amron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD or Canon 70-20 F/4

I like shooting birds and other wild life. I just ordered my 70D and looking to get a lens. My question to all you birders out there, what would be a better lens to start out with. I guess with the 70-200 I can get a 1.4 tele extender from what I read. please share your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

Ralph

for birds the longer the better.
However, for wildlife (deer, fox, etc) a 70-200 can be a very good lens.
What is your budget?
Have you considered used?
Do you have a weight limit?

These are all things we compromise for.
I really like my 100-400L as it is a great "do everything" lens.
Not too heavy (just over 3 lbs)
plenty sharp but not the sharpest,
Not inexpensive but not super expensive either at $1400 new or so.

the Sigma 50-500 is a very good lens that "does everything" too. it fits the criteria of my lens too.

If you want a super sharp bird lens for under $1300, the Canon 400 5.6 is excellent.

Also the Sigma 150-500 is a good birding lens if on a budget. As others said get something long, because even then it will always be too short.

I have the Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD XLD lens. It's a very nice lens and it is a great bang for the buck lens. It's on sale at most places for $349 after $100 mail in rebate through Tamron, I think it's ending very soon. Well worth the money in my opinion.
Here are a couple shots I took yesterday with mine. Note that the BIF images are cropped, but the lens provides great results.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …06934306@N08/10​529837603/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …06934306@N08/10​530155673/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …06934306@N08/10​529931476/

I had the Sigma 150-500 and then switched to the Canon 400 f/5.6L. Wish I had gone that way from the start.

I have/had a Tamron 75-300 that I was using. I have decided to sell all my old gear and work on new gear. I just got A 70D and the Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 OC. I also have a brand new 18-55 kit lens and a 55-250 brand new in the box I figure I might just sell. My Old Tamron 28-80 and 75-300 are on ebay to get rid of. I might just keep the 55-25 until I get a good zoom lens. I guess i should be focus on that first b4 I get a dedicated wild life/Bird lens. I should have put that into my statement at first. I am thinking of birds that are closer to me then far away.

Even if they are close, small birds just inside the minimum focusing distance of a 400 f/5.6L won't be a frame filler.

The Sigma 150-500 is good if you want to be able to compose though while zooming in and out of the focal range. There have been times at Chincoteague when I've had to take a few steps back for large birds like Egrets and Heron to be able to get them in frame. When I had my 150-500 I could stand in one spot.

But if you're interested in flight shots, no better lens than the 400 f/5.6L. The Sigma is super slow to focus and doesn't target fast moving objects nearly as well.

I used the 55-250 for a short while when I owned a 7D. And quickly purchased a 150-500 because the birds weren't filling the frame the way I wanted, and cropping the files using the 55-250 definitely wasn't desireable.

So from what I see, hands down the 400 f/5.6L for BIF. Are the 100-400 Zooms any good for BIF? Im having a hard time to pick if I should get a zoom lens 1st or the Prime. I'll have to look into the 150-500. As I will need a zoom lens for other things besides wildlife.

Nothing beats the focus speed of the 400mm prime but the 100-400mm is more versatile especially if you plan on photographing more than just wildlife. I have used both lens's and own the 400mm prime....I strickly photograph wildlife and have the 70-200mm for other things if wildlife isn't cooperating. No comment about the 150-500mm...never used one plus I stick with Canon lens's.

A fellow photographer just picked up a refurbished 400mm prime from Canon and she's very pleased with it...she also owns the 100-400mm but she says the prime is sharper and definately focus's faster.

I have access to and have used a 400 5.6 quite a bit and it does focus slightly faster than my 100-400L. But let me qualify that statement.
The 400 5.6 has no IS and has only one focal length. it has the easiest time focusing for sure.

the 100-400 has IS which needs to spool up and until it does it can actually make your photo more blurry than without it.
also the 100-400 has a min focus distance of 6ft while the 400 5.6 has a min focus distance of about 12 ft. This means the 400 5.6 has less distance to cover to go from min to max focus which also makes it faster.

Now on to the cool thing about the 100-400L if you turn off the IS (making it equal to the 400 5.6) and set the min focus distance to 6meters (making it a bit worse than the 400 5.6 but still perfect for BIF) the focus speed increase pretty dramatically. its downright fast.

So, if you want a Canon lens that can do it all (close to far, large to small) focuses almost as fast as the 400 5.6 and is almost as sharp then the 100-400L is the lens to get.
If you never shoot below 400mm and want the fastest AF possible and the sharpest optics possible the 400 5.6 is the lens to get.
These statements come from actually using both in the field for thousands of photos in various conditions. I gave up on the 400 5.6 because I had too many times that I couldnt focus on a close subject while in my blind or just walking through the trails. I also pull back to less than 400 mm every few times I go out shooting and its nice and fast to not have to swap lenses.
Im rambling. Sorry.

Lol, Jeremy.. That is some great info and i do really appreciate it.

Thanks!!