Canon wildlife lens?

[Brendan7]

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

[Colin]

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.

[Brendan7]

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).

[elmo_2006]

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....

[bob williams]

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

[ShutterbugJohan]

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. :-)

[Bill W]

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.





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.





Same picture enlarged 100% and cropped.





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

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Very well put Bill, I agree with you!


Nate,

[Daniel Browning]

i am in the market for a new wildlife lens. Budget for lens: not over $2500.

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.)

[Brendan7]

Thanks to all of you for your input!


which between the 5.6/400 and 4/300?