Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

	Moderated by: guardian
	Username   Password Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules Rules: One new topic per day FM Forums | Nature & Wildlife | Join Image Upload end

Equinox Offline [ X ] p.1 #1 · Lens for wildlife Hey guys! I am new here, and sort of to photography too, and was recommended to go here because a friend said it was a great place. I need some help. I want to get into wildlife/nature photography, and don't know what lens to get. I can spend about 550 bucks, no more. The two lenses i am currently thinking about choosing are the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 L. Any suggestions? Will 200 be long enough, as if it is, i might as well go with the L. Thanks in advance! Mar 22, 2008 at 11:49 PM

Ed Robertson Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #2 · Lens for wildlife With Wildlife size does matter the bigger the better. Ed Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56 PM

katzung1 Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #3 · Lens for wildlife The longer, the better! I would get the 70-300 AND a 1.4x extender. Bert Mar 23, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Equinox Offline [ X ] p.1 #4 · Lens for wildlife that would cost too much. I did a few tests, and 200mm was not THAT much shorter then 300mm. I think it is easily croppable at 200mm to make it about 300mm. Mar 23, 2008 at 12:47 AM

Josh S Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #5 · Lens for wildlife In my experience 200mm will feel very short.... here's a few shots of mine with the 70-300mm IS, no tripod. It's a pretty decent lens for the price and I enjoy the IS. I did however just sell the lens in favour of a longer 400mm f/5.6. More sample photo's.... http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70-300_4-56_is_usm Mar 23, 2008 at 12:59 AM

sperraglia Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #6 · Lens for wildlife Go with the 70-300 is - very sharp. If you went for the 70-200 I would say the f4 IS is a great lens, but probably more than your budget. And let's face it for wildlife 300mm is too short most of the time so go with the longest you can afford. Mar 23, 2008 at 01:13 AM

Anti Matter Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #7 · Lens for wildlife Don't forget that if you're using an APS-C (XT, XTi, 20D, 30D, 40D) size sensor, the field of view crop means that you wouldn't just be giving up 100mm by going with the 70-200, you'd be giving up 160mm. The 70-300 will give you an effective focal length of 112-480mm with IS, and that's not too bad! It wont take you long to want more, but it's a good start. I went with the 70-200 f4 IS for my first dslr lens, sold it less than a month later and bought a 100-400 L. Frank Mar 23, 2008 at 04:12 AM

Equinox Offline [ X ] p.1 #8 · Lens for wildlife anti-matter: Was the 70-200 your first lens when you started out? Mar 23, 2008 at 04:15 AM

Tim Kuhn Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #9 · Lens for wildlife From my experience a 200 is WAY too short for wildlife. A 300 is too short in a lot of peoples minds, I have been using one for a couple of years but I couldn't seem to get the 1.4 tc off it. I realize your budget and respect that but you have to buy long, jeez there are plenty here that will tell you that you need a 500! Want to save some money, learn to stalk, hide and trick. Tim Mar 23, 2008 at 04:21 AM

anthony whitmo Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #10 · Lens for wildlife It always comes down to dollars and cents. Buy the best you can afford and be ready to envy someone else with longer glass. It doesn't matter what you buy you'll always want something in a longer focal length at some point in time. I use the 500 IS with a 1.4x and the 1.4x is always on the 500 for a FL of 700mm ................ And I'm always wishing I had a 800mm with a 1.4x So my recommendation is buy what you can afford > Or save your money til you can buy what you want. have you considered: 100 - 400 IS 400 f/5.6 These seem to be the popular lenses with wildlife photographers. You can pick up either used from about 900 - 1100 bucks = Cheap when you consider the enjoyment you'll have with a longer FL and the pictures you will enjoy that you took. Take care of it and you won't lose a dime as they hold there value for an eternity. Good Luck Good Shooting Anthony Whitmo Mar 23, 2008 at 04:41 AM

Allen Hirsch Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #11 · Lens for wildlife Unless you're talking about really large animals pretty darn close, 200 will be too short. 300 + 1.4x will work with most animal wildlife, and backyard birds. If, OTOH, you also meant birds in nature in your wildlife subjects, you'll want something with even longer reach, eventually. (Longer reach just gives you more ability to capture wildlife without needing to get so close you scare them off, many times BEFORE you've gotten any useful photos.) Mar 23, 2008 at 05:54 AM

Anti Matter Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #12 · Lens for wildlife Equinox wrote: anti-matter: Was the 70-200 your first lens when you started out? Yup, and it took no time at all to realise my mistake. I was enamoured of the 'L' monicker (still am, to a large extent), so I spent $1320 on the 70-200 f4 L IS, thinking that 320 mm (1.6x fovc taken into account) would satisfy me. It didn't, so I tried mating it with a 1.4x extender which gave me 448 mm. It still wasn't enough. Then I did what I should have done in the first place and bought the 100-400 mm. Now I'm using a 500 mm f4 with the 1.4 ex pretty much exclusively. And as someone else said, it still isn't enough! The trouble is, and I don't think I'm unique in this, every time I went up in focal length, the further out I would look for subjects, and so I kept ending up with pretty much the same type of shots and having to crop a lot. The best strategy, as another someone else (sorry, I'm in 'qote' mode and don't have access to the thread at the moment!) here said, work on getting in close to your target. You'll still want and need some decent focal length, but extreme focal length is a poor substitute for proximity. I still want the 800 mm f5.6, though!! Bottom line is, on a limited budget, you'd be better off with the 70-300. You'll find the IS indispensible when shooting in low light. Keep your eyes on the B&S forum, as there are bargains to be had. You might even consider posting a 'Wanted' ad. Frank Mar 23, 2008 at 09:43 AM

Equinox Offline [ X ] p.1 #13 · Lens for wildlife thx everyone! This helps alot. The only concern i have is the image quality loss in the 70-300. If i am going to be shooting wildlife, i want as much detail captured as possible, and the L will give more detail im sure. I guess there is no perfect lens... Anyone know if IS helps in wildlife? I know it don't help in sports, but what about wildlife. Do you need a fast shutter speed like sports, to the point where IS becomes obsolete? Mar 23, 2008 at 05:14 PM

Brian Kersey Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #14 · Lens for wildlife Equinox(Kanon Kid), look at the posts that we already responded to. Just rent em both and see what you like. I think that is the only way that you can know for sure what you want. Edited on Mar 23, 2008 at 08:52 PM Mar 23, 2008 at 08:51 PM

Allen Hirsch Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #15 · Lens for wildlife Equinox wrote: thx everyone! This helps alot. The only concern i have is the image quality loss in the 70-300. If i am going to be shooting wildlife, i want as much detail captured as possible, and the L will give more detail im sure. I guess there is no perfect lens... Anyone know if IS helps in wildlife? I know it don't help in sports, but what about wildlife. Do you need a fast shutter speed like sports, to the point where IS becomes obsolete? Again, it depends on what you're shooting, and the focal length you're using. 400mm and under, you can be handheld most, if not all, the time. Then IS will definitely be helpful. With most bigger wildlife, you won't be needing such a fast shutter speed, so, again IS will be helpful (if nothing other than to give you extra stops for a shallower DOF). 500mm and longer, you'll be using a tripod or monopod all the time, most likely. Then, IS is mostly helpful just for DOF considerations. Frankly, if you're as budget-constrained as you indicated in your first post, you HAVE to expect to give up something, b/c you're certainly not getting long reach, IS, and L-level IQ for cheap. In fact, you'll probably have to settle for just one of the 3 attributes, at best, at the price point you've mentioned. Mar 23, 2008 at 11:48 PM

	FM Forums | Nature & Wildlife | Join Image Upload end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost password?