Is 70-200mm enough for wildlife photography [feat. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM]

[@mariotsck]

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

[@richardpcrowe]

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)...

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Yeah the 70-200mm is great for portraits and also landscape photography :)

[@Arno_H]

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

[@arjunbhattacharya3623]

Good honest video. Helped me to make a decision!

[@coopergrace8548]

Thanks for your honest review! I'll have to keep on saving

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Glad I could help mate :)

[@ossi750]

You can use teleconverter with 70 200.. And get better pics for nature.. But not in low light situations

[@forsterl.stewart414]

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.

[@nicaheat]

Great review. Thank you I am getting the refurbished IS version of this lens.

[@MALLUMARINERVLOGS]

nice thought.

[@prasad9783]

Thanks for your honest review ♥

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Prasad Balachandran I am glad you enjoyed it :) don't forget to subscribe

[@Fatboy53]

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.

[@Bushcraft242]

Always use this lens

[@umakanthbalguri2275]

Very well explained. Liked it

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Thank you mate :)

[@Jimmyageek]

So in MFT its 35-100mm is Good for Safari!

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Hello mate, in MFT it is 140mm to 400mm. It is not bad indeed for wild life, especially if your camera has IBIS.

[@ajazahmed3694]

It’s a fantastic lens I bought one last month

[@ajazahmed3694]

Superb images which camera u using

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Hi, thanks for the comment. I was using the Canon 80D. I miss this camera.

[@ajazahmed3694]

The World of Pierre Nice ,I have canon 5d mark2

[@chilley1703]

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.

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Thank you for the comment. I should have bought the IS version as well. Camo tent sounds like fun.

[@Sinegav]

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.

[@TheWorldofPierre]

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

[@dickie83]

Have you considered picking up the Canon 2x Teleconverter?

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Hi, it would have made things worse in low light. And it is not cheap. But it is a good alternative for some.

[@BrianHallmond]

I got a canon 70-200mm today! but it's not IS.. :( It's an f.28 though. :) So hopefully that's enough.

[@TheWorldofPierre]

hello mate, yes 2.8 will work!!! Lucky you, it is a great lens

[@TheThinFrame]

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

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Hi mate, an extra 100 will definitely help. If you can get a lens with IS that would be even better.

[@cccycling5835]

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)

[@ishanagarwalphotography]

Please reply i have a 70-300 1:4-5.6 and 70-200 2.8 which one is good for bird photography

[@scaup3917]

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?

[@TheWorldofPierre]

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 ;)

[@beckybokeh]

Would this lens work well with a Canon C100 Mark i for wildlife and landscape filmmaking and photography? Great video btw

[@cole.noblett8175]

Do you think this will be good for flower shots or animal footprints?

[@TheWorldofPierre]

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 ;)

[@margauxgrollier6084]

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

[@TheWorldofPierre]

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.

[@bodinian]

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.

[@AndrewEddie]

What are your thoughts about using something like the Nikon P900 (or similar, Panasonic FZ80, Nikon B700, etc) as a hiking camera?

[@TheWorldofPierre]

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

[@50Acres]

That was helpful. It's too bad because the 70-200 is practical for so many things...

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Thank you for the comment, glad I could help someone :)

[@omarsaletovicprins9632]

Consider a 300mm f4. (Nikon has a good PF version)

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Thank you for the comment. I just moved to Sony. Sony lenses are soooo expensive!!!!

[@Stefan1968ful]

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.

[@BrianHallmond]

I just got a 70-200mm 2.8 for the intention of wildlife photography. Gonna take it out later today.

[@milanpintar]

F4 is too slow

[@TheWorldofPierre]

It is but I cannot afford the 2.8, way too expensive.

[@waltertrejo9512]

@0.24 second of your video, it says 70-20mm instead of 70-200mm lol

[@TheWorldofPierre]

Oops ;)

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

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 🤣🤣🤣

[@TheWorldofPierre]

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!)

[@SheikhAhmadShah]

Hmm... :( Thanks for your video though...

[@TheWorldofPierre]

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.