Wildlife lens

[Paula G]

Hi All.
Very pleased to have found this forum. Have just got the D 60 and love it. My passion is wildlife/ bird photography. I made a hide and hope to get pictures of small birds about 4/5 meters away. The occasional outing to sea birds/woodland hides.
I want the pictures to have blurred backgrounds with the subject nice and sharp!
What lens shall I get:
Been offered the 100-400 IS and
the 300 2.8 L IS (expensive and heavy)
or is there something better. Will I be able to fill the frame with the above lenses at that distance?
I can only make one purchase
Hope someone can advise me.

[robertwgross]

Paula, I have a ready-made bird blind. I set up my tripod inside my living room and shoot out through the patio glass door onto the patio, where the hummingbird feeder hangs. The distance is 3-4 meters to the tiny birds.

On my D60, I use the Sigma 170-500mm zoom lens, and I am pleased with the results. Of course, if I need to move the lens to a new location, I have to use a trailer. :-)

---Bob Gross---

[thewhitenite007]

hi

I was asking myself the same question. I would advise you on buying the 300 2.8. Its a long focal distance, and is a very very fast lens. That is what you need on photographing birds and stuff, and there is no DOF, which is even better for u. Getting the bird or deer in focus while the surroundings are blurred. The 100-400 wouldnt also be a good choice because it goes farther and zooms. But it is much much slower. On other hand the 300 would be 450mm and you could make it a 900 5.6 with a 2x converter and 5.6 is what the 100-400 is. I would never by that 170-500 Sigma lens. The reason is the apr. is like 6.9 or something and that is way to slow of a lens for you.

Tell me what you think
Pete

[robertwgross]

Wrong. The Sigma's aperture is f 6.3 at the long end, and it is f 5.0 at the short end. For the distance to subject, we are down near the short end. If you had read my post, I had stated that it was fine for small birds such as the original poster had inquired about.

---Bob Gross---

[thewhitenite007]

yeah but its a Sigma. IT ISNT WEATHER PROOF! which you need in nature photography. and its STILL f5.0 which is STILL very slow. You can get real good sigmas or really really bad ones. Thats about it.

[GenEOS]

The D60 is not too weather proof....

[thewhitenite007]

No but the 300 2.8L and 100-400 5.6L are

[robertwgross]

thewhitenite007 wrote:
yeah but its a Sigma. IT ISNT WEATHER PROOF! which you need in nature photography. and its STILL f5.0 which is STILL very slow. You can get real good sigmas or really really bad ones. Thats about it.

The D60 is not weatherproof. What good is it to have a weatherproof lens if the camera body is not?

---Bob Gross---

[thewhitenite007]

The camera is sealed to keep some elements out. If the weather is too rough you put a plastic bag or towel over the body. Like you can take the D60 and the 2.8 L to the beach and not worry about sand destroying it. You cant take the sigma lens to the beach. I brought my Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 EX to the beach and sand somehow got into the lens body and ruined the focusing motor and all i did was change the lens and put it in my bag. If i had the extra 500 dollars at the time i would have bought the Canon 17 - 35 2.8L .

[robertwgross]

thewhitenite007 wrote:
The camera is sealed to keep some elements out. If the weather is too rough you put a plastic bag or towel over the body. Like you can take the D60 and the 2.8 L to the beach and not worry about sand destroying it. You cant take the sigma lens to the beach. I brought my Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 EX to the beach and sand somehow got into the lens body and ruined the focusing motor and all i did was change the lens and put it in my bag. If i had the extra 500 dollars at the time i would have bought the Canon 17 - 35 2.8L .

Wrong again. You keep changing the subject to fit your argument. The original poster was inquiring about a wildlife lens for birds. Now you are trying to bring up some bad experience about a wide angle lens.

Then you say the camera is sealed to keep some elements out. OK. Go look at the battery compartment closely. Then go read the camera specifications again. Then see if you make the same statement. Pay special attention to where the power cable can go into the battery compartment from the charger.

As a general rule, the wildlife lens in question will be a longer lens, not 17-35mm. Lenses in the range of 200mm up to 600mm would be logical. The original poster did not mention the use of a tripod in her blind. I'm going to jump to the conclusion that a tripod is used. In that case, IS lenses would not be called for.

Since I had been successfully using my Sigma 170-500mm zoom specifically for the same thing as the original poster, I had given my comments to that effect. A faster lens would be nice, but then that gets into more weight and a lot more cost. YMMV.

---Bob Gross---

[Paula G]

Thank you all.
I have read your comments with great interest and am no nearer to a conclusion!
Yes, I do use a tripod in my homemade hide.
Most birds are tiny, so magnification is a must, although I can get quite close to them. They are also very flighty and not good posers, so I presume a fast shutterspeed is a must and in order to get a well blurred background I need a wide open lens?
I am still a novice at this, but very keen!
Again, Thank you.....and keep it coming!

[Persio]

Paula G wrote:
Thank you all.
I have read your comments with great interest and am no nearer to a conclusion!
Yes, I do use a tripod in my homemade hide.
Most birds are tiny, so magnification is a must, although I can get quite close to them. They are also very flighty and not good posers, so I presume a fast shutterspeed is a must and in order to get a well blurred background I need a wide open lens?
I am still a novice at this, but very keen!
Again, Thank you.....and keep it coming!

Paula, from what I have read the 300L IS is your best option. It is one of the sharpest and fastest lens available with the added benefit of IS, which might come in very handy in several situations. Good luck.

Persio.

[thewhitenite007]

Yeah no kidding the 17-35 is a wide angle lens but its a SIGMA! The CANON L lenses r completely sealed, nothing can go inside, there is a piece of glass that covers the back end like the front element. The sigma's back moves up and down so dirt and stuff can go inside the lens or get stuck in the rear end. Plus the Canon is inner focusing.

[robertwgross]

Persio wrote:
Paula, from what I have read the 300L IS is your best option. It is one of the sharpest and fastest lens available with the added benefit of IS, which might come in very handy in several situations. Good luck.

Persio.


Persio, please explain how the IS-type lens is the best option when the original poster wants to use it on a tripod.

---Bob Gross---

[dbarthel]

I have both the 300 f2.8, both extenders, and the 100-400 zoom. They serve two different, but indispensible purposes. The 100-400 is a walk around lens, the 300f2.8 is a tripod only lens realistically. Image quality is superb, reportedly best in the whole canon lineup. Quality with th 1.4 extender is equally good, and with the 2x extender still very very good. The nice thing with the D60 is that autofocus is maintained with the 300f2.8 and the 2x extender, so you have a functional 600mm lens x 1.6 = 960mm effective reach. The extenders are useless with the 100-400.

So the short answer is both are really worth having.

Dan

[thewhitenite007]

The reason why the IS is good for a tripod, which by the way I wouldnt really use, is because if the user doesnt have a remote shutter , he/she can shake the camera while pushing the shutter button. I would use a monopod with this lens because it offers more manuverability and if youre using low shutter speeds the IS can help.

[David Lawson]

Don't forget 300 f4 L IS works well with 1.4x. Much lighter than f2.8 version especially on the pocket.

[thewhitenite007]

Yeah I had one of those, the f4. Great lens, not fast enought though. Its not heavy at all.

[Paula G]

Thank you all very much.
I have made up my mind and will go for the 100-400 and learn how to take good wildlife pictures. If and when the time comes I can always upgrade again.
I shall have a good snoop round the forum as I can see there is a lot of knowledge and plenty of chances to learn. Who knows, might even post a picture one day!
Thank you again......Paula

[jswayze]

dbarthel wrote:
The extenders are useless with the 100-400.



I think this depends on perception (and perhaps experience.)

Here's a photo I shot this weekend from inside my house of a feeder located at the back of my deck. I'm guessing about 30 ft away. It's also a crop, perhaps 75% of the frame, and it's been downsampled in Photoshop. I shot it with a D60 using the 100-400 at 400mm and a 1.4x TC. Effective focal length of 896mm. It's not tack sharp, but I was pretty darn impressed:

http://www.zetagraphics.com/images/Cardinal2.jpg

[thewhitenite007]

Ahhh a slow lens. Lol. Go to www.adorama.com to purchase the lens for the best price. www.deltainternational.com sells the lens too at a lower price but I never delt with them before so I dont know to trust them or not. Adorama has great service AND the shipping department is really really good and gets the item to you sooner then you payed for.

[fredlord]

Last summer we were overrun with hummingbirds. All I had for my two-month-old D60 was my old 75-300USM lens purchased in 1996. The birds were wary at first but soon got used to my presence and the sound of the shutter. I was in the open about 6 feet away from them at all times and the old 75-300 worked very well. Most images were made at 1/750-1/1000 @ f/8 set on ISO 400 with available sunlight. Flash is, of course, needed to stop the wings totally. I didn't have a flash that would synch at high shutter speeds at the time.

I've since sold the 75-300 and purchased a 100-400L IS. I hope the new lens does somewhat better than the old lens with these particular subjects. I cannot say if it will do so until July when they, hopefully, show up again.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=219402

The web address above contains shots with both lenses. The hummingbirds were all shot with the old, 75-300 lens. All other bird shots were made with the new 100-400L IS lens. Any flaws are mine. The new lens does appear to be better to my eye.

D60 •16-35L f/2.8 • 24-70L f/2.8 • 100-400L IS
All else (4x5, 6x9, 6x7, 35mm and lots more!) was sold to support my new digital habit.

[Paula G]

Thank you Fred for the encouraging remarks. I had a look at your site which is very nice and helpful. You certainly managed to take some good bird shots with the 100-400.
Regards Paula

[dbarthel]

I should have claified my comment about the 100-400 and the 1.4x extender. It certainly does work (albeit with out autofocus) on the D60. However the image is so dark in the D60 finder that precise manual focus is almost impossible. Not what you want for hand held bird shooting. Mounted on a tripod for shooting a static scene can produce very good results while working slowly, but most birds don't have the patience for that kind of work.

Dan

[kellyr]

Did you use a tripod for this shot? I have been thinking of getting a 1.4 x converter to use with 100-400 lens, most of my use is hiking without tripod. I don't need photo print sharpness, just need sharp enough to use for painting reference.

Thanks,
Kelly R

[dbarthel]

I have both the 300 2.8IS and the 100-400 IS, and both teleconverters. The 300 is outstanding by itself and with the 1.4x converter, but mine seems soft with the 2x converter. I cannot hand hold the 300 for any length of time so I use a Wimberly sidekick on an Arca B1 on a tripod almost all of the time. The 100-400 is great for handholding, but functionally useless with converters. Image quality is very good, but not as good as the 300. I also chase birds, and am sad to say that neither is long enough, so I'm saving for the 500f4 (the 600 is way to heavy to consider). With the 500 f4 and the 1.4x teleconverter I'll be at 700 mm x 1.6 = 1120mm at f5.6 on my D60. If that's not enough, then oh well, find another bird.

Dan

[charlibob]

Even with the 1.6 crop, 300 or 400 are a little short for your purpose. Consider a used 500 or 600 lens at f4.

[thewhitenite007]

If you want the maximum amount of sharpness use the 300 2.8 PRIME LENS. Prime lenses allow a greater amount of sharpness then zooms.

[fredlord]

I don't know if KellyR was asking about my images of the hummingbirds or not. If not, please disregard. All the shots were made from a Tiltall tripod using the camera shutter button. I didn't have a remote release yet. Using the tripod made me dither less as I couldn't move around too much when I got excited with all the birds in attendance. Tripods are nice that way. Physically and emotionally stabilizing.

I'm now selling that 26-year-old Tiltall as I blew out my budget and purchased a Gitzo for next summer's hummingbird invasion.

[Mike Morbach]

For what you describe the bigger the better. Focal length and aperture. I must say my favorite lens is the 100-400L IS. That IS feature is amazing. I know I am lazy but I just don't see me lugging around a tripod that often. No doubt an f stop of 2.8 is a huge advantage but for me the 100-400 fit the bill and the focal length works for my purposes. If you buy one I highly recommend Betty at Delta. They are honest and provide good service. B&H is also very good. If you got the lens and did not like it resale on Ebay is extremely good. Check these links for 100-400L IS photos.
http://www.pbase.com/image/12144247/original

and www.pbase.com/spike777

Good luck with your decision
Mike

[robertwgross]

thewhitenite007 wrote:
The reason why the IS is good for a tripod, which by the way I wouldnt really use, is because if the user doesnt have a remote shutter , he/she can shake the camera while pushing the shutter button. I would use a monopod with this lens because it offers more manuverability and if youre using low shutter speeds the IS can help.

On some IS lenses, they tell you to switch off IS if it is on a tripod.

Then, IS is a method to help the lens offset lens movement prior to the shutter. I guess if you were really bad on the shutter button, you could shake the lens enough for IS to go active.

Now, on a monopod, the IS makes more sense.

---Bob Gross---

[fredlord]

I've tried the leaving the IS operating while using a tripod and it seems to hunt around just a bit. I was looking through the viewfinder and depressing the shutter button enough to see the exposure and the IS jumped around more than I would have expected it to considering the fact that the camera and lens movements were infinitesimal. It jumped each time I pressed the button. I'll try it again but it did seem to behave rather oddly under those particular circumstances. Otherwise it works splendidly.

[thewhitenite007]

Hey I got an Idea. Why dont you just rent the two lenses for the day and try them out and see which one you like best. There are plenty of stores that lease this equiptment out for a day. Why take our opinions and facts into consideration when you can do it yourself.

[robertwgross]

I trust you that it actually does that. We don't know exactly why it does that. Therefore, assuming that Canon understands this better than we do, maybe that is why they recommend for the user to switch off IS when it is on a tripod.

So, I can kind of understand if somebody wants to use this for a handheld wildlife lens, but I can't quite understand if somebody wants to use this for a tripod-mounted wildlife lens (which is what the original post was about).

---Bob Gross---

[dbarthel]

Just back from an Arthur Morris weekend. EVERYONE hat a 100-400 as a walkaround lens. The big boys had 500 & 600mm IS teles. Felt a little short with the 300F2.8 and the 2x extender, but the combo produced very good image quality.

Dan

[borkera]

Alot of people reccomend the 400m f5.6 USM lens as an intro lens. It's more affordably priced, and considered a great lens for birds in flight because it can be hand held...

[chris maddock]

robertwgross wrote:
I trust you that it actually does that. We don't know exactly why it does that. Therefore, assuming that Canon understands this better than we do, maybe that is why they recommend for the user to switch off IS when it is on a tripod.

---Bob Gross---

It gets into a "feedback loop" trying to stabilise motion that isn't there, with the result that it actually puts some motion in.

KRs
Chris

[JAB1]

Paula,
I hope you end up purchasing the 100-400...I bought one and just love it...good sharp lens at all focal ranges...great for birdies....I do use mine on a tripod....helps alot...handholding it is difficult but can be done if very careful....use the IS for handholding the lens...I find this lens more useful due to the variable focal lengths available rather than one fixed focal length lens.....good luck....JAB

[robertwgross]

One thing that was just stated... I find a variable focal length (zoom) lens to be much better for most wildlife. If you have a single fixed-length lens, then you may have to move up or back to frame up the subject correctly. That, of course, is awkward if you are shooting from a blind or where terrain is difficult. It would work if you were always shooting the same size animal from the same distance.

However, for most of us, we never quite know which animal is coming at us next, or from which direction, so something which can zoom is much more versatile.

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

Chris, control loop theory is interesting to some of us. Is there any published information specifically about lenses which goes into this in more detail?

Between Image Stabilization and Autofocus features, these lenses aren't simple anymore.

---Bob Gross---