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?

[ebiggs1 · Accepted solution]

Sandra,

" I only want to take two lenses with me on holiday. "

This is different than what I assumed you wanted. I thought you wanted a replacement lens for the heavy zoom 100-400mm.  But you want a combo to compliment it? My suggestion (ef 400mm f5.6L) will certainly fill the bill for a better and lighter lens but it is in the same use class.

A lens to compliment your current zoom would make the ef-s 18-135mm a reasonable choice.  The ef-s 17-55mm f/2.8 is usm would be a great addition.  It is better in several ways.  It has a fast, constant aperture and pretty good IQ.

[ebiggs1 · Accepted solution]

Sandra,

" I only want to take two lenses with me on holiday. "

This is different than what I assumed you wanted. I thought you wanted a replacement lens for the heavy zoom 100-400mm.  But you want a combo to compliment it? My suggestion (ef 400mm f5.6L) will certainly fill the bill for a better and lighter lens but it is in the same use class.

A lens to compliment your current zoom would make the ef-s 18-135mm a reasonable choice.  The ef-s 17-55mm f/2.8 is usm would be a great addition.  It is better in several ways.  It has a fast, constant aperture and pretty good IQ.

[Sandra1]

Thanks, two great suggestions. Thank goodness for ebay 🙂

[kvbarkley]

What camera?

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

[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.

[Sandra1]

Hello, thanks for all the suggestions and sorry I've not been able to post on here for the past week. I've decided to sell most of the lenses I own including the 100-400 L and upgrade to the 100-400 II. The new lens focuses from 3.2” which means I only need to take one lens on holiday with me. I’m trying to travel as light as possible and I think this is a good solution. Thanks again for your help.

[kvbarkley]

That is 3.2 *feet* of close focus distance, not 3.2 *inches*, which would be inside the lens someplace. 8^)

[Sandra1]

whoops I meant 3.2'

[RobertTheFat · Accepted solution]

---

@Sandra1 wrote:
Hello, thanks for all the suggestions and sorry I've not been able to post on here for the past week. I've decided to sell most of the lenses I own including the 100-400 L and upgrade to the 100-400 II. The new lens focuses from 3.2” which means I only need to take one lens on holiday with me. I’m trying to travel as light as possible and I think this is a good solution. Thanks again for your help.

---

You're equipping yourself pretty well, but for telephoto photography only. There's a vast array of subject matter out there which can be captured only with wider lenses, and you might not want to blind yourself to opportunities in that regime. I'd caution you to remember the old adage that "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

[Waddizzle]

You might want to consider the EF 1.4X III Extender to go with your lens.  Your 80D can focus at f/8, so the lens will autofocus at all focal lengths with your camera.  I understand the desire to travel small, but Bob has a good point.  Carry a wide lens.