I'm planning a trip to Pittsburgh at the beginning of November. One of my stops will be the Pittsburgh Zoo. I'd like to take a longer lens with me (Currently, my bag is light with a 50mm prime and 24-85mm zoom)... so, out comes the credit card. The question of the day is: what lenses sould I be looking at?
I had been telling myself that my next lens was going to be the 70-200 2.8/L (with IS, no less), but the $1600 price tag is beyond my budget right now. Maybe by next summer. For now, I want something with a decent reach for shooting animals at the zoo.
Is a 200mm zoom going to be too short? Is the picture quality from Canon's 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 even worth considering?
Just trying to get a general direction to go in... thanks in advance.
The Sigma 70-300 gets good reviews. Careful which one you buy, htere are two, gold ring and red ring and I can't remember for the life of me which one you should get!
I like my 70-200 f4 and 1.4x for zoo pictures. A 200 2.8 is also worth considering for the extra stop and sharpness, considering you'll probably peg a zoom at the long end for any zoo.
Of course the ultimate zoo lens is the 100-400, but that's probably out of your range.
I'm not trying to cheap out, but I don't expect to make a habit of zoo/wildlife type shots, so the "ideal" lens is certainly out of my price range. Actually, the only way I'm going to see 400mm, I think, is if I go with a Sigma. Frankly, the idea of buying other than Canon hadn't really crossed my mind until Isca said something about it. And on that note... everything I'm reading about the Sigma 400 says it becomes a bit unwieldy when all the way out (and why else does one buy a 400mm zoom?).
So, basically, for my limited pre-vacation budget, here are the options:
Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO $539
Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS $415
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di $400
At first glance, the specs on the Tamron look good, but on a second reading look suspiciously like overhyped marketing.
At the moment I'm leaning towards the Canon 75-300, unless someone here says that would be the biggest mistake I could make today.
By all accounts, "that would be the biggest mistake I could make today".
FWIW, I went to the Denver Zoo on Mother's Day armed only with my 135 f/2L, and I was very pleased with the pictures I got. A little long for some things, a little short for others, but on the whole OK. Better to get a higher quality lens and crop than to get a crappy lens, IMO.
Edited by kansashoops on Oct 04, 2004 at 03:50 PM GMT
Some options:
A few good deals going on right now in the buy and sale forum on the 70-200IS. This lens is on my camera 90% of the time.
Another option is the non-IS version. I had one and really don't think the extra $500 I paid for the IS version was worth it for my needs. They are both very sharp even wide open.
Another option is the Sigma 70-200 a nice lens, I had one but picked up my Canon non IS at a great price so I sold it. Had the "L" fever and still do
Edited by Jim Cowsert on Oct 04, 2004 at 04:58 PM GMT
This was shot with the Tamron 28-300 @300mm wide open f6.3 Its a good lens, but needs light to perform well. Not as good as L glass mind you, but I am very satisfied. This will be my light walk around do it all lens. Not because its f6.3, but it just needs light to produce a good clean photo. Its sweet spot is in and around 135mm.
200mm is too short for zoos. I have visited the PIttsburgh zoo before, and you are unlikely to get close head-and-shoulders shots of the tigers or lions with the 200mm unless you crop heavily.
Given the choices, I would go for the Canon 75-300 IS version then, if you do not have, or do not intend to bring a tripod. But it's a vicious cycle - you'll want better glass sooner or later, so might as well spend just one time on a good, big purchase than multiple small purchases.
I've spent the better part of the evening trying to convince myself that I could live with the Sigma 70-300... I mean, for $200, come on already.
The problem is, the way to convince yourself of something like that really doesn't include pouring over 30 or 40 galleries shot with a Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L... which is what I've been doing for the last hour or so.
Wenyao is right... and I preach the same thing to others in this predicament. I keep telling myself that I don't have a real interest in shooting wildlife... but the truth is, I've never had the equipment for it, so, of course I haven't shot any.
And it's not like these things lose value. Man, I wish my truck held it's value like Canon L glass.
So, In the end, as soon as our friends at B&H get back from their holiday (Mazel tov, to you), I'll be extending myself a bit further than I intended.
Now, one last question: Can anyone reccommend a decent monopod to help me hold up all that glass?
I've got a non-is Canon 75-300 and can't stand it. Maybe the IS version is better, but I've never been impressed with what I get out of it. I take that back. F/11 on a tripod has been ok, but that was a bit extreme.
How about a 70-200 F/4 with a 1.4 extender?
It's not too much out of your price range and the 70-200 will give you a great all around lens.
I like detail, so at the zoo the longer the better. I went to the singapore zoo with the 100-400 IS and did not have enough reach. I would have liked to have the 400 f2.8 with a 2x on. Of course, it depends on the distance to the animals...
here is an image of a panda form the Bejing Zoo in 2004 taken with the 100-400 IS:
Hard to beat in the price range.