Wildlife most visible dawn and dusk so F5.6 not ideal.

Canon 70-200 F2.8 L II with a 2x III converter. Supposed superb image quality at 400mm F5.6 but heavier than desired.

Canon 400 F5.6 L. No matter how sharp and great people say it is for BIF, here in the northeast most subjects are photographed again in the low light of dawn and dusk. Not mid day light. Handholding this lens from a canoe without IS not a great option.

Canon 300mm F4 L IS. First generation IS. Great quality without converters starts to decline with the 1.4X but still decent? This seems to be my best choice.

Any advice or suggestions? In summary, 2 mile hikes, handheld from a canoe, low light AM and late afternoon. IS essential. Moose, loons, deer, otter, beaver. Given the lens szie limitation vs. a 500, talking subject in habitat shots vs. frame filling subjects. Visit my website and see the moose gallery to get the idea. I shot those with a handheld 500 but I was close to the road. Now I'm hiking back into remote places so the 500 will not work.

Jeff,

I would go for the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L II with a 2x III converter. I too am going deeper into the wilds, such as Baxter State Park in upstate Maine and then into Dwelly Pond on the North end of the park road, a 2 mile hike. Although we can rent the canoe that is tied up at the pond, I am leaning toward packing my Kayak in the 2 miles, but there will be 2 of us doing that.

I will buy this lens very soon and it should do it for me. I am buying it for Moose mainely and Loons secondary.

Your comments "Supposed superb image quality at 400mm F5.6 but heavier than desired" are valid however but some give and take is key. Let us know what you decide.

What camera body??? No TCs at all with the 70-300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

What camera body??? No TCs at all with the 70-300.

---

Artie,

I use the 7D which further complicates the low light conditions with noise needing attention at higher ISOs. I have stuck with this vesus the 1D series due to the weight and risks I take often around and on water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Nadler

Artie,

I use the 7D which further complicates the low light conditions with noise needing attention at higher ISOs. I have stuck with this vesus the 1D series due to the weight and risks I take often around and on water.

---

Thanks. I should have asked; all hand held???

Handheld mostly. With my kayak, I have used a beanbag resting on the deck in front of me. But a canoe design does not offer this set-up. I realize some photographers set up small tripods in front of them. But I would not do this when hiking with the canoe.

I have read reviews on some of the Sigma xxx-300 options. Most of the reviews state than these lenses are soft at 400.

I suppose the upcoming 200-400 is an option

The 200-400 is probably gonna weigh 8+ pounds and cost close to 8K. I was gonna suggest the 70-200 f/4L IS with a 1.4X and the 7d hand held or with the 2X on a light tripod at times. Since you mentioned it the Sigma 50-500 might be perfect. I have seen the images that Robert O'Toole creates with his stopped down one stop. They are--all hand held-- amazingly sharp but then Robert is amazingly talented. Please boys and girls quit believing all the internet experts.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

The 200-400 is probably gonna weigh 8+ pounds and cost close to 8K. I was gonna suggest the 70-200 f/4L IS with a 1.4X and the 7d hand held or with the 2X on a light tripod at times. Since you mentioned it the Sigma 50-500 might be perfect. I have seen the images that Robert O'Toole creates with his stopped down one stop. They are--all hand held-- amazingly sharp but then Robert is amazingly talented. Please boys and girls quit believing all the internet experts.....

---

Thanks Artie,

Is the 70-200 vs. 75-300 suggestion so that when desired, I can get to 400? If so, a great thought I had not considered. Nice weight, price, and coverage. Over the years, I have often been too tempted to get my moose and loon subjects to fill the frame with as much focal length as possible. Looking back at my summer moose encounters, I sure which I had either paddled backwards or used less focal length to have nice subject in habitat compositions. The 70-200 leaves a lot of options.

Another example of such a desired lens will be on an upcoming trip with my wife to Acadia National Park, Maine with lots of hiking planned. On the trail, I am still more interested in wildlife and birds than scenics. I don't bring a tripod on such family hikes. Granted 70-200, 70-270, or 70-400 will never be enought for songbirds seen along the trail. But if I come upon a spruce grouse right along the trail, this lens option would be capable of getting bird in habitat shots vs. having nothing while my 500 sits in the motel room or car. Thank you!

Jeff,

re:

Is the 70-200 vs. 75-300 suggestion so that when desired, I can get to 400?

With the 70-200/2X with a tripod.

It is a great lens.

If so, a great thought I had not considered. Nice weight, price, and coverage. Over the years, I have often been too tempted to get my moose and loon subjects to fill the frame with as much focal length as possible. Looking back at my summer moose encounters, I sure which I had either paddled backwards or used less focal length to have nice subject in habitat compositions. The 70-200 leaves a lot of options.

It is mega-versatile.

Another example of such a desired lens will be on an upcoming trip with my wife to Acadia National Park, Maine with lots of hiking planned. On the trail, I am still more interested in wildlife and birds than scenics. I don't bring a tripod on such family hikes. Granted 70-200, 70-270, or 70-400 will never be enought for songbirds seen along the trail.

Disagree in part. 200 X1.6= 320 X 1.4 = 448. You can kill some nesting warblers with that at times....

But if I come upon a spruce grouse right along the trail, this lens option would be capable of getting bird in habitat shots vs. having nothing while my 500 sits in the motel room or car. Thank you![/QUOTE]

YAW. If you purchase from B&H please use this link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...6633/KBID/7226

thanks, artie