Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Wildlife Talk 
Thread started 22 Apr 2011 (Friday) 06:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

A reasonable priced telephoto lens?

89 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
May 25, 2011 22:30 |  #16

Buy a quad ATV and drive right up to em. This time of year they are not that spooked. Put out a salt block and they will get used to ya.

EOS Rebel T1i,EF300 f/4L IS USM, EF-70 300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, EF-S 18-55 IS f3.5-5.6, Canon ST-E2 Speedlite Transmitter, Canon Speedlite 430EXII, Zerene Stacker,Photoshop CS5 Extended

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Cream of the Crop
7,230 posts
Gallery: 167 photos
Likes: 265
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Tucson AZ
Jun 16, 2011 14:10 as a reply to  @ Salemspap's post |  #17

just get this photography/hunting blind.
set it up and leave it for a few days.
get out there REALLY early and relax with your ipod.
then, when it gets light, you'll be there and they wont see you. …TF8&qid=1308251​366&sr=8-1 (external link)

My Flickr (external link)

Senior Member
509 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Oct 16, 2011 17:50 |  #18

It may just be a personal pet peeve of mine and nobody else cares, or that everyone has missed entirely: "what lens I should be using to get a reasonable photograph?"

First off, no lens will be the true answer. Sure, you'll see some better image quality but as far as "reasonable photographs" go the only real answer is knowledge of equipment, their abilities/limitations and how to use them properly.

Secondly, when talking what kind of focal lengths you should be working with, you should be working with the ones that walk. When you get into longer focal lengths, you're also getting into physical support for these lenses (they get very heavy very quickly). Why buy a massive 800mm lens that costs as much as a small house, weighs more than three times your camera itself, and requires another costly purchase of a very good tripod (not a $15 eBay one) when you can simply get off your duff and put your existing lenses to use?

Portfolio (external link) | 5∞ (external link) | Flickr (external link)

3,439 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 33
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Marco Island FL
Oct 21, 2011 19:59 |  #19

Save up for a 400L f5.6 or a 100-400L. These are great lenses. The Sigma 150-500 BigmOS is also an option. Wouldn't fool with anything cheaper.

My Gear: 6D, 7D, EOS-M w EF-M 22 f2 STM and EF-M 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM, 17-40L f4, 24-70L f2.8, 100 f2.8 non-IS macro, 70-200L f/4 IS, 400L f5.6,, Canon 1.4x II TC, Canon Speedlite 430 EX II, Better Beamer. Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod, 2 monopods, Manfrotto ballhead and pistol grip tripod heads.

32 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Oct 28, 2011 11:56 |  #20

The 100-400L is great for wildlife. Seconding it.

3,738 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Apr 2009
Location: NJ
Oct 28, 2011 12:20 |  #21

I'm not sure why this thread got resurrected after 5 months; but my re-entry into SLR photography (this time digital), after many years, began with the same kit as the OP: the 300D and the 75 to 300 zoom he mentions, I assume, is the one that was available when the 300D sold: the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens (external link). I can tell you that that is a difficult lens to get good results with.

I still don't understand how I got consistently inconsistent results. Using that lens, I learned to shoot no longer than about 250mm, and not open more than f/8 -- which normally yielded very acceptable results.

When I shot at f/5.6 and 300mm, I found it very difficult to get sharp shots and the color was normally drab. But, there were a few (very few) shots taken at little league baseball and my kids' soccer game that absolutely zinged -- taken at 300mm and f/5.6. I am tempted to believe that with the slow focus of that 75-300, those were ones where I just got lucky and got the shot in focus; but I took many shots of stationary subjects, with the camera on a tripod, that were dull and blurry. Maybe Micro Adjusting would have helped because I remain baffled as to the inconsistency (which should not be).

And to the OP (Who I doubt is still reading) just about any lens marketed today, except for the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, which shares the optics from the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but without the IS and with lower build quality, will give better results than what you are using now. But I doubt that you'd want to spend more than you would for the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 though if you are retaining your 300D.

7D | 300D | G1X | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickr (external link)

Senior Member
480 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Fareham, Hampshire, Uk
Nov 02, 2011 03:44 as a reply to  @ hairy_moth's post |  #22

The OP has a Canon EOS 300D with a 75-300 zoom and a C-AF 1.5X multiplier, the lens has never been great, adding the 1.5x multiplier (I assume he means a TC) well there's a problem for a start, f5.6 lens with a TC, loses an 1-stop, makes lens manual focus as crop sensor camera's have a f5.6 autofocus limit, you would need very good light to get reasonable images. Forget about mirror lenses, not great optics and very slow (need perfect conditions) or these 500mm f4.5 $300 pieces of junk you see on ebay or amazon, total waste of money.

On a budget the only lenses that will get you closer are the superzooms from sigma like the bigma (50-500mm, 150-500mm variants), however you still need good light to get the best results from these lenses as they ain't fast and as suggested a tripod for support, but you're talking over $1000.

There are no cheaper alternatives even worth considering

Canon EOS 1D Mkiin & 20D + Lenses

To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Senior Member
494 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Lake County, OH
Dec 20, 2011 09:33 as a reply to  @ pete.rush's post |  #23

I hate to read into a thread and make assumtions, but this time, I wonder if the OP was talking feet rather than yards. Doesn't change the suggestions that have been made, but it certainly would give them a better chance at success. I know it can be done, but deer at 300 - 500 yards are awfully tough to see. You are talking over 1/4 mile away. I wouldn't even try the shot.

Canon EOS 7D & 40D | Σ 10-20mm Wigma | Σ 150-600mm | Σ 18-250mm Macro | Canon 18-135 STM | Canon 55-250 STM
Gallery/Website/Blog - TowPathPhoto (external link)
Social Media - - - on Flickr (external link) . . . on Twitter (external link)
Creator of @OhioBirdAlert (external link) on Twitter

Old ­ Baldy
Senior Member
718 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2010
Location: South Lyon, MI
Dec 24, 2011 16:41 |  #24

BML wrote in post #12271041 (external link)
I have a Canon EOS 300D with the standard 18 to 55 zoom a 75 to 300 zoom and a C-AF 1.5X multiplier which I suppose exposes my lack of photographic knowledge.
Deer are coming across the filed at the back of my garden at about 300 to 500 yards away and the photographs that I took do not look good.
Could someone please suggest what lens I should be using to get a reasonable photograph?

Start with replacing your camera with a modern high-density crop camera such as the T2i (cheapest 18 MP crop sensor from Canon today)

This will immediately give you 3 times the reach compared to your current camera, due to the 3x greater pixels on target effect. It effectively makes your 300mm zoom look like a 900mm zoom, when comparing output against your current 6 MP 300D!

Then, see if you can find a good, used 400mm L f/5.6 prime or a 100-400L and a 2x Extender, for about the maximum reach you can get at a "reasonable" price with normal Canon camera gear. This will mean your output will appear to be like a 2400mm lens attached to your current camera, in comparison, with better image quality to boot.

And then do some walking :)

Gear list
Flickr Gallery (external link)

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,442 views & 0 likes for this thread
A reasonable priced telephoto lens?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Wildlife Talk 
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©

Latest registered member is Car147
932 guests, 202 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.