I'm trying to get into bird photography on the cheap. I can get a 100-300 5.6 L for about $300... I can also get a 70-200 f/4 for about $400. I am trying to decide which would be better - and if throwing a teleconverter on would be the deciding factor?
Hey Duane, I used the 100-300L during my transition from film to digital (Drebel) Gorgeous IQ but the AF
leaves a lot to be desired. Lots of hunting, lots of frustration. The 70-200 w/wo TC will be better in that
regard but I'd suggest another option...the Tamron 70-300. Readily found on the used market for ~$300
it'd be a great way to get into da boids w/o breakin' the bank.
You bet I'm a darkside guy now, but was firmly in the Canon camp for 25 yrs or so.
The Tamron is damn near the equal of Nikon's amazing 70-300 VR and it's a little cheaper!
Available in a Canon mount (unlike the Nikon) and quite capable of some stunning captures. GL
I love the Canon 70-300 non-L, got it when I started getting into birding, and can be had for ~$350 in the FS section. Also, if you're wondering how two lenses stack up to one another, check this fun tool out: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx . Just take it with a grain of salt, IQ isn't everything...
dshrode wrote:
Thanks for the advice - and judging by your profile - you probably know what your talking a-boot. I'll keep my eyes peeled for a good copy!
You can't beat the honesty and experience the 'Monkey' has to offer! Just to clarify the Tamron he is speaking of is the 70-300 VC (vibration control) model. Trust me the other Tamron basics are very very slow to focus, I have one and I use in AF mode only to get me chuckling but the optics are sweet so I use it for stationary subjects.
You will find soon that 300mm only wets your appetite for reaching out for birds, they are small and require a long long lens or that you get much much much closer
The 70-200 w/wo TC will be better in that
I'm a darkside guy now, but was firmly in the Canon camp for 25 yrs or so. 
