What wildlife lens?

<p>"Wildlife lens" is a bit vague. It's like asking what lens is good for photos of people, it depends a lot on what you want to do and how you want to approach your subjects.</p>

<p>I suggest used or second-tier lenses initially, something with a relatively low cash outlay, so you can get a feeling for your field skills, level of commitment and the kinds of features in a lens you either must have or can live without. I can pretty much guarantee that the first lens you buy for wildlife photos will not be a perfect fit for your needs and skills so don't spend your last dollar on one, and be prepared to sell it (possibly at a loss) once you realize it's not right for you.</p>

<p>For wildlife I presently use lenses from 280mm to 560mm on a cropped camera body, all fixed focal lengths. I found that I used zooms at the maximum focal length 99.9% of the time so I get more lens for the dollar with primes but YMMV.</p>

<p>The features that might or might not interest you would include IS, AF, automatic aperture, rotating tripod collar, and a good close-focus limit. Of these the most important IMHO is a rotating tripod collar, followed by a good close-focus limit. With your camera body I suspect that AF will be darned near essential. Optical properties will include focal length, maximum aperture, sharpness, contrast, bokeh and flare resistance - so you can see that sorting out the various combinations of these features and properties can be a bit daunting.</p>

<p>IMHO a good first lens would be either 300mm f/4 if your field skills are good or 400mm f/5.6 if you think you're more of a drive-by shooter (and you might find this too short, depending on your patience for the craft). Some way to steady the camera & lens is essential, be it IS, a tripod, or (my fav) a shoulder stock with monopod. And be patient.</p>

<p>BTW my most-used lens is a beat-up Leitz 560mm f/6.8. It cost me all of $60.<br>

<img src="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/turdidae/mobl05.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The 70-300 will give you more reach, but having had the 70-200 f4 it is a great lens. I loved the IQ of the 70-200. Not to mention it is sharp wide open.</p>

<p>Have you tried looking at some pawn shops, not joking, sometimes they have no idea what this stuff is worth since they are more concerned of getting rid of the items. You may able to get a 300 f/4 for $600 from a pawn shop. I know someone who ended up with two Canon 1d Mark III for $500 in Oklohoma since the pawn shop had no idea what they had. There was also some lens include but I don't know which ones. </p>

<p>I had a Tamron 200-500mm, not VR, on the Nikon D300. Even the 500mm range (750mm on DX) not long enough, but the lens, or my copy is extremely sharp, and paid C$1000.00 for it, new, two years ago. Check out my bird images in my portfolio.</p>

<p>Returning to your OP, 70-200 f4 isn't long enough for most wildlife (even on an APS-C camera) unless you're a very patient stalker. But it is a great lens for many purposes, including for portraits. It was my first non-kit lens for my Rebel XTi, and it remains one of my two most used lenses. If you add a 1.4x tele-extender, you're starting to get in wildlife shooting territory. But when we planned a trip to Tanzania, I ended up buying the 300m f/4 IS (about $900 used) which, with the tele-extender is an excellent wildlife shooting lens (although not quite enough for shooting small birds). That L-lens image quality is just seductive!</p>

<p>In all likelihood the equipment produced by every camera and lens manufacturer is superior to our photographic abilities.</p>

<p>Hi Matt,<br>

IMO you suffer from a generic photographers disease: limited by the budget.<br>

I wouldn't go for a zoom, but for a second hand (good quality) 400 mm F5.6 for the wildlife. No TC.<br>

It's much easier to keep a distance than getting close ;-)<br>

Portraits is a different matter and I would make a priority choice for portraits or wildlife.<br>

Don't compromise by trying to find the "one for all" glass that matches your budget now, because you will regret that sooner or later in terms of quality.</p>

<p>Wish you a lot of joy, whatever you decide.</p>

<p>Peter</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In all likelihood the equipment produced by every camera and lens manufacturer is superior to our photographic abilities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which really is bugger all to do with the topic under discussion - still, we all love a worn-out cliche, don't we?</p>

<p>Back on topic, I agree with those that suggest that - really - 200mm is likely to be too short for most wildlife, but it does depend what is actually being photographed.</p>

<p>In terms of versatility and bang for the buck there really is nothing better than the Canon 100-400mm: IQ is exemplary, and just this week I found myself so close to my target bird (a small European bird called a Stonechat) that I needed to reduce the focal length of the lens to 200mm in order to get the bird into the frame - but I needed 400mm too, for other shots.</p>

<p>The IS in the lens is a Godsend as well - shooting with the lens pointing upwards (as I was on Wednesday) means that I can't brace my arms against my body, and the IS really helps there.</p>

<p>Depending to an extent on the body, the 100-400mm produces excellent results with a 1.4x TC too.</p>

<p>As others have suggested, there are many options for "wildlife lenses". The single most important factor however is long lens technique which involves controlling lens movement. Think of telephoto lenses as aiming a riflescope -- lock onto target, squeeze the trigger, and follow-through. IS aside, unless you have this approach your shots will be lousy even when using the premier 400mm f/2.8 IS and other costly lenses.</p>

<p>You don't necessairly need a long lens to shoot deer. I've photographed deer in Shenandoah NP with a 70-200 2.8L lens. They are not hunted and are tollerant of people.</p>

<p>Just back from a trip to Glacier National Park and I have no lens longer than the 70-200. Successfuly photographed deer, moose, mountain goats, marmots, ground squirrels with the same lens. At least here, nothing longer than 200mm would have been useful. Most photos were taken at or near maximum aperture and the lack of DOF certainly was an asset. A long telephoto would not have helped with the bears we saw. If I lived here and could visit often, I would own a 500mm lens. We made do with what equipment we did have.</p>

<p>My point is that a longer telephoto is not always necessary. However, I would love a 400 or 500 lens and recommend one if you can afford it.</p>

<p>I'm new here so I may screw this up but I'm trying to post a big buck picture shot with a 50-500 Sigma. </p><div></div>

<p>Sigma 50-500. I have two of them. It's the same length as my 70-200/2.8 but considerably heavier. On a 1.6x crop body, it's a pretty good focal length for birds.<br>

<br />I used the 50-500 for 90% of my shots last year going thru the Canadian Rockies.<br>

Get the 50/1.8 for portraits.</p>

<p>The 300mm f4 is a superb lens, quick autofocus so birds in flight are easier. 300mm on a crop sensor is a good focal length for wildlife (at least where I am). Stabilisation is a massive plus for the days when you don't fancy carting a tripod around. I have a 70-200 but never use it for wildlife, it is too short - anything less than 300mm just doesn't cut it.<br>

Sit back and save up, in my opinion this a very versatile lens....excellent for macro as well, blows the background beautifully. At a later date you can add a 1.4x converter (max aperture now is 5.6), then you are well and truly into wildlife territory.<br>

Good luck with your decision, get it right first time round and you won't have to waste money correcting it.</p>