70-200mm

[mdaddyrabbit]

I want the 70-200mm f4 but I want to shoot some wildlife, and that would not be long enough from what i am reading, so in everybodys opinion what would be a good choice for 500.00 or less?

[willg]

i am in the same dilema...with your 20d its going to be 320mm film equivilant (lots of people on here don't shoot film though..so maybe a bad comparison)...i am thinking that the 75-100 and the 100-300 are not sharp enough at 300mm to warrent buying over the 70-200....i am really going to just stick it and go with the 70-200 even if it doesnt have that extra reach because the quality is far better

(i am afraid if i buy that then i will be forced to sell everything i own to purchase a full arsenal of L glass though)

[tim]

I want the 70-200mm f4 but I want to shoot some wildlife, and that would not be long enough from what i am reading, so in everybodys opinion what would be a good choice for 500.00 or less?

For $500? Stand closer ;)

[mdaddyrabbit]

For $500? Stand closer ;)

Sir I dont have the money to buy L glass so I was trying to basically get someone with experience to help me navigate the world of lenses and figure out what I can get that will do wildlife such as birds, foxes, raccoon and so on. My budget at this time is only 500.00 and I just dont know from lack of experince what direction to go. You can only get but so close to wildlife. I dont know if you were joking around with your statement but everyone that comes to this forum doesn't have the money to buy top of the line equipment. But we still want the biggest bang for the buck. When you are as new to photography as I am you really feel a little lost. I enjoy snapping photos, but I would like a entry level 75-300mm, 100-400mm or something of that nature. I have no idea which would be better Canon, Sigma, or Tamron then which is the sharpest. If you have never tryed the lenses and none of your friends have them its hard to know what to order. I dont even have any idea what a prime is, so I am feeling like I am in water and drowning with so much knowledge. This is what I was asking in a nut shell and I probaly didn't ask it right, so here it goes one more time. To get photography shots of the above mentioned animals what do I need to look at the the entry level lens that will reach theses animals with as much sharpness as possible without breaking the bank. Later I will have some L leneses when money allows.

[mdr]

Having had the 70-300 IS and 100-300 USM but now use the 70-200 f4 L, I would highly recommend this lens. Suggest you try to buy a good condition second hand one, leaving you enough for a second hand 1.4x TC Mk I (optically the same as the Mk II). That gives you a 280mm combination, equating to about 450mm on the 20D.

[tommykjensen]

In my opinion You should wait a little and save some money, then get the 70-200 mm f/4. True it is not 300 mm. Later You can add a 1,4x extender to get 280 mm.

I started with the 75-300 mm USM IS and was happy with the results until I got a 70-200 mm f/4 then I could see the L lens really is that much better than most entry/low cost lenses. Trading the 75-300 for the 70-200 mm I did not miss the 100 mm.

I think we all understand that You want to get a new good lens quickly for the money You have on budget. But as hard as it may be it is sometimes better to wait and save to get the good stuff from the beginning.

[pierrot]

My opinion is that 200mm, even with a 1.4x behind it, is far too short for good wildlife shoots, especially birds...:?

[grego]

My opinion is that 200mm, even with a 1.4x behind it, is far too short for good wildlife shoots, especially birds...:?

The 2x gives you a great amount of versatility. Although its good to have it on a 2.8(5.6 with the 2x extender), nothing less than that.

[foxbat]

Given that you've managed to save $500 I would wait and save another $500 so you can buy something longer. I understand the desire to buy right now but do bear in mind that a $1000 L telephoto represents an investment in decades of sharp images for you.

[condyk]

The 70-200 f4 will be a long term keeper and you will get lots of use from it. If you don't, and have bough SH, then you will not lose much money on resale ... you may well make money. These quality lenses are an asset. Taken together, my equipment is worth more than I hhave paid for it but you need to buy Sh and MINT boxed examples.

In terms of length then you know the anser from the above posts: 400mm minimum is what you need. A 1.4 Kenko Pro extender for the 70-200 is great value and quality: also you can keep this long term too. However, this is not your real long term bird/wildlife solution. It will get you up and running and motivate you to get out and take shots. mediocre/Ok shots are not motivating.

If you really do want to go cheaper then the Sigma 70-300mm APO SUper II MAcro comes well recommended by many people here who have owned one, including me.

Best bang per buck is the 50-500mm Bigma from Sigma. Awesome quality (mine is super sharp!) and new costs $999 from B&H. Second hand in Uk generally £450 and up via Ebay, will be cheaper in the good ol' US of A. As we speak, one is for sale on the Marketplace via a trusted Forum member.

Shots are potentially far sharper, more dynamic and 3D with a 70-200mm or Bigma quality lens. Chalk and cheese :) I was also looking for a cheaper zoom a few months back ... I had mine for a month before deciding it wasn't the quality I wanted. It didn't turn me on. As I bought SH I lost nothing on resale. Just be careful of paying full price for new. Shop around online and if you DO sell later then not as much cash lost.

[DaveG]

... I dont know if you were joking around with your statement but everyone that comes to this forum doesn't have the money to buy top of the line equipment. To get photography shots of the above mentioned animals what do I need to look at the the entry level lens that will reach theses animals with as much sharpness as possible without breaking the bank. Later I will have some L leneses when money allows...


Yes but just because you want to, doesn't mean that you can.

It's no accident that sports photographers are using $10,000 Canon 600mm f4 lenses. If they could do it on the cheap, they would. A Canon 75-300mm lens would give you a nice long lens and especially for the $ involved. But it would be slow and compared to better glass, not that great optically.

Some days though you could have any lens that Canon makes and it wouldn't be good or long enough. The "get closer" was probably meant in jest, but that's actually a very good idea. Getting closer to the subject means that you understand its behavior. I've always thought that the more I knew about a particular sport meant that I could make good guesses about what was likely to happen next. Spending some time with a naturalist might be give you some useful insight into that animal's behavior and that's likely to be more useful than a longer lens.

I'd stay with Canon. It'll be easier to sell when the time comes and should be mechanically sound.

[rfreschner]

I dont even have any idea what a prime is

A prime is a lens with a single focal length, such as a EF 50mm f/1.8 or the aforementioned EF 600mm f/4, as opposed to a zoom like the EF 70-200mm f/4.

[tim]

Sir I dont have the money to buy L glass so I was trying to basically get someone with experience ....

Sorry about that, I was drunk when I posted it. I'm giving myself detention and making myself write out "you must not post while drunk" 500 times ;)

[mrclark321]

If you live in the US, B&H sells this lense for $580 and there is a mail in rebate for $20 or$30. Use the Search function, there has been a lot of posts on this lense.
Lots of good info as well as posted pics. I am one of many that would really like this lense and wish I would have purchased it first! This lense is the best bang for the buck. On another note they are hard to find used at a good price, last one went on Ebay for $530 and it had a scratched lense.

Best of luck
Dan

[cfcRebel]

mdaddyrabbit, my situation is quite similar to yours. I am new to photography. Purchased my 1st digitalcam in January, and not many friend has experience in the serious photography world. So i came to this forum for help and i got most of my questions answered.
IMHO, i will go for a second hand Sigma 70-300 APO SUper II, or, a second hand EF 100-300mm USM first. Either one, you should not pay more than US$200 if u purchase a second hand in the states. EBay it is. ;) Play with it and see if you are happy with the results. If yes(for now), good. Keep it and shoot tons of pictures and practice with the lens. If not, resell it on eBay. Since u bought it used, u should not lose much when resell it back. Then go for the $$$ L lens. ;)
Pretty safe plan, at least for me.

[khiromu]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Tokina 400/5.6 can be had for less than $400 and IIRC, it works Canon digital bodies unlike un-rechipped Sigma 400/5.6...