Printable View
Hi, I'm an amateur nature photographer. I mainly shoot birds, but also do a fair amount of macro.
I currently have been using a 50d with a borrowed 5.6/400l. After saving the dough for months, i am in the market for a new wildlife lens. Budget for lens: not over $2500.
I've already done a large amount of research but could use suggestions from some better photographers than I (lots of those here) who have some experience with wildlife shooting.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Thanks!
Brendan
I guess it's a question of, how close can you get, how close do you need to get, will that be highly variable, and how much light will you usually have?
300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 come to mind. Anything better in the canon line is going to be more than $2,500.
I'd go with a dedicated macro lens as opposed to screwing around with extension tubes or whatever, particularly on a telephoto. Extension tubes to do maro on a 35mm can be interesting (but very tight.) but within your budget, I think you could include a nice macro in that combination.
as far as how close I can get, I shoot everything from songbirds to slow, tame Brown Pelicans. On any given instance I am probably within a dozen feet of the bird (pelicans, about five).
I would go with the 300 4L IS USM with either the 1.4x or the 2.0x, preferrably the 1.4x. I have read that the 300 4L + 1.4x extension work great together! Besides you may end up with spare change to use towards a seperate macro lens!
My next purchase will be the 300 4L and the 1.4x.
Do a search on both in flikr and you can then compare.
Hope this helps....
I have been trying to develop my skills with wildlife as well and I started out with a 100-400 L---Though this is a great lens and has served me well, I think I am going to go withh the 400L prime. The pictures are clearly sharper with the prime and the prime is a little cheaper than the Zoom. I personally am not a fan of the extenders and only use them as a last resort. If you want to shoot wildlife (outside of a zoo), get as much reach as you can for the buck. My suggestion:
400L, 5.6: $1200.00 (read Bryan's review and look at Nate's bird Photographs)
Use the rest of the money for other things you may need or want, i.e. extender, good tripod, battery grip, memory cards, backpack, or a good walk around or Macro Lens.
Good luck
Why not the 100-400 and 100mm non-IS macro and a medium-range zoom? I think that only 14mm and 400mm primes would be quite limiting. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
That is precisely where Canon has a gaping whole in their lineup. There is no *good* option between the 400mm f/5.6 for $1200 and the 500mm f/4 for $6,200.
I suggest buying an old, used 300mm f/2.8 non-IS and using it with a teleconverters (2X makes a nice 600mm f/5.6). The IS versions are $4,200 new and recent used ones sell for around $3,500 used, but I've seen plenty of old non-IS versions go for $2,500.
If you are opposed to buying used, then I suggest you consider third party lenses from Sigma and Tamron. Unlike Canon, they do have some birding lenses between $1200 and $2500.
If you are opposed to used and third party, then there's nothing you can do but make do suboptimal choices like the 400mm f/5.6 and 100-400. (At least they are lightweight!)
I'm in the market for a nice $2500 birding lens too, so I hope Canon will add one to their line someday. (I'd like it as long as slow as possible, 1000mm f/10 manual focus would be great for me, but probably not marketable.)
Thanks to all of you for your input!
which between the 5.6/400 and 4/300?
100m and 1 f-stop [;)]
Seriously, the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 IS USM Lens is a bit younger than its 400m counterpart and has 2 stops Image Stabilization, which delivers (theoretically) the same image at:
- 1/100 of a second when IS is enabled
- 1/400 of a second without
But share the same kind of build, but the 400mm just lacks IS. The questions is: are you willing to sacrifice the IS for the extra 100mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
I'm sure you've considered this, Daniel, but... what's wrong with a telescope? An old takahashi fc 100 has exactly the specs you specified, and could be had used for under $2500 I'll bet. A fs102 would be 800 f/8 and easier to get, and well under $2000. Etc etc. An 800 mm f/10 of okay quality could be had for $400.
The only downsides I can think of (besides manual focus, which you said you could live with) are 1) long minimum focus distance, but I'm assuming you aren't exactly planning macro and 2) can't control aperture (would you want to stop down an f/10 anyway?) 3) limited exif (so what?) and 3) weight (perhaps this is the biggie... though if you could live with 800mm f/10 it wouldn't be too bad)
I guess also, it is nice to use stuff that was designed to work together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
MFD is a big issue as you mentioned. The weight I don't mind. In fact, telescopes tend to be much lighter for the same iris diameter, thanks to far fewer number of elements, so weight is one of their advantages. But size is where they lose. Many are not "telephoto" at all: their length is not shorter than their focal length.
Another big issue is image stabilization. A four stop I.S. would let me shoot a managable 1/125 instead of an impossible 1/2000 that would be needed with a refractor.
Another issue is cost/performance for daytime (close focus) photography. Even the best refractors have a hard time competing with the lowly Canon 400mm f/5.6. It blows away almost any similar-aperture refractor with a wide converter/field-flattener, especially on full frame, even compared to those that cost twice as much. The 500mm f/4, similarly, stomps any refractor of a similar price. I think it comes down to economies of scale.
I'm hoping that there are enough people out there, like me, that want massive focal lengths, quality (and bokeh) as good as the 500mm f/4, don't need autofocus or f/4, but can only afford $2,500. Then perhaps Canon will see a way to put out an 800 or 1000mm lens with a very slow f-number, and good I.S. I doubt it will happen, but I'll keep dreaming. :)
For bird only, get the 400 f/5.6L ($1200)
For Macro, get the new 100 f/2.8L IS ($1100)
and that's about $2300
Nate,
+1 for that, as long as 100mm gets you close enough for what you are doing...sounds like it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
I've heard that the 2-stop IS of the 4/300 is first-generation and outdated and so not a factor when comparing it with the 5.6/400.
Thoughts??
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Yes, the I.S. on the 300mm f/4 is marketed as "only" 2 stops, but that does not mean it is not a factor. For example:
- 300mm f/4 + 1.4X TC ISO 1600 1/125
- 400mm f/5.6 ISO 6400 1/500
There's a huge difference in noise between ISO 6400 and ISO 1600, even though it's "only" two stops.
Ive got a 400 f5.6 and use it on my 1DS MK3. Wildlife moves so speed is the most inportant factor as is getting close. Dnt have an APS-C. This lens is a total joy in good light. You dont need IS as you shoot as fast as you can so handheld its light, great for panning, birds in flight its top for. Its tough, optically perfect and one of the most undersung lens's in Canons line up. It whups the 100-400 for image quality. That said you will miss some shots as its not a zoom. You work harder with primes as you need to move around a lot, its not weather sealed either.
But when the lights good and you get the shot its excellent. Im selling mine. Why? Because i got drunk, had acess to EBAY, a credit card and some fool sold me a 1 year old 500 f4 is L. And thats in a whole different league. Its so good id sell my wife to the devil if needed. Ok, maybe not but a kidney or two.
Mick
Sorry for hijacking the thread. Hope no one minds...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Okay, Daniel. I find that interesting. Are you saying telescopes do worse close up because they are optimized to image at infinity, or that they'll do worse even when taking pictures of far away stuff?
For far away stuff , it is hard to imagine the 400mm f/5.6 doing better across a 36mm field than, say, a takahashi fsq or "baby q". Am I wrong? (Not that I suggest an fsq as a cheap slow lens, it is neither... but you said twice the price of a 400mm f/5.6) If so I should run out and get a 400 :)
Similarly, I would be surprised if a 500 f/4 does better across a 36mm frame than, say, a 6" astrophysics with field flattner, assuming we compare angular resolution (if you just take a picture with each and compare, the shorter focal length lens has an advantage). I expect the astrophysics to be diffraction limited (on axis, anyway... I guess I really have no idea what it is like in the corners, but people do take 6cm film pics with the things, don't they?), so it should out resolve a 500mm f/4 even if the 500 is diffraction limited (which I tend to doubt... people use it on cameras with DLAs of 7+ and up, so why be diffraction limited at f/4?).
Have you done or do you know of someone who has done these comparisons? (I recall seeing one once and the guy gave a slight edge to the canon lens, but it was not scientifically done (no adjustment was made for different image scales IIRC) and was supposedly a minor difference anyway. Plus he compared for astrophotography, not daytime)
bburns;
I shoot similar bird subjects; Hummingbirds to Bald Eagles w/the 100-400 on a 40D.
The cons, to me, for this lens are; poor bokeh, a little slow for the lighting (cloudy and overcast) during our New England winter days, and every birders' mantra whine....not enough reach. The 1.4x extender is not an option.
But what I really enjoy about this lens is it's flexibility in shooting scenarios, i.e. landscapes, daylight sports; baseball, F1 racing, and surfing, as well as birding.
And I'm quite satisfied w/the IQ when I've used the lens correctly....after a year and a half, I'm still learning the do's and don'ts....guess I'm a little slow.
Here's an example of an HB; hand held, f9, 1/640, ISO 500 at 380mm approximately 20' from the feeder. The very nice bokeh was furnished by an Adobe wall....ignore the bright spot in the lower left, it's cropped out in my final version.
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...or/BTHBlll.jpg
Another example taken approximately 50' from the Cooper's hawk; f/8, 1/800, ISO 200 at 400mm w/only clarity and sharpening in PS.
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...llframeCsH.jpg
Same picture enlarged 100% and cropped.
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...tor/100CsH.jpg
Concerning the 70-200 IS 2.8 lens; I think you would become quickly frustrated w/it's lack of reach (it's only shortcoming) shooting wildlife, unless you're shooting in a zoo or in a wildlife workshop. There is an example of this lens in "Post your best bird shot" gallery....Kestrel.
Finally, IMO, your choice should be between the 100-400 and a prime.
Good luck and enjoy whatever decision you make
Bill
Very well put Bill, I agree with you!
Nate,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Daniel, any suggestions for either the Sigma and Tamron? Like you've said, I wish Canon would fill the gap. A 500/5.6 might be the ticket?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Thanks for the reply, Jon. I could be wrong; I haven't done much evaluation of refractors, but I have read a lot of comparisons on Cloudy Nights. I was thinking of up close performance. Sometimes, lenses are even better than telescopes at infinity, but not always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I think the baby q ($3k) will be better at infinity. When I said "Twice the price" that was probably too much exaggeration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I just read about them every once and a while on Cloudy Nights, but I don't have any links. There was a thread a while back where I said there was no way that a photographic lens could match a telescope (at similar price ranges), because of like two dozen reasons:
<span class="post"]Fast f/numbers are needed, which I understand are more difficult than slow f/numbers.
The flange focal distance is fixed.
(Usually) larger image circles needed
Bokeh
Color balance compared to other lenses in the line.
Length is usually less important in telescopes.
Telescopes are not often handheld, so weight tolerances are lower.
Volume matters more in photographic lenses which must pack for travel.
The lens must focus, and have good travel, control, smoothness, sensitivity
Design for close focus distances and performance at those distances as well as infinity.
Focus shift at various focal ratios is less tolerated than in a telescope.
Lots of mechanical design issues such as aperture diaphram
Compensation for cosine^4 falloff, which I don't think is a big deal in telescopes.
Filter size (very few photo lenses allow rear filters)
Teleconverter compatibility
Aperture Activation Variance
Auto focus motor speed and accuracy
Image Stabilization
Noise from I.S. and Autofocus
Electronic communication with the camrea
Continuously variable aperture ring
Resistance to shock, vibration, impact (IMHO)
Focus marks
Manufacturing delivery schedule, marketability, cost, etc.
I was certain that with so many factors in favor of telescopes that there was no way a lens could be better at infinity. But many people responded to correct me, saying that there is one all-encompassing and overriding advantage: economies of scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
A used Sigma 300mm f/2.8+2X would do better than the zooms. Sometimes a used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 will come around for $2,900, but that's over budget. I thought Tamron had some nice old prime teles, but I don't see them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Yeah. I'd prefer an 1100mm f/11 IS with optional 2X wide converter (which would turn it into a slightly soft 550mm f/5.6). Only problem is that 35mm 2X wide converters are encumbered by patent issues for the next few years, no thanks to Kodak. It would be the ideal hand-held birding lens.
I'm positive that they had an old 300/2.8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
How do they work? I've never heard of such a thing. [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan
It's the same thing as a focal reducer (or field flattener), which are used all the time in astrophotography, except with a few extra elements to preserve the backfocus distance.
They're like the inverse of a teleconverter. They mount between the lens and camera, but instead of making the focal length longer and f-number slower, they make the focal length shorter and f-number faster. They need about 7 elements, same as a good TC, but thicker, and it needs to be matched specifically for a single lens.
It would be ideal for wildlife because most of the time we'll want super long focal lengths (e.g. 1100mm) with the highest quality possible. An 1100mm f/11 L IS with no TC would provide that quality (and even allow another 1.4X TC), and for those rare times when it's too long or you need autofocus, you pop on the wide converter to get 550mm f/5.6, though the quality is lower.
One example is the Oly 35-100 f/2.0, which is actually just a typical 70-200 f/2.8 lens with a wide converter permanently attached: that's why it's over two times heavier than a 35-100 f/2 should be. It should have turned out as a 35-100 f/1.4, but they left it at f/2 for some reason (I heard that if you press the lens release, it opens to f/1.6 but vignettes terribly -- perhaps that's why).
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see any until the Kodak patent expires.
Interesting. Thanks, Daniel.
100-400 f4.5L IS (new $1600)
100 2.8L IS (new $1050)