Good fair-priced Nature Photography lens?

<p>Hi Tiffany</p>

<p>I was just browsing and noticed this thread sorry if I'm late. I see lots of people recommending zooms in the up to 200mm range, particularly if you say you want to "<em>be able to take good shots of birds or animals from far away</em> "</p>

<p>Unless you're photographing rather big animals 300mm will be more what you need. After trying for some years on my EOS camera (film) to get photographs of birds I'd say that anything less than this and you'll be just disappointed.</p>

<p>Personally I prefer telephoto lenses to Zooms, you nearly always get better results. I see that our very own Bob A has reviewed the 300 and 75-300 IS zoom here on <a href="../equipment/canon/300_compare/"><strong>photo.net</strong> </a> , and while his conclusions seem to suggest that the 75-300zoom will "post process" to nearly as good as the 300mm telephoto the fact remains that the same care in post will make the 300mm better.</p>

<p>Looking at his own "real world" comparisons the 300mm f4 lens gave better results at f4 than the zoom did at 5.6<br>

<img src="../equipment/canon/300_compare/real_world_1.jpg" alt="" width="570" height="552" /></p>

<p>which when you think about it means that you can use the 300mm at f4 and thus use a faster speed. IS helps to fix up your camera shake, but won't help it if your subject moves (as in this shot)</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2769/4398418560_0c20530d50.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Having started out on Olympus OM cameras I have a real soft spot for their high quality optics, and I have also used a few on my Canon EOS camera with a cheapie adaptor (with AF confirm) I bought from Ebay. I have been looking carefully at buying a EF300 f4 lens but may settle for a Olympus OM 300mm f4.5 lens because I've seen how good they are on film.</p>

<p>What ever you get, if its for wildlife, I can say you always get what you pay for in new gear, but with used gear a bit of research will often get you a bargain. If you're in the states, then you should look at KEH.com they have a great reputation and I've bought from them before. I would feel more comfortable buying an expensive lens from them than Ebay.</p>

<p>It may be fun to play with a 500 mm f/8 or even f/6.3 lens, but I would not bank on it for a "must have" shot.</p>

<p>Here are a few shots I took with an old Vivitar 500 mm f/8 mirror lens on my 5D that I originally bought for astrophotography with my Minolta 35 mm film cameras years ago but abandoned it in favor of 500 mm f/5.6 Pro Optic spotting scope for that focal length.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/66908321@N00/tags/vivitar500mmf8/</p>

<p>Since I already had it, I've taken it out to have some fun with it. I don't think that it is junk, but it is definitely not easy to shoot with as accurate focus is an issue and the single aperture means any exposure changes require use of neutral density filters which add to the focus issues. These images I shot hand held, so the lens is light enough to shoot hand held, though that will add to the softness as this focal length is beyond what most can hold steady enough for a reasonably sharp image. If you shoot enough, you may get a lucky shot or two, but most will be blurry. But this kind of lens is, in my opinion, too slow, both aperture and operation, for most nature photography. It can be used for such, but would be an exercise in frustration.</p>

<p>If one were to get a lens like this with a screw mount, for the EOS T-adapter to use with it I would consider one of the ones with the chip for focus confirmation. But those do entail some risk to the camera.</p>

<p>Taras</p>

<p>I have the 70-300mm 4.-5.6 IS USM and use it on a 30D. I also use the 1.4 Telextender with this and I have virtually no complaints. True, with the extender on, I am shooting at f8, but with light I am fine, and most of the time it will auto focus. I have boosted the ISO up a few times for interior scenes and I am delighted with this setup. BTW, bought it long ago when Bob A first recommended it. Good Luck. </p>

<p>I have both the 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM and the 70-200 1:4 L USM. Besides magnification the most significant difference I've found is the auto focus. <br>

the 70-300 lens takes a long wind-up to get to where the focus is. the lens barrel shrinks and extends as focus is achieved and it is time consuming.<br>

the 70-200 auto focus is almost immediate. no extension at all.<br>

I've been shooting birds on the fly lately and the difference in number of frames shots/per fly by is quite significant. I can follow a bird with the 70-200 and get off 6 shots (no motor drive) with reasonable expectations of being in focus - where as the 70-300 once focus is "lost" will need to go through it's entire reach before returning to the focus - giving me about half that number of frames and about half of those in focus...<br>

image stabilization IS great - if the lens is focused.</p>

<p>I had a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS before upgrading to a 100-400L, and the lens was phenomenal. It was sharp and beautiful, and quick-focusing too. In fact, I still have it if you'd like to set up an arrangement of sorts to purchase it off me (i don't know if this is against the rules, but if it is, mods please just remove this reference). But yeah, the 70-300IS is the right choice for you.</p>