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. :-)

[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?

[Joel]

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?

[Jon Ruyle]

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.)

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.