What wildlife lens?

[matt_hein]

<p> I am in the market for a wildlife lens. I am looking at the 70-200f4 and the 70-300 IS USM 4-5.6 .<br>

I am with the 70-300 because of the reach, and the IS. The 70-200 for IQ and aperture speed.<br>

My price range is about $600. I will be shooting alot of things. Deer, dogs, birds (sometimes), and other animals. I will need the reach of the 70-300 because of the deer and birds.<br>

I also might do portrait photography but I am not sure about that. That thought is on the back burner right now.<br>

I am worried about the 70-300 being too slow. Or not being very sharp. I am currently using an Rebel XSi and the kitlens.</p>

[mphoto gallery]

<p>That will be a challenge. Unless you are prepared to spend a lot more, you need to decide how you will compromise. 300mm is not very long for wildlife. 400mm is marginally better. I have a 100 - 400 and most of the time, I cannot get physically close enough so I am using it at the long end.</p>

<p>A used 400mm 5.6 would be a good solution for wildlife. Yes, a faster lens would be good too but the price increases exponentially. My 100-400 is very good if I have very good light. I have to compromise as a 400 f4 would be a much better lens for what I do.</p>

<p>The 70 - 200 is a great lens but way too short for critters in my opinion. Maybe elephants at close range...</p>

<p>IS is imperative in my opinion. Long lenses need a good tripod and IS unless you are a rock and can handhold a 400 without IS in marginal conditions which tend to be more common than not.</p>

<p>I am sure that many will chime in with ideas but be prepared for compromise. A good wildlife lens may not work for portraits given that most portrait lenses are 200mm or less and often in the 70 - 85 mm range. You could get way with a 100mm - XXXmm lens and use the short end for portraits. Technically, you can use anything for portraits, some lenses are a perfect balance of compression and natural looking. Do a search on portrait lenses and you will find a lot of info and a lot of voodoo too. <br>

Again, compromise. You can certainly take animal shots with a 300mm lens, don't get me wrong. I personally found 300mm pretty darn short and always want a longer lens.</p>

<p>Save your pennies, buy a 400 F4 and a 1.4 TC (just kidding but that is a very good combo)</p>

[matt_hein]

<p>Well, some times I can get fairly close to wildlife. Like out at a friends house in Hill county I was able to get about 30' from a fox and about 40' from a herd of deer. Just that I didn't have a long enough lens to do anything with... I would like something with versatility. If I really want to get into portrait photography I have a friend who can help me out. I will buy a 100mm Macro or the 200mm f2.8. But that isn't what my main focus is right now... I think I will just have to go into a camera store and try them out... That might be the only way for me to know what I need... Or rent a few lenses...</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I have the 70-300 and love the IS on it when going without a tripod or monopod. The IQ does fall off a bit from 200-300 but whether that is any worse than the loss in quality from enlarging a 200mm shot I don't know. And the IQ of the 70-300 is said to be pretty close to that of the 70-200.<br>

As you say the main benefit of the 70-200 is the constant f4 which is worth a stop of exposure - it counteracts part of the advantage of the IS at the long end but also gives you more option on narrowing depth of field or getting that little bit faster on shutter speed for moving targets. One other thing I would consider is that the AF on the 70-200 is I understand rather quicker than the 70-300 so if you are using AI Servo for tracking shots it may also be an advantage.</p>

<p>But I agree with Mark in that even the 70-300mm is not especially high magnification for wildlife. Something like deer would be OK, and I got reasonably sized images of a blackbird (about 1/3 of the frame height) from about 30 feet so you can see you need to be pretty close to get anything moer than a blip in the picture.</p>

<p>Given that your budget is nowhere near the cost of the 100-400 or the 400mm f5.6 you could consider the 70-300 as a stop-gap until you decide how seriously you are going to do the wildlife photography thing and save your money in the meantime - you could even add the Tamron 1.4 teleconverter (the Canon teleconverter does not maintain autofocus on the 70-300) and I have used this combo to get reasonably good shots.</p>

<p>What is your kit lens - is it the 18-55 IS? This is pretty good so don't dismiss it too readily and on the XSi the upper end falls into 'portrait lens' territory.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Wait folks! Are you factoring in that the OP is using an APS-C camera body? In that case 300mm may be marginally OK.</p>

<p>Of course, you can never get a long enough lens. Game are usually capable of sizing up (literally) your lens and are required by Union regulations to move just outside the range of any lens. You ought to see them scatter when they see those large white babies, or even a 500mm mirror lens, for that matter.<br /> I'm personally lusting after a 100-400mm IS lens, but it will have to get in line after the TS-E 17mm lens.... (too many lenses, not enough money).</p>

<p>People did do wildlife back in the days before automatic focus and even automatic apertures, of course. No one ever takes me up on it, but I will just point out that lenses like the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 lens are very high in optical quality if you can tolerate the donut-bokeh. They will work on your camera with an inexpensive adapter, cost less than $300, and I was able to focus them fairly easily on my XTi and 20D, which I believe have inferior viewing screens compared to your XSi. Of course, I used a monopod support for the lens.</p><div></div>

[tharaka_r]

<p>Hi, you probably have had a look at this already, you can compare the sharpness and focus of the two lenses side-by-side here.. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=104&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=358">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=104&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=358</a></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>You probably* don't need a 400mm FL for wildlife since you are shooting a cropped sensor body, at least not unless you are shooting very small wildlife from very large distances. (That FL is equivalent in angle-of-view terms to using a 640mm lens on full frame!)</p>

<p>The 70-200mm could be long enough - it gets you to the equivalent of about 320mm in FF terms. (I'm using this terminology here to clarify the need to keep track of which format we are considering here.) If not you have a couple options. One is to go with your other option that goes to 300mm. Another is to add a 1.4x TC to the 200mm lens getting you to 280mm - and that should be long enough for a great deal of wildlife work.</p>

<p>*If you think that you might need to get all the way out to 400mm on occasion, the 100-400 zoom would get you there, but it is well outside your budget.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Canon 300mm f2.8 !</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>Since some of us are stretching Matt's budget a bit, I thought I'd suggest the 300mm f4 IS L. Sure its over a grand, but I've seen used ones for 900-950. You would have the 300mm with the IS, but with an f4 instead of 5.6 plus better IQ. I know there's a non IS version of this lens that used might be in that $600 range. I believe its IQ is every bit as good as the 300mm f4 with IS.</p>

[matt_hein]

<p>Hmm.. I have a tripod. I could possibly have a monopod so I don't NEED IS. Also, Harry, I'm not made of money. I can accept a little bit of a stretch. Like up to the Lenses that Jack said. But I highly doubt I will be able to purchase the 100-400. I think that I might be able to afford the 200 2.8 but that is with a bit of a stretch. It doesn't have the reach though. I looked through a 75-300 that was at wal mart. I was just looking to see what the reach looked like. It looked nice. I think that the reach will work. Now IQ will have to be seen to determine.</p>

[burger]

<p>I love my wildlife photography and I use the 100-400 - you won't make a mistake.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>200mm is going to be too short for most wildife and way too short for birds. While the 70-300 isn't as sharp or as fast as the 700-200/4, it's a lot sharper at 300mm where you will be using it most of the time. Unless you can come up with the cash for a sigma 150-500 or better the canon 100-400 (or 300/4), the 70-300IS is about as good as you can do.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I recently watched a programme by the well-known wildlife film-maker Simon King about techniques in wildlife filming, almost all of which was equally relevant to still photography, since hardly any of it was about equipment. The emphasis was how to get close to the wildlife, or how to get it to come close to you. Stalking skills, infinite patience, camouflage and the willingness to endure the discomforts associated with it, and a deep understanding of the behaviour of the animals or birds you are trying to record – those are at the heart of it.</p>

<p>It was a rather chastening experience for someone like me, a drive-by wildlife photographer with a 100~400 stuck on a 50D! I do at least have plenty of my rather superficial and amateurish experience to draw on in responding. On the assumption that you are not (yet) beyond that stage yourself, Matt, and respecting your budget limitations, I think it's a no-brainer – go for the 70~300IS (non-DO version). On a 1.6-factor body that's already the equivalent in terms of angle of view of a 480mm lens on FF, and although I am fortunate to have the 100~400 I find that a lot of the animal photographs on my regular African trips can be taken well short of its longest setting. Whilst working from a tripod or other support is good when the opportunity offers, quite freqently it doesn't, and you really do need IS. The 70~200/4IS, with an Extender 1.4x when needed, is a viable alternative to the 70~300 (the non-IS 70~200 is not a sensible choice for this purpose, in my view), but, like the 100~400, that's well outside your budget. There's a huge amount you'll be able to do with the 70~300 before you need to worry about spending more money.</p>

<p>As for image quality, I can't comment from personal experience on the 70~300, but it has a very good reputation, and it certainly should be good enough that your own photographic technique will be the limiting factor most of the time. Faster lenses are always nice, but you have to accept what is affordable and carryable, and the excellent high-ISO capabilities of the current generation of DSLRs make an f/5.6 lens perfectly useable in reasonable lighting conditions.</p>

[harold_motte]

<p>Hello,<br>

I have had the 70-300 and now have the 70-200 and a 100-400 and I have a 1.4 tc version II.<br>

I am sorry, but you are not going to shoot wildlife with a 200mm lens, sorry but that is the bottom line.<br>

There is a noticeable difference in IQ between the 70-200mm F4 L is/usm lens and the 70-300mm lens.<br>

My suggestion for you and your budget is to buy the 70-200mm and get a 1.4 teleconverter for it. You will<br>

have sharper photos and better reach than the 70-300. Everything will work as normal; i.e...autofocus, etc...<br>

You will have to stretch your budget just a little but you will be far more satisfied in the end.<br>

Otherwise, really bite the bullet and get the 100-400mm L is/usm lens.</p>

 

[robin_sibson1]

<p>"My suggestion for you and your budget is to buy the 70-200mm and get a 1.4 teleconverter for it. You will have sharper photos and better reach than the 70-300."</p>

<p>Sharper photos, quite probably. More reach? Not unless 280 has magically become greater than 300. Anyhow, Matt has a BUDGET, guys. Flexing it a bit might be reasonable, but if he'd wanted to spend double or more, he'd have said so.</p>

[marc_felber1]

<p>What you could do is wait a little longer and try to buy a used one for $900. I mean the Canon 300mm f/4 IS. This lens works good and is a good flight lens. If you have any older lens you don't use, sell those and use the money to add to the $600 or find some junk around the house you don't need like old hobbies and sell to budget for this lens. Thats's how I was able to buy mine. I did not have the money, but sold some junk on ebay and within a month two I came up with the money to buy the lens. If there is a will there is a way. It also depends how bad you need the lens. Another option is to buy the 70-300mm lens, use it a few month and then upgrade to the better 300mm f/4 IS prime. You can check some of the photos on pbase to get a feel how good this lens really is. </p>

[matt_hein]

<p>With the Canon 300 f4 IS USM My back pack would barely be able to carry it. I doubt with the lens hood on. I checked the mesurements and it would be VERY snug, to the point of almost getting stuck.. I have the Flipside 200. the 70-200 f4 and a teleconverter would fit, but I think that is about as big as I can go without a backpack upgrade.....</p>

<p>I do have some old games I don't play anymore.... Hmmm... With the 300f4 I could use for portraits as well... It would just have to be a ways away...</p>

<p>I would love to have a set of primes, but it just isn't reasonable to have an 18-55 IS and a 300 IS USM. Haha. </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>"A used 400mm 5.6 would be a good solution for wildlife"</p>

<p>If Canon would add IS to this lens I think they would be flying off the shelfs.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>I owned the 70-300 IS with a 40D and the image quality was very good. Not as sharp as the 70-200 L I'm sure, but for wildlife you need to maximize reach. If your budget is really $600 then it's a no brainer. You won't be able to find a quality 400 5.6 or 300 4 IS for that price. Also, don't be afraid to crop, especially if you are printing 8x10 or smaller. </p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I'll toss in the Sigma 150-500mm OS. It is slow but I, among others have had nice results with it.</p><div></div>

[clgriffin]

<p>The above was a crop and this is a tighter crop yet:</p><div></div>

[kevin_price3]

<p>Hi Matt</p>

<p>If you can swing it, the 70-200f4 would be a better choice. Even without IS using a monopod would work fine, and be cheaper than the IS version. What Robin had said about actually gettying closer to your wildlife was right on the money. The big advantage I see between the 70-300 and the 70-200L is the image will be sharper at all focal lengths and apertures on the 70-200, and then with tight cropping as Charles has shown, the image will be better from the start. You won't have the same reach but you'll have a sharper image to crop from. </p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Nothing wrong with having the 18-55 and a 300/4. For a couple months all I had (and I needed) was a borrowed 18-55 and a 600/4. Guess it just depends on what you want to do. </p>

[Doug Obert]

<p>Matt,<br>

I thought your OP and ones after were pretty specific ("wildlife" may have been a little vague but I can live with that) Just get the 70-300 IS, it is by far your best option within your budget. Do NOT get the 75-300 you mentioned in one post! I know you were just looking at the "reach" but don't be tempted! Your other alternative is to wait for one of these other posters that suggested some very fine lens outside your budget to send you the price difference! If they feel that strongly that you should spend outside your budget...they should be willing to help, right? ;-)</p>

[matt_hein]

<p>I mentioned the 75-300 cause I looked through it. That is, from what I saw, a bad lens. I couldn't manual focus and get it sharp.. But It had the reach, which is the same length the 70-300 IS USM has. Thanks for all of your suggestions.</p>