Long Range lens?

[Alex90]

Hi,

I am looking for a good lens for wildlife photography, i mainly photograph deer but will be off to tanzania july next year so its essential i have sorted out what lens im going to get by then (really tight deadline you see )

I currently use a Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO OS, and it does the job ok and i get a decent picture from around 50 meters or so, however i have noted when looking through other peoples work that my images tend to lack that little bit of extra quality that makes the difference between good quality and top quality.

One lens i have been thinking about after speaking to WAB member is the Canon 300mm F4 L series lens, this is going to seem a really silly question but what features of the lesn make it so good? from what i've seen it produces some excellent shots.

Can anyone recommend any other medium to long distance lenses that will produce high quality images? my budget is around £1000 which should hopefully give me some options, perhaps a lenms cheaper than the budget with a extender/teleconverter? it must maintain autofocus as im really slow with manual focus and i would be able to live with missing those spectacular fleeting moments!

EDIT: forgot to add ... im also thinking about getting a new camera body as although its served its purpose whilst i've been learning over the past year or so my canon 300D doesnt have some of the features i would like. I after something that has upwards of 10.1MP but at a relatively low price. any ideas?

Any advice or reccomendations much appreciated

Alex

[glsammy]

My advice would be to stick with your 150-500mm.
I've had the Canon 300mm F4, plus a 1.4X TC. No problem re image quality, but the AF performance is not good. Decidedly leisurely. Even with just the 300mm, it's not exactly fast.
For the ultimate in performance and value you can't beat the 400mm F5.6 L. Again I've had one and recently sold it. You won't get better for the money, although you'll have to spend close to a grand to get a decent one. The one downside to that lens is the large close focusing distance of around 3.5mtrs. For all the superiority the 400mm offers, I've chosen to keep my Sigma 50-500mm purely for its flexibility.

[MeadsMan]

Hi Alex,if your after quality and want to stick with Canon,then the lens for you is Canon`s 400mm F5.6 prime,I think if you drop down to a 300mm you will miss the reach of your 500mm,You should just able to pick up the lens in your budget.Perhaps you could look at a newer second hand body,a 40D perhaps.I use a Canon 400D along with the above mentioned 400mm prime,I also mainly photograph Deer,and my photos have improved beyond my expectations since I got that Lens.

[glsammy]

One point I forgot to mention, don't worry about the supposed lack of 100mm with the Canon 400mm. I tested both on the same camera body and there was little if any advantage in image size between the two. The 400mm certainly pulled in more detail at maximum than the Sigma lens when viewed at 100%.
The only conclusion I could come up with is that Sigma are being optimistic with their 500mm rating, and Canon pessimistic with theirs!

[Alex90]

Hi,

Cheers for the response, if i did get a new lens i wouldnt be replacing my Sigma as i really like that lens, the new lens would be an addition to my lens collection.

It's not some much the range of the lens thats important but the quality, as advised here and elsewhere i think i should stick with my sigma 500mm for deer photography etc. however i am looking for quality of image with better photo opportunities such as captive animals or even africa next year where the animals are so much closer than the deer in the UK.

I think the lens needs to be 300mm minimum as although you get close on safari some of the better sightings such as leopards etc tend to be at a bit more of a distance.

Having thought about it a little bit more i think i would miss not being able to get back down to 150mm instantly if i had a fixed length lens.

i havent looked at the 400mm lens you mentioned, will have to have a look at that, i would ideally like a bit more than 500mm however i couldnt live without the autofocus lol.

any more idea's welcome, off to have a look at some reviews on the mentioned lenses

Cheers

Alex

[Keith Talbot]

Hi Alex,

I use the 300mm F4 with or without the 1.4x converter and am very happy with the results,i used to own the Canon 100-400mm but found i was always shooting at full zoom anyway so changed to a prime,

The 300mm is also IS and as i always hand hold i find this handy.

[Ollie]

If you are not replacing your sigma lens and the new lens is to be an addition I would definitely go for the Canon 400mm F5.6L lens. I have had this lens for two years.

In my opinion there isn't another lens at 400mm that can beat it for quality, and you did say quality was an important factor. It's also fairly light so hand holding is possible although I tend to use mine on a monopod unless shooting birds in flight then I hand hold. It is also regarded as one of the best lenses around for in flight images.

It will take a 1.4 converter with no significant loss of image quality although you will most likely use auto focus with a converter fitted. Just look at my Gallery for examples most have been taken with this lens and a 40D or the older photos with the same lens and a 400D

[acherontia]

If you're after quality buy a good prime lens. Fixed focal length lenses will always win on quality.
I'm probably going to be unpopular here but in general Sigma have not got a good rep. Most pros won't touch them with a barge pole.
The Nikon 300mm f 2.8 is a brilliant lens (OH uses it) but that would mean changing the camera . He got his second hand.
If you went Sony you could take advantage of all the old second hand Minolta lenses - they were second to none on glass . My old 300mm f4 cost £275 4 years ago and it's more than doubled in price now as the new Sony (who took over Konika Minolta) users have realised the old lenses fit and are excellent quality.
A lot of pros (guest lecturers at OH's college) say 300mm is often enough as it's best to get close (field craft) for the added detail that will always be lost in a whopping lens. And the lower the f number the better - you need as much light as possible for good images.

AA

[Keith Talbot]

Originally Posted by acherontia

A lot of pros (guest lecturers at OH's college) say 300mm is often enough as it's best to get close (field craft) for the added detail that will always be lost in a whopping lens.

AA

I would agree with that the latest Fallow Deer pics in my Gallery were with my 300mm with no converter,with a bit of know how,practice (and patience!) i got to within 20 yards,admitedley its more difficult to get that close to some birds,i suppose its each to their own

A quick question if i may to the 400mm users,how good would you rate it as a handheld lens with no IS?

Keith

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by acherontia

The Nikon 300mm f 2.8 is a brilliant lens (OH uses it) but that would mean changing the camera ....

.... and buying a wheelbarrow to carry it around in!
;^)

Jim