Evening long range photography

[greg_bourque]

I have recently been getting into photography and purchases a Rebel XT with the

18-55mm lens. I am looking now into some nature photography (deer, turkey, fox

etc) and yesterday i had my first experience. 3 deer where at approximately 80

yards away when i came into the field and at 55mm i new i was way to far to get

good shots. eventually i worked my way to about 40-45 yards from the 3 doe and

it this point the sun was behind the trees and the only way the pictures would

look bright enough was to crank up the ISO settings. well since i still wasn't

close enough the pictures came out awfully grainy if you zoomed in on them at

all and i got no good shots. I have been researching a new lens for a while now

and was wondering what type of lens i should get for these situations. i have

read a lot on how the lower end zoom lenses are almost useless in low light and

since i obviously cant use a flash for deer at 50 yards i need some advice. I am

looking to spend around/under the $500 mark if thats possible if i want to get

it any time in the near future. Any advice on a lens and also on improving the

pictures in the low light would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

Greg

[gordon_kraeger1]

Greg,

You don't say if you have an external flash or just the one on the camera. Google "better beamer". This is an accessory for external flash and can reach out to the extents of a 300mm lens. This would give you the opportunity to use lenses in "lower end". I don't want to discourage you from buying top quality lenses for big bucks, but you might be able to use a EF 75-300 USM, an external flash, and the beamer. Since you do research, try this option.

 

Gordon

[ericf1]

Greg,

 

You could get the 70-200 f4 L zoom, without IS, for $580. The optics are said to be among the best of any zoom that Canon manufacturers. There are four versions of the 70-200 lens (f4 iS and Non IS plus f2.8 IS and non IS.) The F4 non-IS is the only one close to your price range.

 

Canon makes a 70-300USM 4-5.6 IS ($550) and the 75-300USM 4-5.6 ($200). You give up a stop of speed at the long end and some quality in optics and build, but pick up IS and longer reach with the 4-5.6 IS version. On the non-IS version you save $$$, but give up too much IMO.

[lester_wareham]

You could go for the EF 200mm f2.8L II, very sharp as well as compact an light, good for modest wildlife. The f2.8 helps very much with lower light levels and for controlling background blur. Also works very well with the EF 1.4X and quite well with the EF 2X if you want more reach later. You can also use it with tubes for closeup work when you don't want to be too close to the subject.

<P>

Below is a shot in very low light levels around dawn of a fox in the garden (ISO 3200 f2.8)

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Wildlife/Wildlife%20Garden%20Fox%2046.jpg" ALT="Fox">

<P>

A stag

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Wildlife/Deer/Wildlife%20Stag%20Calling%20001.jpg" ALT="Stag">

<P>

A dragonfly using a 25mm tube

<IMG SRC="http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Arthropods/Dragonflies/Insects%20Dragonfly%20C%20018%20300407.jpg" ALT="Dragonfly">

[stoatsngroats]

Not trying to hijack the thread, but Lester, the dragonfly above...is that the 200mm 2.8 with 25mm tubes? Sorry to reveal my thickness!

[matthew_newton]

That is what it sounds like is a 200mm f/2.8 with a 25mm extension tube.

 

As for a lens, have you considered a manual focus lens? A bit more work to use, but I would imagine you should be able to get a 300mm F/4 for pretty cheap in a cannon mount or even a 400mm f/5.6 sigma or tokina for very cheap. At least in my investigations of the 400mm tokina nad sigmas in an OM mount for my OM-1 they seem to run about $140-200 depending on condition. Unless they light is extremely low cranking it up to ISO 800 or 1600 should allow you to get the shot so long as the light is not very low with an F/5.6 lens.

 

I am not sure how manual focusing would be with an F/5.6 lens on a rebel though, I am fairly well spoiled with how bright my OM-1's view finder is.

 

A 200mm lens would probably even get the job done, heck that is x4 the blow up almost of your 55mm long end. My 70-210mm lens on my 35mm film SLR can manage a pretty decent picture of a buck at 40-50 yards, though I am not about to be counting its eyelashes at that distance (one of these days soon I am going to get a 300mm f/4.5 zuiko).

[dangoldman]

I strongly recommend the 70-200 F4L if you think you will need the flexibility. If not, go prime, nothing beats it the optics of one. However, if you are new and dont have many lenses, primes can be very limiting (especially with only 1 camera body). You do not need IS, IMO, with this lens. Its just extra money. If you need to do low light work, take a monopod, or practice a lot. If you can truly budget it, a 70-200 2.8 with IS would be worth it as the lens has some weight.

 

If you truly want reach on a budget, you can go to the canon FD mount and shoot film. The optics in these lenses are every bit as good as the new lenses, just manual focus.

[lester_wareham]

"Not trying to hijack the thread, but Lester, the dragonfly above...is that the 200mm 2.8 with 25mm tubes? Sorry to reveal my thickness!"

 

Hi Shaun, yes a 25mm tube. I either use the 200mm f2.8 or 300mm f4 with a tube or two for dragonflies and damselflies as they are sensitive enough to motion that it is less productive with a 100mm macro lens.

 

Really I was just trying to illustrate to the OP that the 200 2.8L is a very versatile lens for the money.

[lester_wareham]

Just to give the counterpoint to the 70-200 zoom department. All four of the Canon zooms are very good lenses. Yes a prime should be sharper but this is not the point.

 

My personal feeling is f4 is a little limiting although this is now mitigated by the IS version, however you still loose AF using a 2X TC.

 

The f2.8 zooms are, for me, too heavy for everyday use.

 

I would also note that other than the non-IS f4 they all exceed the OP's budget. Thus the suggestion of the 200mm prime.

[deano]

<p>How about the 100-400mm IS L? I always found this to be a good 1 size fits all lens for Nature photography.</p>