Canon Lenses for Nature Photography

One of the reasons that led me to choose the Canon system is the wide range of lenses, and the advanced technologies employed in many of these lenses (for example, ultrasonic AF motor and image stabilization). On the manufacturer's website you can find detailed information about each lens; this page, instead, gives an overview of the most interesting lenses and it explains the meaning of the acronyms present into lens names. 

Canon Lenses Glossary

The name of every lens (e.g. "Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM") contains many acronyms. It is important to know their meaning to understand the features of the lens.

	L : the lenses marked with "L" are Canon's "Luxury" lenses, that is, first quality lenses designed for professionals and advanced amateurs. Usually L lenses have high image quality, fast autofocus, very good built quality and weather sealing (almost all L lenses built after 1999 are sealed).
	IS : Image Stabilizer. This technology (described in-depth in another page) reduces the image shake causes by camera/lens movements by the equivalents of 2-3 stops, Canon claims that the latest generation IS gives even a 4 stops advantage. I consider IS very important for every lens; when possible, I try to choose IS lenses instead of similar lenses without IS.
	USM : UltraSonic Motor. It is essential for a fast autofocus and for full time manual control on focus. Note that there are two types of USM, the excellent ring USM and the much worse micro-USM. Almost all the L USM lenses uses ring-USM, while some other not-L lenses (in particular the cheap ones) use micro-USM.
	DO : Diffractive Optic. The Canon system includes two lenses with DO elements, the 70-300 DO and the 400 f/4 DO; these lenses lighter and smaller than their not-DO equivalents (but they are very expensive and the image quality is not that great). The recenlty announced superteles don't use DO elements so it looks like Canon has abandoned this technology.
	EF-S : the EF-S lenses are designed exclusively for the cameras that use an APS-C sized sensor, as the 40D or the 400D. These lenses can not be used on fullframe or APS-H cameras, because they have a retrocessed elements that may damage the mirror of FF cameras; other than that, the image circle is able to cover only APS sensors.
	TS-E : Tilt and Shift lenses give wide control on depth of field and perspective. Currently, there are only three TS-E lenses (24, 45 and 90mm); the 24mm is the only one that is rated as L. These are special lenses designed mainly for architecture, but the 24mm may be useful even for landscapes. Other than the MP-E, these are the only manual focus EF lenses.
	MP-E : an unique lens designed exclusively for macro photo. As far as I know this is the only lens currently manufactured that can reach 5:1 ratio without tubes or other accessories; it has not equivalents in the Nikon, Sony or Olympus lineup. Even though it is not rated as L, it has professional built and image quality.
	II, III, etc. : the version of the lens. (sometimes the lenses are updated with a similar, but improved version). Sometimes the update is marginal (for example, there is not a big difference between the 85mm f/1.2 L and the 85mm f/1.2 L II), while other times the new version has noticeable improvements, for example the new 14 f/2.8 II has better image quality than 14 f/2.8 I.

Professional lenses for nature photography

This table lists many Canon L (professional) lenses, and some other interesting lenses. This is not intended to be a complete list (if you want to see all Canon lenses, visit Canon USA), rather a selection of the lenses that have an usage in the field of nature photography. The lens that I have personally tried have an indicative rate, and all lenses are linked to a short review - I've tried many of these lenses because I often loan lenses from friends or from CPS (Canon Professional Service). Consider them as previews; they are not verdicts, to give the final judgment on a lens it is necessary to use it for months or years.

Zoom Lenses

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II
The first version of the 16-35 had poor image quality in the corners, and according to Canon, the second version offers sharper corners and less vignetting. Honestly, I have not seen this big improvement: wide open, the 16-35 has vignetting and soft corners; it is a little better than the first version, but it does not have the awesome sharpness of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8.
It may be a good choice if you absolutely need the f/2.8 aperture on a 16-35 and you don't want the hassle of using the Nikkor 14-24 with adapter, otherwise I recommend the much cheaper 17-40 f/4 L, that offers the same image quality at a lower price. Personally, I have preferred the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX DG, that is not as bright, but it is cheaper and much, much wider; I really hope that in future Canon will offer a 14-24 or a 12-24 f/2.8 with the same image quality of the Nikon and with the amazing angle of view of the Sigma.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
The 17-40 L a nice wide angle, that offers quality at a competitive price. It has good built and image quality, both on APC-C cameras an fullframe. The sharpness is very good from edge to edge, even on FF: I've used it on the 1Ds and I am very satisfied by the results, if you stop down by 1-2 stops the detail is great even in the extreme corners. It has some distortion and vignetting, but these problems are very easy to correct with Photoshop, and anyway it is rare to notice them in nature photography, unelss you photograph often straight horizons. If you don't have an high budget to afford the 16-35 2.8 L II, or you don't need the f/2.8 aperture, the 17-40 is an excellent choice for its price.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
The 24-70 L is a truly professional lens; it is very sharp even wide open and it has professional built quality. It is a quite big lens and it has a peculiar design: it is fully extended at 24mm, while at 70mm it is at its shortest lenght. Thanks to this desing, when the large lens hood is mounted the lens extrends completely inside the hood, and the lenght of the lens with hood remains the same. This is a nice touch to improve the resistence to rain, sand and other environmental factors. Even though it is an excellent lens, I don't recommend it unless you really need the f/2.8; the 24-105 f/4 L is more versatile and it has image stabilization. 

Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM
The 28-300 L is the impressive super-zoom of Canon. Usually the 28-300 lenses are very slow, small, cheap and they have very low image quality. The Canon 28-300 is all the opposite: it is big and heavy (it is very similar to the 100-400) and it has superb built quality. It is expensive, but the image quality is very good: it is very sharp between 28 and 200mm, at 300mm f/5.6 it is slightly soft but still good (like the 100-400). Considering that it is an 11x zoom, it is impressive that it rivals with the 100-400, a 4x zoom with a much simpler optical design. If you want to photograph everything, from flowers to landscapes and wildlife, with just one lens, the 28-300 may be a good choice. Personally, I prefer to buy 24-105 + 100-400, but the 28-300 is the perfect lens for those who need the maximum of versatility and don't have the time to swap lenses. It has the same push-pull system of the 100-400, that may take some time to get used (but I like it).

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM
This lens is identical to the 70-200 IS in every respect (focal length, image quality, built), except stabilization. It is not as cheap, small and light as the 70-200 f/4 L, and it has not the awesome image stabilization of the 70-200 IS: in my opinion, it is really worth to spend a little more to get the f/2.8 IS version. (otherwise, if you don't need f/2.8 you can get the excellent 70-200 f4 IS for nearly the same price)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM
One of the best 70-200 lenses on the market: sharp at every aperture, superb built quality, stabilization and bright aperture. It is weather sealed and, as all Canon 70-200 L, it doen not extend durin zooming. It is ideal for reportage, landscape and sport photography. If you want to photograph wildlife, instead, I'd recommend to choose a longer lens: the 70-200 is a bit short, in particular on FF. It maintains a good quality with the Canon 1.4x TC (that brings it to 90-280mm f/4): it looks a slightly soft wide open at f/4, but from f/5.6 it becomes razor sharp. With the 2.0x TC, instead, there is a more noticeable drop in sharpness; it becomes quite soft wide open (i.e. at f/5.6), and you need to stop down to f/8 or f/11 to get an acceptable sharpness, and even at these apertures it is not as sharp as the 100-400.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
The 70-200 f4 is the cheapest 70-200 L, and it offers an excellent value for the price: it is razor sharp, it has L built quality and fast AF. It is very small and featherweight: if you want to travel light, the 70-200 f4 is the ideal choice. The results with TCs are nearly the same of the 2.8 versions; it is quite good with the 1.4x (it becomes a 105-280 f/5.6, with an image quality on par with the new 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS), while it doesn't give great results with the 2.0x. Many times this lens is compared with the 70-300 IS, since they are in the same price range: if you want the maximum image quality, and you take mainly landscapes, people and travel photos, I'd recommed tne 70-200, while I'd recommend the 70-300 if you want to take photo of a broader range of subject, included wildlife. In general, I think that the 70-200 is the better choice for those who already have some experince, while the 70-300 is a good choice for beginners. Recently, Canon has announced the IS version of this lens: the new 70-200 f4 IS adds the latest generation of IS and weather sealing to the 70-200 f4, but it is way more expensive, and it should be considered more a lighter and smaller alternative to the 70-200 2.8 IS, rather than an alternative to the much cheaper 70-200 f4 "non IS".

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM
The Canon 70-200 f/4 is one of the nicest lenses in the Canon lineup: the new version is even better in every respect. The new 70-200 is the first lens with 4th generation IS, that gives roughly a 4 stops stabilization...I was able to take razor sharp photos at 200mm with a shutter speed of 1/15 (of course, the subject must be static - IS stops your movements, not the movement of the subject). Moreover, the new 70-200 is weather sealed, so you can use it even in heavy rain, dusty environments or other difficult situations without worries. The built quality is a joy for the eyes and the hands...it is very small and super light (just 60g heavier than the previous version); of course, it has the super fast USM autofocus and FTM. The image quality is awesome at every focal length, even wide open at f/4. In my opinion, this is an ideal lens for reportage and travel photography: it is small and light enough to be easily carried everywhere, and it can be used handheld even in low light. I'd recommend the f/2.8 version if you photograph animals and action and you need the widest aperture to get faster shutter speeds, otherwise the 70-200 f/4 is an excellent choice, if you need this range of focal lengths.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
The 70-300 DO is an interesting lens. It is the only zoom lens with a DO (diffractive optice) element, a technology introduced by Canon some years ago to recude weight and size of the lenses. One of the lenses that compose the 70-300 is a fresnel lens, not a traditional lens element: this diffractive element allows to build smaller lenses, using a more compact design. Canon explains that "Diffractive optical elements have a diffraction grating that alters the path light travels through diffraction. Diffractive optical elements, however, have not been employed in camera lenses due to the tendency of natural (white) light to produce superfluous diffracted light upon entering the lens, resulting in flare that degrades image quality. Canon's Multi-Layer Diffractive Optical Element features a multi-layer construction comprising two single-layer diffractive optical elements with opposing concentric circular diffraction gratings. When incident light enters the Multi-Layer Diffractive Optical Element, superfluous diffracted light is not produced and almost all of the light is used for the image. The achievement makes possible for the first time the incorporation of a diffractive optical element in a camera lens."
How does it translate in practice? Well, the first impression are very positive: the built quality is on par with the best L lenses, it is sturdy, it has the fast USM AF and full time manual focus. It offers third generation IS and, as promised, it is considerably smaller than the 70-300 non-DO. The range of focal lenghts is versatile, and overall it is a joy to use: at least until you download the photos on your computer.
The image quality is the "Achilles heel" of the 70-300 DO: here the advanced DO technology doesn't deliver its promises. Even with the "Canon multi-layer" optic, this lens has a strong tendency to flare, and overall a low contrast: I often noticed very bothering flare halos around the subjects, in particular if there is contrast of colors or brightenss. At 300 f/5.6 the image quality is not acceptable for my standards, you need to stop down at least to f/8 to get decent sharpness and to reduce the haloes.
Overall, I think that the benefits in terms of reduced weight and size are not worth the compromises in image quality; the 70-300 DO is a professional-looking lens, but its image quality is worse even than the much cheaper 70-300 non-DO. If you are interested in a lens in this range, I'd recommend either the 70-300 IS non-DO or the professional 100-400 L IS USM.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
The Canon 100-400 is my preferred tele zoom: it has good reach, image stabilization, fast AF and it is a Canon L series lens (professional). Unlike the majoriy of zoom lenses, it has an unusual "push-pull" design; it takes some time to get uses, and initially I did not like it, but after a couple of months I begun to appreciate this system; it allows a very fast zooming. The image quality is very good from 100 to 300, while at 400mm it is a bit soft, but still quite good. I recommend the 100-400 if you already have a big lens (400 2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4) and you want a much smaller and lighter lens to carry everywhere, or if you want a lens that offers good reach without spending a lot. The 100-400 is also an excellent choice for handheld photos of birds and wildlife.

Primes

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM II (hands-off preview)
This recent lens is the widest rectilinead wide-angle currently manufactured my Canon, that claims a noticeable image quality improvement in comparison with its predecessor - and I hope so, because an extraordinary image quality would be the only real selling point of this (overpriced) lens. Honestly, I expected a lot more from Canon: Sigma offer a much cheaper 12-24mm lens that is wider and more versatile, of course the image quality won't be on par with the 14mm L, but the Sigma is gives more creative possibilities. Other than that, Canon already offers a 16-35mm f/2.8, that is not as wide as the 14mm, but it comes close and it has the advantage of being a zoom (and it is also cheaper). What I expected from Canon was a 12-24mm f/2.8 zoom, or at least a 14-24 f/2.8, as the recently announced Nikon wide-angle; an overpriced 14mm price does not make much sense, in my opinion.

Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
While convential wide-angles try to correct distortion, the "fisheye" lenses does not correct it at all; straight lines are rendered as curves. The advantage of fish eyes is the extremly wide angle of view, usually 180 degrees - pretty amazing, if you consider that the widest rectilinear wide-angle (Sigma 12-24) has and angle of view of 124 degrees. The built quality of Canon 15mm is average, it does not come even close to L series wide-angles, and the AF lacks of USM and full time manual focus, even though it is very fast. The image quality (of course, on a fullframe camera - on APS-C it makes no sense, since you lose its amazing angle of view) is good, but not exceptional: the contrast is average, sharpness is very good in the center but so-so in the corners, and it has a visible CA. Overall, it is an interesting lens for its unparalleled creative possibilites, but it could be improved in many aspects.

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM (hands-off preview)
I am a fan of zoom lenses - but the 24mm is an unique lens: it offers a f/1.4 aperture, that is two stops brighter than the best zooms as the 24-70 f/2.8. In the field of nature photography, I think this lens has a great potential for night photography. Recently, I've taken a photo of the three peaks of Lavaredo and the Milky Way - to be able to show well out galaxy, I've had to use ISO 3200, with my f/3.5 zoom. If I had used the 24 f/1.4, I could have obtained the same result at ISO 500! Since the sky is an extremely distant subject and it is "flat", even f/1.4 gives enough depth of field. I think that it is really a great lens on fullframe, where you can use it as a real 24mm (while on APS-C it becomes a "38mm equivalent"); I'm not going to buy it because I don't take many night shots, but if you like this fascinating field of photography, the 24 1.4 is the lens for you.

Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
The 200 f/2 IS is the successor of the 200 f/1.8 L, the brightest supertele ever manufactured by Canon. The new lens is 0.3 stop less bright than its predecessor, but it adds weather sealing and 4 stops IS, that made it much more handholdable. I have taken many handheld  photos at 1/13 (4 stops slower than 1/200) and there is no motion blur - the 4 stop IS works as advertised! I think that the 200 f/2 is a great lens for indoor sports, where you really need the f/2 aperture - if you don't plan to use this lens nearly always wide open, it is not the best choice for you; the 70-200 2.8 L IS zoom is "only" 1 stop slower, and it is much cheaper, smaller, lighter, versatile and easier to handold, so I recommend the 200 f/2 only if you absolutely want to shoot at f/2, or if you want the absolutely best image quality. 

Indeed, the image quality is one of the things that make the 200 f/2 so special. This is lens is super sharp! I have compared the 200 f/2 with my two "sharpness monsters", the Canon 180 Macro L and the Canon 300 2.8 L IS. All the lenses had been tested on my fullframe, 21 megapixel Canon 1DsIII; the following images are 100% crops from the unprocessed RAW file. In the first test, I have compared the three lenses at their widest aperture.

Canon 200 f/2 L IS at f/2, center		Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS at f/2.8, center		Canon 180 f/3.5 L at f/3.5, center
Canon 200 f/2 L IS at f/2, corner		Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS at f/2.8, corner		Canon 180 f/3.5 L at f/3.5, corner

All the three lenses are already very sharp wide open, even though the 200 f/2 shows a little less contrast than the other two (its results are very similar of the results that I have got with its predecessor 200 f/1.8 in the supertele test). 

In the next test, I have compared the lenses at their sharpest aperure: the 200 and the 300 are at f/4, while the 180 is at f/5.6.

Canon 200 f/2 L IS at f/4, center		Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS at f/4, center		Canon 180 f/3.5 L at f/5.6, center
Canon 200 f/2 L IS at f/4, corner		Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS at f/4, corner		Canon 180 f/3.5 L at f/5.6, corner

Here, the 200 really shines...it is clearly sharper than the 300 and the 180, you can see fine details and textures that are not visible in the other crops! It is a truly impressive performance, even though in the field I doubt that you would be able to see a difference between the three lenses, or between the lens at f/4 and at f/2...they are simply excellent, as sharp as you may want!

Overall, I think the 200 f/2 is an excellent lens; it has limited applications in the field of nature photography (mainly large animals in places where you can easily get close) and I have preferred the 300 f/2.8 IS as my main telephoto lens, but for sure it is a fascinating lens that fullfils the need of a certain group of photographers.

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
The small, light and relatively cheap 300 f/4 is a splendid lens. It has not the incredible sharpness of its "big brother", the 300 f/2.8, but it is still very sharp. The sharpness is very good with 1.4x and 2.0x TC, even wide open. With the 1.4x TC, it becomes a 420mm f/5.6 IS, and the image quality is slightly better than the 100-400 at 400mm f/5.6. The AF is pretty fast, and the image stabilization works well, even though it has the limitations of the 1st generation IS (it must be turned off with the lens on sturdy tripod). The minimum focusing distance is just 1.5 meters : the 300 f/4 is a great "macro" lens; it is ideal for large butterflies and flowers. With TCs, you can get even better macro performances (you get 1:3 reproduction ratio with the 1.4x, 1:2 with the 2x).

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
The 400 2.8 is a splendid lens - as all Canon L superteles, it is extremely sharp, it has awesome built quality, fast AF and IS. It is razor sharp even wide open at f/2.8, and it is very good even with 1.4x or 2.0x. In my opinion the 400 f/2.8 is a great choice if you plan to use it as 400mm f/2.8 for the 90% of times - if you stop down by one or two stops, you have essentially throw away some thousands of dollars, since you could have got the 400 5.6 (extremely sharp, but much lighter, smaller and cheaper) or the 300 2.8 with 1.4x TC. The same holds true for teleconverters. If you need focal length, the 500 f/4 or the 600 f/4 are a much better choice - they give a lot more reach and less need for TCs (thus better image quality: the 600+1.4x is sharper than 400 + 2x). The 400 2.8 is almost as big and heavy as the 600 f/4, so there isn't even a weight advantage. This is the best lens for sport photography, while, for nature photography, I'd prefer either the 500 f/4 or 600 f/4.

Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM The Canon 400 f/4 was the first lens with a diffractive optic element. When Canon showed for the first time the prototype of this lens (september 2000), it was regarded as a great innovation - for the first time, a diffractive optical element (i.e. a kind of fresnel lens) was used in a photographic lens. The DO element allows to create smaller and lighter lenses, while eliminating chromatic aberration. It seemed that Canon was seriuosly intentioned to introduce a new lineup of DO lenses, and there had been even some rumors about a 200-400 f/4 DO IS and a 500 f/2.8 DO IS, but now, seven year after, the only other DO lenses that had been announced is a mediocre 70-300 zoom. Is the Canon 400 f/4 DO a failure or it is a truly innovative lens? Thanks to my friend Andrea "elefantino", I've had the opportunity to use this interesting lens. Even though it is not labelled as "L", the built quality and the autofocus is the same of the best L superteles....it has a very sturdy structure in magnesium alloy and it is weather sealed.

Myself handholding the 400 f/4 DO IS USM

The autofocus is extremely fast and, of course, it has also full time manual focus. The image stabilizer is the same of the other superteles - it has 2nd generations IS, that can be used even on tripod and compensates the movements for an equivalent of 2 stops.
The great advantage of this lens is, of course, weight and size. It is light! It is incredibly light....almost 1kg lighter than 300 2.8 and 2kg lighter than the 500 f/4. It is a joy to handhold, even if you are not used to superteles, you wouldn't have problems handholding it all the day. And it is so small! It is just a little longer than the 100-400, and it fits easily every camera bag. There is no doubt that in terms of reduced weight and size Canon has accomplished its goals.

But awesome built quality, AF and IS are not enough to make a great lens: the image quality is what really makes the difference. In spite of the fantastic built and the price, Canon has not labelled the 400 DO as L - and there is a reason. The image quality if good, but not as good as you can expect from a $5k lens: it is not on par with the other superteles, and even some much cheaper lenses give better results. Wide open at f/4 the image quality goes from acceptable to good, depending by the light - it is quite good in direct light, while it is much worse in backlighting. From f/5.6 it is excellent. The following images are 100%, unprocessed, crops taken with my 20D, the 400 DO and the 100-400 L IS.

Canon 400 f/4 DO at f/4		Canon 400 f/4 DO at f/5.6		Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS at f/5.6

The big problem of DO lenses is the flare, that reduces the contrast: wide open, other than a visible loss of sharpness, the lens really lack of contrast - it is worse than the 100-400 L or the 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC. At the same aperture (f/5.6), the 400 DO is a bit sharper than the 100-400 L IS, and it is on par with the 400 5.6 L. 
I wouldn't hesitate to use the 400 DO at every aperture - even at f/4, it is surely usable. On the other hand, if you want the perfect sharpness you have to stop down by one stop - but this nullifies the biggest advantage of a f/4 lens. If you plan to shoot routinely at f/5.6, the 100-400 or the 400 5.6 might be better choices - they are even smaller and lighter, and they are much cheaper. The 400 DO has slightly better image quality than the 100-400 at the same apertures (but it is not better than the 400 5.6) and slightly faster AF: you have to evaluate if these advantages are enough to justify the price difference.
Another lens that is often compared with the 400 DO is the 300 2.8 IS. If you don't mind the 1kg difference between 400 DO and 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC, the latter is a better choice, it is sharper and it gives the possibility to photograph at f/2.8 when you need this aperture.
Moreover, in the same price range there is the Canon 500 f/4 L IS USM, that is a better lens in every respect, except the bulk.

The 400 DO is a interesting lens, but I'd recommend it only if you absolutely need a 400mm with f/4 aperture and very little weight. If you don't need the f/4 aperture, I'd suggest either the 400 5.6 or the 100-400; if you don't mind the weight and size, the 300 2.8 or the 500 f4 are much better choices.

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
This lens is very sharp and it has professional built quality; it is the smallest and the lightest 400mm in the Canon lineup and it has a very fast autofocus. There are many discussion about wich lens is the best choice between 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4 IS and 100-400 IS; in my opinion, even thoug these lenses are similar, they have small differences that make them the right choice for different purposes. You you want to photograph mainly birds and shy animals, the 400 5.6 is the best choice, thanks to the fast AF, the focal lenght and the very high image quality, that make possible to use TCs with good results (with the 1.4x TC it becomes a 560 f/8; it mantains AF with 1 series cameras, and even with other bodies it is possible to use AF with the trick of taped pins). On the other hand, this lens has a minimum focussin distance of 3.5 meters, that makes difficult taking photos of small subjects, and it lacks of IS.
If you want to photograph a broader range of subject, the versatile 100-400 is an excellent choice, but it doesn't give good results with TCs. The 300 f/4 is as sharp as the 400 5.6 without TCs; with 1.4x TC it becomes a 420 f/5.6 with an image quality similar to the 100-400. I'd recommend these lenses if you don't need the longest focal available in this price range or if you already have a 500/600mm and you want a shorter "backup" lens. Other than that, the 300 f4 IS have a minimum focussing distance of just 1.5 meters, so it is a better choice if you want to photograph small subjects.

Canon EOS 20D, Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS USM, 1/320 f/4, iso 800, handheld. Torrile, Italy.

Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS USM
The Canon 500 f/4 is one of the best lenses for wildlife photography; in many respects, it is even better than the 600 f/4. The image quality is identical - they are both razor sharp, even with the 1.4x TC, and they are pretty good with the 2x TC. The autofocus is extremely fast; it focusses 1 meter closer than the 600 (4.5 meters instead of 5.5 mt), even though the reproduction ratio is the same since the 500 f/4 has a shorter focal length.
The biggest difference between the 500 and the 600 is weight and size: the 500 is smaller (146 x 387mm vs the 168 x 456mm of the 600) and much lighter (3.9kg vs 5.4kg). In practice, the difference is even more that what you can imagine from these numbers. Since the front element is smaller, it is easier to photograph from the small windows of many hides, and overall the smaller size of the lens makes much easier to carry it around. Moreover, if you travel by plane it is easier to carry it with you as carry-on luggage, while the 600 might exceed the size limits of some plane companies. The difference in weight between the 500 and the 600 is another advantage of the 500, you might think that "just" 1.5kg don't make much difference, but in practice there is a very noticeable difference. I am in good fit but I find quite difficult to handhold the 600...of course I can handhold it for a dozen of photos but I won't be able to handhold it for an entire day with good results. By comparision, the 500 feels featherweight: when I tried it, I never put it on tripod, it is not too difficult to handhold it, even for hours. If you have a steady hand, you will be able to get regularly sharp photos with a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster. It is a joy to use this lens!
The 500 has 100mm less focal length than the 600. This is not a night/day difference - if you are able to take a photo with the 600, it is likely that you will be able to take the photo even with the 500, moving a little closer to the subject or cropping a little more. On the other hand, with the 600 I tend to use less the TCs, while with the 500 I'd be temped more often to mount at least the 1.4x, losing one stop of light. Many wildlife subject are pretty shy and it is not easy to get closer so every bit of focal length helps, and it allows to get a slightly better image quality by reducing the need of cropping when you can not get closer.
In conclusion, the choice between 500 and 600 is far from easy; if possible, I'd suggest to try both lenses before buying one of them. If you plan to travel a lot and to carry the lens for long distances, I'd recommend the 500, while if you want to photograph very shy subjects, in particular small birds, the 600 is a better choice.
Personally, I've choosen the 600 because I wanted the maximum reach and I can live with its bulk (even though I'd love to have a smaller, lighter 600...while a 600 f/4 DO is not likely, I hope that Canon will develop other technologies to reduce the weight and size of tele lenses). In the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM field review, in the paragraph "Similar Lenses (for Canon EOS)" you can see a photo of the two lenses side by side, and a comparision of the same subject photographed with the 500 and the 600.

Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM
The 800 f/5.6, announced in late 2007, is the longest lens currently manufactured by Canon (the 1200mm is discontinued); the size is nearly identical to the 600 f/4, while it is a bit lighter (4.5 kg vs 5.3 kg). If you need the maximum reach, this is the lens for you: it is sharper than 600 f/4 + 1.4x, and if you compare 800 5.6 + 1.4x vs 600 + 2x, the 800 is clearly better. Other than that, if you can live without AF, the 800 5.6 gives a good 1600 f/11, with the 2x TC. Other advantages of the 800mm are slightly faster AF than 600 + 1.4x and the excellent 4 stop stabilization: it clearly reduces the motion blur more than the 2 stop stabilization of the 600 f/4.
The main problem of this lens is the very high price; unless you really need the maximum image quality at 800 and 1200mm, I'd go for the much cheaper 600 f/4 (with teleconverters).

Special Lenses

Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L
I was a bit skeptic about this lens - it is expensive, it lacks of AF, it is not bright (the maximum aperture is f/3.5, quite slow for a prime) and it is not as versatile as 24-70 or 24-105 zooms. After trying it, I'm 100% convinced about its quality! The image quality and the built are high, as you can expect from a Canon L lens. The tilt and shift movements are incredibly useful, both for landscape, architecture and creative photography. The shift movement allows to avoid the converging lines when you photograph something from a "low to high" perspective. The till allows to control the depth of field: by tilting the lens parallel to the subject, you can increase the depth (very useful for landscapes where you want to get a sharp photo from the close foreground to the background). You can even use this lens creatively, tilting the lens in the opposite direction respect the subject: the DOF becomes incredibly shallow, and it allows to create very original image. 
This lens has some drawbacks - when you use tilt and shift, you can see some chromatic aberration and loss of sharpness toward the corners; you have often to exposed manually, because it the camera exposure meter is fooled by tilt movements. Nevertheless, it is an exceptional instrument for those who need its peculiar characteristics.

Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro
The Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1x-5x Macro is the most extreme macro lens currently available in every digital SLR system. This is a very specialized macro lens that is able to reach a magnification ratio from 1x (1:1) to 5x (5:1). Almost all macro lens are able to reach 1:1, but the MPE is the only one that goes to the amazing 5:1 ratio! It is a fantastic lens, but it is not easy at all - in my opinion, it is the most difficult-to-use lens currently manufactured by Canon. First, it is made exclusively for macro photos: you can't frame subjects larger than 24x36mm. Other than that, it is manual focus, well, actually it has not focussing: it has just a large ring that allows to select the magnification, then you have to move back and forth to put the subject in focus. The depth of field is extremely small - the smallest aperture available is f/16, but actually you can use this aperture only at 1:1, at higher magnifications you have to use wider apertures, otherwise the diffraction soften the image so much that it becomes unusable. The following table shows the smallest aperture that I recommend to use at every magnification, and the field of view, both on fullframe and APS-C cameras.

In the smallest f/ field, I noted also the smallest aperture that I'd use "in case of emergency" - but I'd recommend to use such aperture only when you absolutely need more DOF, because it already leds to a noticeable loss of image quality. Even at the smallest apertures, the depth is a millimeter or less, so the focus is extremely difficult; you have to choose the area of the image that you want in sharp focus, knowing that the rest of the photo will be completely out of focus. The following images are 100% (umprorocessed) crops from a photo taken at 5:1. The image quality is good at f/4, but it drops quickly if you stop down - at f/16, it is so soft that it looks out of focus. At 4:1 and 3:1 the lens is a bit easier to use, and you can stop down a little more.

f/2.8	f/4	f/5.6	f/8	f/11	f/16

When I am in the field, I set the lens on 1:1 and I framed the subject, then I slowly "zoom" to 5:1, adjusting the position of the lens to maintain the subject in focus. This lens is not a zoom - the focal lenght is always 65mm - but using it "as a zoom" helps a lot; framing the subject straight at 5:1 is pretty difficult, since the field of view is very small (3x4.5mm on my 20D). The difference between this lens and a real zoom is that, while you change the magnification from 1:1 to 5:1, you have to change also the distance camera-subject to maintain the focus. But the framing is not the only challenge - once you have framed the subject, you have to fine tune the focus, and to make the composition. The viewfinder is pretty dark, because at 5:1 the brightest aperture of f/2.8 is effectively a f/16. If your subject is in shade, the "lamp" function of the Canon MT-14EX helps a lot: it turns on for some seconds two small lights to brighten up the subject. I'm not a fan of flash, usually natural light is more pleasing, and the flash may bother some animals, but it is almost essential with this lens: handholding it in natural light is science-fiction, using it on the tripod in natural light is extremely difficult, while the flash make it usable, even handheld. The Canon MT-14EX ring flash is not very powerful, but it gives a nice diffused light, and it gives all the light that you need at the extremely short working distance of the MP-E. The light of the flash lasts less than 1/10,000, and it freezes both the movements of the photographer and the movements of the subject; moreover, it allows to use ISO 100 or 50, to get the best image quality.
The Canon MPE is unique lens: if you are a fan of extreme macro, this is the lens for you!

Discontinued Lenses

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
The 16-35 is a very good professional lens; it sharp, it has fast autofocus and excellent built quality. On fullframe, the extreme corners are quite soft at the widest apertures, but stopping down by 2-3 stops the image quality is excellent. That said, the 17-40 L costs half the price and it is equally good; the only "advantage" of the 16-35 is the 1-stop brighter aperture, but this is quite useless for nature photography: at f/2.8 the depth of field is really too shallow for landscapes, and the image quality is not as good as I'd like. If you are looking for a good wide-angle for landscapes and nature photography, I'd recommend the much cheaper, but excellent, Canon 17-40 f/4 L USM.

Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM (hands-off preview)
The 1200mm can be considered a "pride lens" - it has not practical usage, but it was built just to show that Canon is able to build such a lens. It is so big and heavy that it is almost impossible to carry around in the field - the 600mm f/4 IS with teleconverters is much, much better for nearly all practical usages. Of course, the 1200 f/5.6 is 1 stop brighter than 600 f/4 + 2x and for sure it is sharper, but it costs then times as much (it was built only on order and the price was around $ 80,000) and it is exaggerately heavy. If you are curios to see this lens, give a look to the Pbase gallery or this interesting article about the 1200mm on XL-1 camcorder.

Recommended links

Do you have comments or questions?

If you have comments or questions about this article, feel free to ask in the Juza Nature Photography Discussion Forum!