Wildlife photography lens advice

[loebas]

Wondering what lens would fit best.
Have a 300D (wanting a 20D) but as I become more and more interested in wildlife photography ( birds, deer etc.) I wonder what lens will suit my needs.
right now i have a 70-200 f4

Have been looking/hearing aroud and heard get the:
100-400 IS
300 f4 IS
400 f5.6

Can anyone give me some practical advice

[CyberDyneSystems]

Nope!

You list all the good affordable lenses right there,. I'd have nothing to add to that lis in that price range.

It's just a matter of what is mosre important to you.

Me,. I would narrow it down to the 400mm prime and the 100-400mm zoom,. as for what I shoot,. (birds) 300mm is rarely long enough.

But this may not be the case for your choice of subject,.

The 400mm prime will offfer the fastest AF and best Focus tracking,. and excllent choice for birds in flight.

The 100-400mm will offer the wide zoom range and closer focusing,. plus IS.

The 300mm adds IS and at f/4 will be faster at 300mm.

[ttsupraman93]

The 100-400 IS was a GREAT lens...I used it for a week for Nascar shots, and I also did some Nature shots with it. Awesome lens...the IS definately helps, You can't beat the "L" glass and guality build of the lens. Although the 100-400 is a great lens, man i sure would like a little faster lens, but in well lighted situations it's simply amazing!

[lomond]

Well, I would say since you have the 70-200 and you are interested in shooting wildlife you should limit your search to the primes.
I have the 100-400 and it is very good at what it does but there are times when I crave the 400 prime.
The 400 pime is sharper but looses the IS ( which at times is important to me).
I would, therefore suggest the 300 f4, which should be sharp and also has IS ability. With the 1.4 TC would give you 420mm and retain AF.

So, to sum up, my decision would be
1 - 300 + 1.4TC
2 - 400
3 - 100-400

[Turbowolf]

Go with the 100-400 IS for general wildlife. If necessary you can always add a 1.4 TC, I have one and rarely use it though. 95% of the shots on my website were taken with the 100 - 400 on either a 300D or 20D body.

The IS will make a difference in marginal light conditions, often allowing for shots to be taken that would never come out without the IS. The additional advantage here is there will be times that a tripod is impossible or unavailable to use.

[gymell]

I have a 300D and the 400/5.6. Like you I also plan to upgrade to the 20D at some point. Not having an IS lense myself, I can't really speak to how much of an advantage it offers, but the 400/5.6 does need good light and if you put the 1.4 TC on it, you go down to f/8 and lose autofocus. However, I've been very happy with the lense and have been able to get pretty good results not using a tripod. Here are a few examples (all handheld):

http://www.pbase.com/gymell/image/39151691
http://www.pbase.com/gymell/image/39563101
http://www.pbase.com/gymell/image/39650846

Just keep in mind that no matter what your equipment, there is no substitute for understanding the animal's behavior and if you do, you can often get pretty close.

[raylks]

I think this lens choice is the most difficult to make. Before I plan my 300mm f4L lens, I was torn between these three choices but I finally went for 300mm f4L lens for its sharpness and the potential to become a decent 420mm prime using 1.4x converter.

My experience told me that it was decent and sharp. Some told that 400mm f5.6L focuses even faster than this 300mm lens but I think the 300mm lens is already fast enough in auto focusing.

[vkalia]

I have 2 of the 3 lenses you've listed: the 100-400 and the 300/4. I use the latter for flying birds and that is about it. For most general wildlife shooting, the 100-400 + a 1.6crop DSLR (20D in my case) is my most-used combo.

Guiding principles (atleast for me): (1) you can never have enough focal length for birds (even with my 500/4 + teeconverters, I end up cropping a lot) (2) a zoom is invaluable in wildlife photography.

Of your listed set, I'd get the 100-400 in a heartbeat. The AF and picture quality of the 400 prime may indeed be a little better, but the 100-400 gives a lot more compositional freedom and is still focuses fast enough (with the right techniques) to capture motion.

Vandit

[condyk]

I just got a Sigma 50-500mm Bigma and it has real potential. Worth checking out if funds are a tad restricted. Even with the first use I got some really good shots handheld. Great build, superb length and zoom to enable framing of shots. F4-6.3 tho.

I had a Sigma 400mm prime previously, before I got into digital, and found it frustrating due to lack of zoom capabilities. I would go with the 100-400 IS if I could afford it, only because of the IS rather than quality of output, but I think I would still miss the extra 100mm. As has been mentioned, there is no substitute for length when taking bird and wildlife shots. Very happy with my purchase and no desire to upgrade at all. The IS issue I can get around by sorting out a stable monopod or beanbag 'in the field'.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70117