a lens for Wild life in a bit tight budget

[conropl]

When I started out shooting wildlife I had a 55-250mm lens. One of the biggest draw backs was I found myself cropping way to much to get the picture I wanted. So I bought the 100-400mm and was real happy with it (with and added benefit of better IQ). You cannot always get close enough to animals to get a good clear view of there eyes which seems to really enhance the picture. So the extra reach does help a lot. In fact, I find myself at 400mm most of the time. You can go with a 400mm prime, but I also find the zoom to be handy because the 400mm was to big for shooting things like my kids soccer games (sports with good light outdoors). So the 100-400mm range worked good for me (although I would love to have the 500mm, it is a bit out of budget for me).


On of the big complaints I hear/read for the 100-400mmis the push/pull zoom action, but it was never really an issue for me.It was something that I got used to quickly, and it never really bothered me. I used this lens so much that when I got other lenses I had to get used to the rotational zoom action again.


Just my two cents for what ever it is worth.


Pat

[Fast Glass]

I would go for the 100-400mm in your suggested list. But I would recomend the 400mm prime over the zoom for better IQ and extender performance. The zoom is amost useless for birds and a little more useful for wildlife, but still not very useful. IS is helpful but the AF is better on the 400mm prime. I find most of the time the subject is moving more than my minimum shutter speed at this focal length and IS is less important. All the image quality in the world is useless if it's not properly focused and in this case I think AF wins over IS. BIF is one form of bird photography that is not too hard to do if you have adequete AF and is a lot of fun to shoot.


But for serious bird and wildlife photography I would get a manual focus 500mm/600mm/800mm lens, they cost about the same aseither lens and they enter a new dimension of photography compared to shorter lenses. Not only do they have longer native focal lengths but with extenders they can get shots and perspectives of wild subjects that would be imposible with shorter lenses, in this case AF is useless because you can't get the shot in the first place without loss of AF anyway. Or taping the pins trick wil give you poor AF performace in lower light.


BTW, all my bird and wildlife shots are taken with aMinolta 600mm f/6.3 manual focus lens.


John.

[JJphoto]

all good suggestions. there is one more lens you might want to try is the Sigma 400mm 5.6 APO Macro, it's hard to find it now, you can google it, there are some reviews on the internet, it should be a very good alternative choice, if you are lucky, you can find it for about $400-$500

Or taping the pins trick wil give you poor AF performace in lower light.

John, I tried that trick on my 400mm 5.6 with the 7D, not very happy with the results, it hunted a lot even in good light. there is no cheap solution if you want something longer than 420mm and still AF on the non 1D body[]

[Colin500]

But for serious bird and wildlife photography I would get a manual focus 500mm/600mm/800mm lens, they cost about the same aseither lens and they enter a new dimension of photography compared to shorter lenses.

Do you have some (more) suggestions in this category?


Since Bryan doesn't review them I wouldn't even know where to start looking ;-)


Thanks, Colin

[Fast Glass]

Yes I do, the FD or New FD 500mm f/4.5 L. It has flourite glass like the EF 500mm f/4.5 L. I have heard that it

[Colin500]

Thanks, John, seeing your Minolta I wouldn

[scalesusa]

I've tried many telephoto lenses, 400mm 5/5.6L, 600mm f/4L, 70-300mm IS, Tamron 200-500mm, Sigma 400mm, etc. The 600mm L was the best, of course, but I could not take it with me for a quick shot, it became a big expedition with the heavy tripod and Wimberly Head, etc. For wildlife, none of them were as long as I'd like.


I finally decided on a compromise, the 100-400mmL. Its easy to carry along, its quite compact when telescoped to 100mm, the IS works well, and at 400mm the images are sharp, even with a 1.4X TC. For small birds, its ability to focus closely is valuable.


100-400mml and female redwing blackbird


[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/[View:http://www.mount-spokane-photography...:1900]immature redwing blackbird[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/[View:http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Photography/100-400mm-L/20100516-IMG9567/1061665801_pTPv7-XL.jpg]:1900:1900]

[bob williams]

Like you, I started this passion for wildlife and I have been using the 100-400L for almost 3 years and love it, But since I am set at 400mm 99.9 of the time ---in hindsite, I would go with the 400L 5.6 prime, as FastGlass said. It has better IQ, is smaller and it has a really cool sliding shade. If there is any doubt, look at some of the bird shots that Nate took with his 400L. Good luck


Bob