aperature for wildlife photography

[bballboy30]

I was wondering what you think the maximum aperature you can have for wildlife photography and still get good pics at dawn/dusk. I am considering lenses and teleconverters and this information will be very helpful for my purchase.

Thanks
Alex

[PacAce]

The bigger the better. The only problem with that premise is that it also gets a lot more expensive, especially when we're talking about longer lenses. :?

[PacAce]

Or were you really asking about the minimum aperture? In that case I think f/5.6 would probably be the smallest I would go. Once you go above that, you lose AF capability unless you have a 1 series camera. However, the f/5.6 precludes the use of a teleconverter without losing AF on non-1 series cameras.

If you want AF and still want to use TCs, then f/4 would be the minimum for the 1.4x TC and f/2.8 for the 2x TC.

Low light photography is going to be tough, though, and will require the use of very high ISO numbers.

[bballboy30]

Thanks for your help.

I was talking about minimum aperature. I was planing on getting the Canon - 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM EF Lens for the digital rebel. If I combine that with a 2x teleconverter would I still be able to use auto focus even if there is a lot of light?

Thanks again.
Alex

[nosquare2003]

Which brand of the teleconverter will you use?

The Canon TC won't fit with your lens. Please refer to the sticky post for compatibility:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922

[PacAce]

Thanks for your help.

I was talking about minimum aperature. I was planing on getting the Canon - 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM EF Lens for the digital rebel. If I combine that with a 2x teleconverter would I still be able to use auto focus even if there is a lot of light?

Thanks again.
Alex

You won't be able to use any of the Canon TCs with that lens. You might be able to use one from another manufacturer but I wouldn't recommend it, especially if you're talking about a 2x TC. The image quality is going to suffer too much. Even if you still to have AF using a non-Canon TC, it won't be of much use because with such low light coming through at f/8 or f/11, AF won't be of much use anyway.

If money is no object, you're best bet is to get the Canon 300 f/4 IS L (= 420 f/5.6 with 1.4xTC) or the 400 f/4.5 L. If it is, you might want to take a look at one of the Sigma EX series zooms or primes in the same focal length ranges.

[nosquare2003]

If money is no object, you're best bet is to get the ... or the 400 f/4.5 L.


Are you trying say 400 f/5.6 L?

[PacAce]

If money is no object, you're best bet is to get the ... or the 400 f/4.5 L.


Are you trying say 400 f/5.6 L?
Oops! :oops: Yes I did mean f/5.6. Darn fingers of mine resting one key left of home keys. :?

:mrgreen:

[Andy_T]

You might take a look at the 'bigma' ... the Sigma 50-500/f4-6.3 EX APO RF HSM.

It's not cheap ... about $ 1000 ... but maybe not bad for your requirements.

Best regards,
Andy

[bballboy30]

Thank you all for your help.

Unfortunately money is an object. I have narrowed my lens choices to the Sigma - 170-500mm F5-6.3 EX APO lens for Canon AF and the Canon -75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM EF Lens. The canon costs $420 but I can get $100 rebate because I will buy the digital rebel. The sigam costs $650. The canon has IS and is cheaper. The sigma is much longer. I should also mention that I am planning to get the Quantaray - 600-1000mm Zoom Lens. I want to take advantage of the rebate, but don't want to end up buying the sigma because the canon isn't long enough. I will be using the lenses mostly for wildlife photography. Which lens should I buy?

Thanks.
Alex

[Andy_T]

Thank you all for your help.

I should also mention that I am planning to get the Quantaray - 600-1000mm Zoom Lens.


Have you seen good reviews of this lens?
If not, you might re-consider spending the money on it.

Best regards,
Andy

[Scottes]

I agree with Andythaler. It's not worth it. The Sigma, at 510mm, is nice and long and isn't bad for handholding, either. It is not the fastest AF lens out there, and at 510mm it's f/6.3 so it will be very tough to focus in low light. But it's a *lot* better than the Quantaray and the Canon is just too short, really, and not much better in low light at f/5.6.

[bballboy30]

The only review I found for the Quantaray reads:
I'm sure you're interested in this lens for the same reason I was: price. Well, you get what you pay for! Don't misunderstand, this is a very good lens, but it is a manual operation lens. You won't be able to use your camera's automatic exposure/ISO/shutter speed features.

You'll have to set your camera on Manual and use an exposure meter (or in my case, guess a lot and keep shooting). While the lens isn't terribly heavy, when it is attached to your camera, the weight distribution is a bit awkward. You'll need a rock steady tripod. You can shoot hand-held, but unless you have nerves of steel and/or a ton of light, your results may be blurry.

So: if you're an experienced photographer and know what you're doing, this lens is a good bargain.

I am not anywhere near an experienced photographer. However, the lens only costs $350 and it will be valuable if I see wildlife way off in the diatance, like in Yellowstone or other national parks. Do you think I should get it?

Thanks.
Alex

[robertwgross]

I am not anywhere near an experienced photographer. However, the lens only costs $350 and it will be valuable if I see wildlife way off in the diatance, like in Yellowstone or other national parks. Do you think I should get it?


Alex, I think just about all of the experienced Canon users here will advise you against it.

If you want to see wildlife at an extreme distance, then get some good binoculars. If you want to photograph wildlife at an extreme distance, then you need some serious glass, and this is not an example of that.

You would sound like this:
"Oh, oh, I can see wildlife at a distance! Wait. Is that a moose, or is it a dairy cow? I can't tell. It's pretty blurry."

There is a lot to be said for learning how to get closer to your subjects, and that rarely costs any money.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

For IWldlife photography.. it is commont to shoot "wide open" close to 100% of the time.. I certainly do this.

Thus you want a lens that can not only offer a large aperture, but one that remains sharp "wide open" as well.

F/4 is great for telephoto.. but f/5.6 is really acceptable as well.

[Jon]

You will not be able to retain autofocus with the 75-300 (or anything f/4 or slower) with a 2xTC on. You'll almost certainly find that 300 mm is too short for wildlife under any but "studio" (zoo and wildlife park) conditions. And I'd also have reservations about the Quantaray. Since you'll have a digital camera, try taking some test shots in the store (borrow one of their tripods) then take the shots home and study them closely for quality.

[Andy_T]

Don't misunderstand, this is a very good lens ...

That's not the thing you normally read in reviews for Quantaray glass :cry:

I haven't used either lens, but form what I've heard I think the Sigma 50-500 with a teleconverter would give you better image quality (you'll lose the ability to autofocus as with the Quantaray lens)

Best regards,
Andy