Lenses

[kielder]

Hi, I posted a while back on advice on the Canon EOS 40D, since reading all the responses, I think I will go for the 400D. I was just wondering if anyone can give advice as to which lense serves you best for wildlife photography, and why?

Helen

[glsammy]

The best and longest I can afford and manage to carry.
For wildlife any lens that can give good quality whilst allowing you to keep a good distance for the subject is a definite advantage. The faster the glass the better it will perform in poor light. Some professionals are quite capable of using a 300mm lens with the right knowledge and approach to their subject, but for normal mortals like me, a 400mm lens would be the bare minimum.
That for me is my Sigma 50-500mm. The main advantage of this lens is the wide zoom range, at the cost of relatively slow glass and not the sharpest image at the full 500mm wide open. I don't like to go much below F8 with it, which does penalise you in low light areas. In good light it's a lens capable of producing very good images, and even in poor light with a willing subject it doesn't do too badly!
I'd love to have a fast 400mm or 500mm or even a 600mm, but these are simply too large for me to physically manage, even if I crave their quality.
It all depends on your capabilities and how deep your pockets are.
There again there's always a Canon 300mm F2.8 prime...Now there you really do need deep pockets! (It's one option I'm seriously considering though..)

[Ollie]

I agree with all Graham has said about lenses.

My pockets aren't quite deep enough yet for a Canon 300mm F2.8 prime so I'm using what I consider to be the next best option a Canon 400mm f5.6L USM prime. It's an incredibly sharp lens even wide open and being an F5.6 performs a little better than the Sigma 50-500mm in low light. The shorter focal length than the Sigma 50-500mm in my opinion is more than made up for in image quality of the 400mm

It accepts a 1.4x converter fairly readily and although the images do lose a slight bit of sharpness with the tc fitted and you lose auto focus unless you tape the pins and even then auto focus is a bit so so and tends to hunt a bit. But such is the quality of this lens that you can get away with using the tc and still get excellent images

Also don't forget about the Canon 100-400mm f5.6 image stabilised lens. Slightly more expensive than the Canon 400mm or the Sigma 50-500mm but an excellent lens particularly if you are thinking of hand holding rather than using a tripod

These are just my opinions and I'm sure others will suggest different combinations.
Roger

[Words]

I use the 100-400 image stabilised lens on my 400D. Being able to use shorter focal lengths is very useful if you only have one lens (some creatures insist on getting too close!). The IS is a boon for taking shots in wooded/shaded areas. This squirrel was taken in dark shade and even at ISO 800 I could only squeeze a shutter speed on 1/30sec. I doubt I could have got this handheld without the stabilisation.

[colincurry]

Helen

I have the Canon 100-400 and find it very good. You can hand hold it. I sometimes use a monopod when walking about. You can use a 1.4 tc with but you have to tape the pins etc as stated in a previous post.

There is always the argument between those that say that a prime lens is sharper and those that prefer the flexibility of a zoom. I am more than satisfied with the sharpness of most of my shots - any shortfall is down to operator error. I won't afford the larger primes and most of my snapping is done on the hoof and the tripod needed for these bigger beasts is a heavy thing to lump five or six miles. I do use a tripod when in a hide or for macro with my Sigma 150 (even there, I can get away with a monopod).

All of these arguments are pretty subjective. One common point, and one that I have learnt, is to do your research and go for the very best you can afford - or just a bit over. Your horizons will expand along with your experience and growth of expertise; and it is false economy to go for something that you will later want to swap for something better.

Hapy hunting

Colin

[John D]

I don't disagree with any of the above but don't overlook the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX APO DG lens. It is fairly fast at f4 (constant from 100 to 300mm) and operates very well with a 1.4tc at f5.6 and better still at f8.
In my opinion it is up there with those already mentioned. All of my recent gallery images have been taken with this combination.
See Photozine or Fred Miranda web sites for reviews/reports on this lens.
Certainly worth consideration.
John D

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by John D

I don't disagree with any of the above but don't overlook the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX APO DG lens. It is fairly fast at f4 (constant from 100 to 300mm) and operates very well with a 1.4tc at f5.6 and better still at f8.
In my opinion it is up there with those already mentioned. All of my recent gallery images have been taken with this combination.
See Photozine or Fred Miranda web sites for reviews/reports on this lens.
Certainly worth consideration.
John D

It certainly is. Some reviews I've seen this lens has out performed the Canon 300mm F4 prime!

[nightshade]

Having read all the wildlife lense threads here I think I would be inclined to buy the Sigma 150 2.8 macro perhaps with a 1.4 converter
I have the 105mm 2.8 Sigma which is very useful and the Sigma 70-300 the majority of my photos seem to come in around 150 to 200mm which is more easily hand held. Serious Bird photography needs 400+ and a good tripod
Decide what you really want to do it is cheaper in the long run

[Hobjob]

Another vote for the Canon L IS 100-400

If you want to see what this can do hand held then look
at John's shots in the gallery or on his webiste, coventrybirder

[ron1863]

Depends on your budget Kielder, the Sigma 75-300mm APO is around the £155mark and is an excellent budget lens.

Ron

[kielder]

Thanks Ron, which do you find you use most often?

[galanthus]

I use the measly canon 70-300 mm IS lens for birds etc, I rarely take it off unless using my canon 100mm macro for flowers and bugs etc. It's light, versitile and gorgeous. If I could justify the cost at the mo, I would defo get the canon 400mm prime to go with my 70-300.

[kielder]

Thankyou, just wondering, do you know what lense comes with the Canon 400D?

[deer boy]

Originally Posted by kielder

Thankyou, just wondering, do you know what lense comes with the Canon 400D?

18-55mm

[barquar]

Hi I would go for the Camera body only then get the lens you want. Macro Sigma 150mm marcro lens and then the Sigma 50-500mm telephoto for your bird photos. Job done.
Barquar

[ron1863]

Originally Posted by kielder

Thanks Ron, which do you find you use most often?

I tend to keep the 70-300 APO on as it's fairly versatile if shooting wildlife or butterflies etc as the macro feature gives 1:2 macro, and as it's fairly cheap I don't feel nervous scrambling around in the woods etc.

[GerryNick2]

The Canon 100-400mm f5.6 IS gets my vote too, sharp images even hand held.

Gerry

[Leif]

You might want something along the lines of:

400mm+ for birds, and mammals such as deer.
~100mm macro for insects, plants etc.
~18-70mm zoom for general landscapes.

My own choice would be a ~100mm macro first, but that's a very personal choice.

[Dae]

The Canon 100-400L IS also gets my vote. I just bought this lens, and it's a sharp learning curve, but a load of fun. The quality and versitility is amazing, and I love that it can be hand-held.

But if price is an issue, I love my Canon 70-300 IS lens. It's a great all-rounder, super lightweight, and does some exceptional work. Doesn't have what I feel is the quality of the 400 I mentioned earlier, but it works really well. You can get this lens probably for around £360, and it works well with both my 400D and 30D.

[kielder]

Thankyou very much for your repsonses, some interesting comments to ponder on!

[slimrbp]

Hi,

I use a Canon 400D.

I use the Canon 300mm F4 IS L which is a great lens and combines well with the 1.4x extender to give a 420mm F5.6 and the Image stabilisation is invaluable it means I can mostly shoot handheld. I was tempted by the 100-400L but opted for the 300 as I wanted the slightly faster aperature.

Really cannot sing the praises of this lens highly enough.

This Kestrel shot was taken at 300mm -



And this Blue Tit at 420mm -



I also have a Canon 100mm Macro for the smaller beasties another great lens.

If you don't have any lenses already may as well get the kit lens, it's not the greatest lens in the world but at least you take some landscape and holiday snaps!

[skywatcher]

Back to the idea of what you can carry. It's quite an important consideration.I'm a small female with small hands and not exactly a teenager! I found the bigma a bit too heavy (nice lens though!).I sold it and went for a Canon 300 f4 plus a 1.4 extender. I'm glad I did. It's lighter. It's got IS and because it can focus down to about 5 feet, it's good for butterflies and dragons.I find it works well in Spring when I can get fairly close to small birds around the local pond.It's a lovely lens. However, all photography seems to be a compromise and it's fair to say I DO miss the zoom!
Good luck with your decision
Rosemary

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by skywatcher

Back to the idea of what you can carry. It's quite an important consideration.I'm a small female with small hands and not exactly a teenager! I found the bigma a bit too heavy (nice lens though!).I sold it and went for a Canon 300 f4 plus a 1.4 extender. I'm glad I did. It's lighter. It's got IS and because it can focus down to about 5 feet, it's good for butterflies and dragons.I find it works well in Spring when I can get fairly close to small birds around the local pond.It's a lovely lens. However, all photography seems to be a compromise and it's fair to say I DO miss the zoom!
Good luck with your decision
Rosemary

This set up is one I'm considering. I only wish someone local to me had it so I could see it in action.
I wouldn't do it unless I could see a tangible improvement in shot quality. How I can test that without actually trying the lens?? We're expected to take on trust that the lens we buy are what we want or need, and as I found out with the 120-300, it doesn't always work out that way, causing extra cost and aggravation.

[skywatcher]

I absolutely agree with you. I was lucky enough to bump into another bird photographer at the local pond and we swapped lenses for a morning.You could try hiring one for a day, I guess.
If I didn't live miles away in London, I'd lend you mine ! I've really enjoyed (and envied ) your photos and I've learned so much from this forum.