Telephoto lens choice, thoughts please

[otterspotter]

Hi all, finally found out how to post a note through the ether.
Looked at the quite extensive information on just about everything, especially photography.
I am at the moment trawling the net re telephoto lenses.
Got a Canon 350d last year,kit lenses are ok but also got a dedicated macro 60mm.
Had some so so results, some fair results, and one fantastic result (a green bottle on garden table). Depth of field problematic though.
Anyway, thinking about telephoto should i go for a 70-300mm 100-400mm.
How close do you need to be for a very good photo?
Put another way, how far away do you need to be before there is no point attempting a shot?
Does that make sense?!
Any thoughts, ideas, etc much appreciated.
Lots of excellent photo's in the Gallery's hope i can get near to matching them one day!!
Cheers

[narrowgauge]

Hi Otterspotter:

For what its worth, here are a few pointers, bearing in mind I am no proffesional photographer, but I do dable a bit.
Telephoto - Size:
This is one of the biggest problem areas with wildlife photography, whatever you have is never big enough, unless you have lots of shares in Microsoft
A 70-300 standard lens is ok and you can choose from many that are available, Sigma do a nice one with a macro feature for £165 (I have got one) 300mm on your Canon is realy 480mm due to the crop factor. You must remember that in the ideal world, you will need a shutter speed at least 1/500 second or faster to avoid blured images. The problem with all the cheaper zoom lenses is that they are usualy around the f5.6 end at 300mm which means its great on a bright day, but at 5 in the afternoon in the winter you will strugle with light, you then up the ISO to get more speed, everything is a trade off. You may like to consider getting something like a 80-200 f2.8 which will cost a lot more than your bog standard 70-300, but will allow a lot more flexability in the long run. Sigma do a nice 70-200 @ f2.8 all through the range and is at warehouse express for £678. A lens like that will allow you to put a 2x teleadaptor on to turn your lens into a 140-400 f4 more than enough for 90% of nature shots. I had the 50-500mm lens, and although it gives great results, its a huge great lump to lug around mountains and hillsides. With a long lens you need to consider using a tripod as much as you can, I know people will poo poo as they can hand hold a 800mm telephoto lens and have no shake (I get shakey pictures at 1/1000 sec on a bright day). In answer to your question how close do you have to get, the answer is "as close as you can without disturbing your subject, or spoiling the shot". For example you can take great snaps of badgers playing in a woodland setting on a bright morning from a hundred meters or more, but even with a 500mm lens, you wont get frame filling brock. To do that you have to be less than 50m away, and that takes some doing without disturbing them. I can get great bird shots from our birdtable which is only 4m from the living room window with a 70-300 lens (I am saving up for the 70-200 2.8!) I hope I have not bored you with this, and hope that it helps a bit, if you need to, you are welcome to email me.
Best wishes
Colin

[Roy C]

Of the two lenses you quote, the Canon 100-400 is far better suited to bird photography - this lens has IS so you can handhold very easy. Also consider the Canon 400mm f5.6 prime which is a little lighter (and cheaper) than the zoom. Despite the lack of IS it is easily hand holdable ( I hand hold mine with a 1.4 tc attached).
Like everything else you get what you pay for. Basic 75-300 zooms can be had for as little as £150 whereas the two lens I mention are around £800 - £1100. Now if you have a really big budget you could go for a Canon 500mm f4 or even a 600mm f4 which come in at around £4000. (I am still dreaming of the 500mm f4)
Which ever lens you buy I guarantee that after a while you will be wanting more reach so buying a lens that takes a 1.4 teleconverter well is a good idea even if you do not start off with a tc.
Weight is the other big factor. Do you want something that is easily hand holdable or will you be using a tripod - the two lenses that I quote are bordering on the max weight that I could be comfortable with it slung around my neck for several hours

Even with 400mm lenses you still have to get quite near to birds to produce good shots - Re your point about "how far away do you need to be before there is no point attempting a shot" a lot depends on the size of the bird, for a finch size bird you need to be within say 10 metres max (5 metres is better).

[otterspotter]

Hi Thanks for the info re my question on telephoto's,
the idea of a tc sounds as if it's worth serious consideration, i keep forgetting about the multiplication factor of course!
Does that mean a 100-400mm IS which gives an efl of 480mm is the best option?
Given of course the huge price tags of prime 500's which are a bit outside my budget?
Cheers
Trevor

[Jon]

Originally Posted by otterspotter

Hi Thanks for the info re my question on telephoto's,
the idea of a tc sounds as if it's worth serious consideration, i keep forgetting about the multiplication factor of course!
Does that mean a 100-400mm IS which gives an efl of 480mm is the best option?
Given of course the huge price tags of prime 500's which are a bit outside my budget?
Cheers
Trevor

Otterspotter
the 100-400L IS lens is the bees knees as far as I am concerned but I also know that the Sigma 50-500mm is an excellent lens and is somewhat cheaper.
The former has IS I don't know if the latest Sigma does or not. Previous discussion has shown little difference in image size despite one being 400 and the other 500.
You pay your money take your chance, both will provide excellent results. There has been lot of discussion over these lenses - see previous posts in the photography section,
Jon

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by otterspotter

Hi Thanks for the info re my question on telephoto's,
the idea of a tc sounds as if it's worth serious consideration, i keep forgetting about the multiplication factor of course!
Does that mean a 100-400mm IS which gives an efl of 480mm is the best option?
Given of course the huge price tags of prime 500's which are a bit outside my budget?
Cheers
Trevor

Hi Trevor, The 100-400 lens is certainly a better option than the 75-300 for birding (big price difference though). As to which is best between the 100-400 zoom and the 400mm f5.6 prime that is another matter which is often hotly contested by both camps. I personally have the 400mm f5.6 prime but either one would give you good bird images.
Traditionally prime lenses are considered a little sharper and are supposed to take a converter better than a zoom lens but recently I have seen some excellent images with the 100-400 zoom plus 1.4 tc.
I can vouch that the 400mm f5.6 prime is very sharp, even wide open and has lighting fast AF. Although it has not got IS I find it very easy to hand hold and get sharp shots. It is also a lttle lighter and a little less expensive than the zoom.
The two 'biggies' for the zoom is 'IS' and the ability to zoom in and out.
As I say, both lenses would be great for birds so the choice is yours.

[nightshade]

Consider what you really want it for;
Get a really good 2.8 x 200mm and a matched converter for occasional
long distance.The Sigma 70-300 is very good at 200mm @ f9 in my example,
the real applause goes to the Sigma 50-500 or Canon 100-400 IS on this site

[Ollie]

Well I use a Canon 400mm f5.6 prime lens and a Sigma 50 - 500mm zoom lens. It's a case of horses for courses. If I need the versatality of the zoom I would use the 50 - 500mm, if not then the 400mm prime comes into play. I'm positive the Canon 400mm prime gives sharper images than the Sigma 50 - 500mm. Also don't forget the Canon 100 - 400mm IS lens. There are many who use it on here with excellent results.
Roger

[otterspotter]

Thanks to all for your very informative posts, there is certainly a lot of stuff to mull over!
just had a look at the coventry birders site, really good pics using a 30d 100-400mm +1.4teleconverter.
I guess the same combination on my 350d would do the business.
Oh well, better put in for more overtime!!
Cheers