Telephoto Lens suggestion for Nature Photography w/300D

[steve5454]

Hi
Looking for suggestions for a nice cost effective lens for doing nature photography mostly birds. I have been looking at the Sigma APO Super Macro II 70-300 and the Canon USM III 70-300 any comments on either of these or other suggestions. I know the 70-200 Canon F4.0L is a good choice as well just not sure it is the best fit cost wise as the tripod mount is additional etc and the lens is a bit heavy. Well any suggestions/commentary is welcome. Thank you.

Steve

[scottbergerphoto]

The Sigma 500 f/4.5 EX APO HSM is a great lens for birds. It's not cheap, but it's 1/2 the price of the Canon f/4. Take a look at it. I have some examples in my galleries: http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/prospect_park_lake
Regards,
Scott

[robertwgross]

I agree with Scott that most bird photographers need something long like 500mm. One of my recent (good) bird shots was, in fact, at 500mm, and it wasn't even that far away. My monster wildlife lens serves me for that purpose.

On the other hand, if you were looking to set up a blind and sit there armed with your camera and long lens, you might be able to get by with something a little shorter, but not by much, at least for medium-size birds.

Despite all that, when I was in Death Valley recently, I got two excellent hummingbird shots at very close range with 200mm, but I was shocked that neither of the birds flew away, and I was shooting from just a matter of a few feet. They weren't even large hummingbirds. They were little ones.

My monster lens is not the most elegant in the world. In fact, the Sigma 170-500mm is kind of heavy to haul around unless you get the optional lens trailer for it.

---Bob Gross---

[Daimler560]

I have both the 70-300 USM III and the 70-200 4/L--and the L lens is amazing compared to the III. Contrast and sharpness are both better with the L. Good luck!

[Loekito]

Better to consider the IS feature, especially if you are very mobile and don't have time to setup your tripod.

regards,

Loekito

[G3]

Better to consider the IS feature, especially if you are very mobile and don't have time to setup your tripod.

regards,

Loekito

I would never consider taking the 50-500 Sigma or the 170-500 Sigma out without a tripod. I do some wildlife photography, and you are correct...you have to move around a lot. I just leave the whole rig assembled and carry it over my shoulder (I have to since my wife won't do it any more). In fact, I rarely shoot without a tripod..it's just a habit that I've gotten into, sort of like wearing a seatbelt in a car, and I feel naked without it. Yeah, it's inconvenient sometimes, but the results are worth it. I don't necessarily carry the big-mo Gitzo or Bogen everywhere..I have a fairly lightweight Slik U-212 (about a hundred years old) that I use sometimes. If I'm using a big lens, I use a big tripod.

[AzzKicker]

When I go Deer Hunting and I'm in the blind you'd be amazed at how many beautiful birds, Rabbits etc come out and dont even run or fly away. Even if you move a little. The key is to not make much noise and move slowly. If your doing that, then a 200mm - 300mm lens should be fine.

I have a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM II and I dont really like the lens. I just purchased a used EF 70-210 f/4 lens for under 120 shipped w/UV HAze Filter and it is way better than the other lens. And its the older push pull style zoom lens. But the photos are way better than my 75-300mm. At least I think so.

If your gonna be far away then like others have said you need at least 300mm.

[boomer1959]

:D Wear Camo clothing. It works great. Something like the realtree patterns are the best. Ive had squirrels come right up to me within a foot.
And had birds land on my hat.

[G3]

:D Wear Camo clothing. It works great. Something like the realtree paterns are the best.

Yep...and move slowly and quietly...and stop often and just look around. It's amazing how your perspective of the woods changes with just a few steps.

[ron chappel]

I've had loads of experience with quite a few cheap telezooms.
Go for the sigma apo macro super II or the canon EF 100-300.The sigma is maybe a little better overall but the canon will never have future compatability problems.
Anything below these two are just way too difficult to get consistantly good shots with.

I would LIKE to recommend the canon 70-200/4L (it's SO sharp!) but there is the issue of it's length besides the problems you've found allready

[Canuck]

I recon I will stick a plug in for the usual...
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX (about $1900)

[psk4363]

If Canuck is plugging the Sigma, I'll have to plug the Canon 100-400L USM. Why?
a) It's a Canon 'L' lens,
b) It's a USM lens for virually silent focussing,
c) The extra 100mm on top of the Sigma's 300mm could make a big difference,

Cons: -
d) It's not as fast as the Sigma.

Good luck,
Barry

[nosquare2003]

I recon I will stick a plug in for the usual...
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX (about $1900)

Hey, that is heavy and large.

[Canuck]

I know it is heavy and big, but what lens of that size isn't? A 300mm F2.8 isn't much different. Speak of heavy lenses, the one mentioned up top, the 500mm F4.5 is way heavier! Here's some ifo straight from the Sigma page: the 120-300 is 91.7 oz, the 300mm F2.8 is 84.7 oz, and the 500mm F4.5 is 109.7 oz.

I'd plug the Canon 100-400L lens but I have never shot with it and it is a lot slower. That is why I went w/ the Sigma and it has made it possible to shoot in lower light. It is worth mentioning that it is hard to go wrong with Canon L glass. I am going on the lenses I have shot with.

[nosquare2003]

I know it is heavy and big, but what lens of that size isn't? A 300mm F2.8 isn't much different. Speak of heavy lenses, the one mentioned up top, the 500mm F4.5 is way heavier! Here's some ifo straight from the Sigma page: the 120-300 is 91.7 oz, the 300mm F2.8 is 84.7 oz, and the 500mm F4.5 is 109.7 oz.

I'd plug the Canon 100-400L lens but I have never shot with it and it is a lot slower. That is why I went w/ the Sigma and it has made it possible to shoot in lower light. It is worth mentioning that it is hard to go wrong with Canon L glass. I am going on the lenses I have shot with.

The original poster considers 70-200/4L a bit heavy. And I'd say 91.7 oz is really heavy...

[Canuck]

I know it is heavy and big, but what lens of that size isn't? A 300mm F2.8 isn't much different. Speak of heavy lenses, the one mentioned up top, the 500mm F4.5 is way heavier! Here's some ifo straight from the Sigma page: the 120-300 is 91.7 oz, the 300mm F2.8 is 84.7 oz, and the 500mm F4.5 is 109.7 oz.

I'd plug the Canon 100-400L lens but I have never shot with it and it is a lot slower. That is why I went w/ the Sigma and it has made it possible to shoot in lower light. It is worth mentioning that it is hard to go wrong with Canon L glass. I am going on the lenses I have shot with.

The original poster considers 70-200/4L a bit heavy. And I'd say 91.7 oz is really heavy...

Hmmm...a zoom lens with long reach that isn't heavy. You could go with a t-mount like this one: http://a1672.g.akamai.net/7/1672/116/20040401/www.ritzcamera.com/graphics/ritzcamera/products/251664843v2.jpg http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langI d=-1&productId=29925&topCategory=1004&cat1=1022&cat2= 914962 Check this out: Aperture Range: F:9.9-16 :twisted: Flipping heck!
NOT!!! :lol: :lol:

Ok, seriously, considering the 70-200 is 46.1 oz/2.88 lbs maybe a TC is in order? This is purely me, but I don't think the 10D/Big Ed/Sigma 120-300 F2.8 EX lens combo is really heavy. It intrigues me that some people is that the 10D/Big Ed w/ 24-70 F2.8L is heavy. Idunno.

I'm not anyone special, though as in not like the next Mr Universe. I guess you get used to it.

[steve5454]

Thanks to everyone who has replied- I think the most important thing I need to watch is cost here which some seem to have gone off the charts with. The idea is to balance cost with the right lens the consensus seems to be the 100-400isL is a good bet what about the EF 300mm f/4.0L IS?

Anyone used that or have any feedback on that lens?

thanks again everyone.

[robertwgross]

I went back and looked through my archives, and virtually every one of my decent bird photos was shot at or near 500mm. There are only a few exceptions.

Also, again I don't claim that this is an elegant solution, but the Sigma 170-500mm zoom is my monster wildlife lens. It's cost is a fraction of what a more superior Canon lens would cost. Life is a compromise.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

I love the 300mm f/4 IS prime.. fantastiv lens.. but look at the 400mm f/5.6 as well.. :)

If you get the 300mm f/4.. then the 1.4X T-con is a MUST! :)

[robertwgross]

Obviously, you need a longer lens to shoot hummingbirds than you need to shoot eagles.

Then also, are you trying to get the shot of the bird standing nobly over its nest, from camera range of 50 feet, or are you trying to get the detail of the underside of the wing feathers from a distance of 200 feet?

While on a nature hike, I came upon a hawk-like bird perched on a tall pole. From a distance, we were all asking "Is that a red-tailed hawk?" Nobody was sure. Fortunately, I had my monster wildlife lens on my camera, and it was already mounted on a folded tripod. Quickly, I studied it at 500mm. Then the bird raised its wings as it launched off the pole into flight. With wings up, I could see the tell-tail spots on the underside of its wings, and I knew it was a red-tailed hawk. I got the shot with wings down and another with wings up.

---Bob Gross---