Good lens for wildlife photos

[hef]

Could someone check my sig and recommend a good low light IS lens.?
tks,hef

[Scottes]

Check the Top Ten Lenses thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=402436

It lists two "Wildlife Lens" threads listed, one for Prime lenses and one for Zoom lenses.

[ssim]

What is your budget? There is some very good glass available but you are also going to pay for the quality.

[RikWriter]

Depends on how much you can spend. A good wildlife lens is the 600 f4 L IS. But can you afford $7-8000?
Then there's the 500 f4L IS for about $5-6000.
How much can you spend?

[Az2Africa]

I agree with Scottes. You would have to pry my Canon 100-400L from my cold dead fingers.

[hef]

i could probably scrape up 2k. i'm thinking either the 80-300 is, 100-400 is or the 70-200 f2.8 is with 1.4 extender. in reality the 70-300 do that i have is not goodfor wildlife, but works great at that ballgame. hef

[Scottes]

i could probably scrape up 2k.
100-400 L.

It also happens to be the number 1 in the Top Ten Wildlife Zooms - by quite a large margin, too.

[ScottE]

If you want the convenience of a zoom I would choose between the Canon 100-400 IS and Sigma 50-500, depending on whether you consider image stabilization or a longer focal length more important. Get the 100-400 if you do much hand held photography or the 50-500 if you are willing to use a tripod most of the time. Image quality of both lenses is very good, but not quite up to the standard of a top rated prime lens.

If you want a prime lens and your budget is limited, consider a Canon 400/5.6 or Canon 300/4 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter. My preference is the 400/5.6, but I shoot from a tripod most of the time. Add a 1.4x teleconverter and you have a 560/8 manual focus lens with quite good image quality. You many also be able to find a used Sigma 400/5.6 APO HSM lens that will perform quite well. Avoid the older Sigma 400/5.6 APO (not HSM). I had one and it was not as sharp as my 50-500.

If cost is no object you should look at the long Canon IS L prime lense, 300/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4. These can be combined with 1.4x and 2x teleconverts for great results. Because of the weight, be prepared to use a tripod most of the time. I have omitted the 400/2.8 that most people find too bulky and heavy. A slightly cheaper option is to look at a used Canon 500/4.5 or a new Sigma 500/4.5 HSM.

If cost and weight are not factors and you need the convenience of a zoom, look at the Sigma 300-800/5.6. Be prepared to use a tripod and hope you don't have to carry it very far.

[ghocking]

100-400 L IS, its the dogs b********ks. Unless you can afford better.

[Raphael Emond]

Check the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, a little high for your price range, but it's a 300 2.8

If you want speed.

[RikWriter]

The 100-400 is within your range, but it will not be too useful in low light. Neither will the 70-200 f2.8 when you put a TC on it. You're really not going to get a good low light supertele for $2,000.

[hef]

Thanks guys, i went with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM for now.... Seems more practical with weddings/portraits and the like. I'll dream for the day when I can afford the next lens. That will most likely be (since i have 70-300 tele covered) a PRIME BIG L lens such as the 300 or 400 f/2.8 and a good PRIME lens like the 85mm f/1.2. For now, about wildlife, i guess i will have to get closer to them, but the 1.6 multiplier helps on the 20d. It really came down to what I would use the most.... and of course, that would be the 70-200 f2.8 IS.... tks, hef

[radar-eclipse]

For future reference, the 300 non-IS 2.8 L is exceptional! It works well with the 1.4TC. It can usually be had for in the $2600 range. There is no substitution usually for f/stops. So many times animals are in the shade. And if it's the evening shade, fogettaboutit!Good luck.

[kram]

Good choice. Maybe you could pick up a 1.4X TC as well?

[hef]

The original lens I had on order was the 100-400 IS... Do you think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS works well with the 1.4 tele II converter? rgds, hef

[radar-eclipse]

Yes, not bad the 70-200 IS. Where in W. NY are you? I'm down by the Tappan Zee Bridge in Rockland county.

[hef]

Yes, not bad the 70-200 IS. Where in W. NY are you? I'm down by the Tappan Zee Bridge in Rockland county. i AM outside of Buffalo. tks for the post.