Telephoto lens for animals

I've been lurking this site for the past several days trying to garner as much info as possible.

I'm looking to get a telephoto zoom lens for my new XTi for animals, whether it be at the zoo, at a public lake (ducks/geese), or in the field.

I was looking at the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM. The fact that it has both the IS and USM makes it a very interesting lens. But the 5.6 at 300mm has me slightly worried. I'm sure this should to fine in daylight, but should I be a bit more concerned and look into a telephoto zoom with an f4 or better throughout the entire focal length?

I was looking at the 70-200 L series, but both the 2.8 and 4.0 with IS and USM are a bit outside my budgetary range. I could get a 70-200 f4L with USM for the same price as the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM, but I'd be losing out on the IS.

Anyway, unless I spend the $1k+, I'm going to either get the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM and sacrifice the f-stops or get the 70-200 f/4L USM and sacrifice IS.

Any opinions either way?

The 70-300 works great at the zoo, especially when it's crowded. It's also easy to carry around all day and turns out some terrific results. It will work at the lake too. If you haven't checked out the archives, I recommend it. Here's a link to it and the last page where I posted some zoo and other shots taken with it.

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1464​26&page=14

Bob R

ocabj wrote in post #4745874
/geese), or in the field.

I was looking at the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM. The fact that it has both the IS and USM makes it a very interesting lens. But the 5.6 at 300mm has me slightly worried. I'm sure this should to fine in daylight, but should I be a bit more concerned and look into a telephoto zoom with an f4 or better throughout the entire focal length?

It's fine for static wildlife in lowlight. You can also stop action rather well in good light.

I had both, kept the 70-300IS. IQ is just about the same. But you will get many more keepers with the 70-300IS, especially for wildlife. The only reason I got rid of mine was for 400mm.

I took the 70-300 IS over the 70-200 and I couldn't be happier. 70-200 is a pretty useless range as far as use as a telephoto goes (great for portraits!). 200mm is really short. So is 300mm, but it's better than 200, 50% better! And IS is a big plus sometimes.

perryge wrote in post #4746028
I took the 70-300 IS over the 70-200 and I couldn't be happier. 70-200 is a pretty useless range as far as use as a telephoto goes (great for portraits!). 200mm is really short. So is 300mm, but it's better than 200, 50% better! And IS is a big plus sometimes.

I agree. I find the 70-200 range on a crop body to be rather unimportant for wildlife (at least what I shoot). And I end up taking alot of funky 70mm landscape shots just because that's the lens I have on.

If all you are shooting is wildlife, and you don't mind tripods, I might go for the 200 2.8 L(same price as 70-200, 70-300IS). It's got great IQ and is F4 and around 300mm with a 1.4x. I would definitely go that route over the 70-200F4.

Mike55 wrote in post #4746025
I had both, kept the 70-300IS. IQ is just about the same. But you will get many more keepers with the 70-300IS, especially for wildlife. The only reason I got rid of mine was for 400mm.

I had both the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 70-300mm too, but kept the 70-300 even after I got the 100-400. There are times that I just want to carry something lighter and/or less conspicuous.

Bob R

my vote: 50-500mm bigma
and a monopod

yes, it can be done, even at the zoo for 6 hours

I did order a Bogen 680 with a swivel tilt QR head, so I hope that will help me out a little as a field expedient support if I get the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM.

I don't plan on getting it for another month or so, which does give me time to think about it more. But from what I've read, the 70-300 appears to be the way to go for a lower cost telephoto zoom lens, so I am swaying towards it.

ocabj wrote in post #4746190
I did order a Bogen 680 with a swivel tilt QR head, so I hope that will help me out a little as a field expedient support if I get the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM.

I don't plan on getting it for another month or so, which does give me time to think about it more. But from what I've read, the 70-300 appears to be the way to go for a lower cost telephoto zoom lens, so I am swaying towards it.

You won't need a monopod or tripod with the 70-300. It's light and the IS works great. Even my 12 year old granddaughter can handle this lens without much effort.

70-300 IS is probably a good option for you.

The f/5.6 minimum aperture at 300mm is a non-issue as IS will allow an effective 3 stops (or is it 2 on this one?) slower shutter. This only becomes a problem if you are shooting fast moving objects where you need a fast shutter.

Don't give the monkeys coffee and you should be right

I suggest you get the 70-300 Is. It has great IQ, is light, easy to use and a decent length for what you have in mind. You can turn IS off and up the ISO if you need to get some action freezing shutter speed and light isn't in your favour. You may then need a secure platform, like a wall, monopod, whatever. All depends. A great buy tho'.

If you need 300mm then the 70-300 and the 70-200f/4 have the same aperture pretty much.

At 70mm.
70-200 = f/4
70-300 = f/4

at 200mm.
70-200 = f/4
70-300 = f/5 (2/3 stops slower)

at 280/300mm (with 1.4X TC on 70-200)
70-200 = f/5.6
70-300 = f/5.6

I always suggest to people that if you are really looking to get the 200-300 range the EF 70-300 is hard to beat for value. Excellent optics, IS and portable.

If you need faster out at that kind of length realistically you are looking at primes. Those are not cheap at all.

What about the new Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Anyone used this???

notDavidBailey wrote in post #4748414
What about the new Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Anyone used this???

Not available in the US so far is what I've heard.

Another vote for Bigma (Sigma 50-500) and a monopod.