I have a 100-400 lens. Need a second smaller lens for wildlife - any recommendations?

[Sandra1]

I have a Canon 100-400 lens. I'm looking to buy a second smaller lens for wildlife - do you guys have any recommendations please?

[Waddizzle]

---

@Sandra1 wrote:

I have a Canon 100-400 lens. I'm looking to buy a second smaller lens for wildlife - do you guys have any recommendations please?

---

Hmm.  Smaller than 100-400mm and wildlife photography generally do not mix.  Most wildlife photographers seem to want the longest lens possible.  I suppose it depends upon the size of the wildlife.  Birders want long lenses.

But, you cannot go wrong with one of the 70-200mm "L" series lenses.  The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is a really quick to focus, and very sharp.

[kvbarkley]

What camera?

If you have an EF-S model, the EF-S 18-135 might be a good option.

[Sandra1]

Thank you. I've been looking at that lens today. I do have a bigger lens but I want to stop using it because it's so heavy.

[Sandra1]

I have the 80D. Thanks I'll take a look at the EF-S 18-135

[Waddizzle]

---

@Sandra1 wrote:

I have the 80D. Thanks I'll take a look at the EF-S 18-135

---

The 70-200mm isn't much of size/weight difference with a 100-400mm.  If you're looking for physically smaller, then you might want to consider the new EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens when it finally comes out.  The new lens replaces the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, both of which are much lighter than the 100-400mm.  

I'm not certain how well the 18-135mm would work for "wildlife" photography in the wild.  It seems to short, to me.

[ebiggs1]

"... I want to stop using it because it's so heavy."

Sandra,

This is easy.  You want the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens.  It is very light.  It is still 400mm and it has better IQ than your 100-400. If memory serves they are less than 3 pounds. It is a constant aperture, too.

If you want to maintain the same IQ, you do not want any ef-s kit type lens like the 18-135mm.  Not even in the same zip code!

 And you certainly don't want the big ef 70-200mm f2.8lL, if weight is your concern.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... I want to stop using it because it's so heavy."

Sandra,

This is easy.  You want the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens.  It is very light.  It is still 400mm and it has better IQ than your 100-400. If memory serves they are less than 3 pounds. It is a constant aperture, too. ...

---

The usual meaning of "constant aperture" is that the maximum aperture doesn't depend on the focal length. So a prime lens is CA by definition, isn't it?

[ebiggs1]

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA

Depends on your level of photographic understanding.  Some folks don't even know what a variable aperture is or that a constant aperture is preferred.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA

Depends on your level of photographic understanding.  Some folks don't even know what a variable aperture is or that a constant aperture is preferred.

---

I guess that was my point, sort of. It's important to be precise, so as not to risk unnecessarily confusing such folks.