Wildlife/Nature lenses on a budget

Is it real?

I have a 17-50 Tamron for a walk around lens and was looking for possibly a couple primes to get a little distance and some landscape with, though I can't afford anything too crazy.

I want lenses that will double in low light as well, so a faster lens is good. As of now I have around 500 bucks to play with, but I need a flash as well and a cheap tripod.

Thank you in advance for your suggestions,

Stephen

The 17-50 will do fine on your 450D for nature and landscape types of things. I remember you. It's what I have and use most of the time.

As far as a cheap telephoto, the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS is a great little lens that you can shoot wildlife with. They run around $250. Refurbs are $199 on Adorama.

For low light, the Nifty Fifty (50mm 1.8 II) is the cheapest solution. Runs from $70-$90

So for less than $300 you have some decent lenses. Spend $90 and get a Vivitar 285HV and buy yourself a cheap tripod for under $100.

I can agree with the above EXCEPT the cheap tripod. If you're going to buy a cheap tripod you may as well just hand hold the camera. All they really do is hold the camera up, they are cheap, flimsy, allow shaking and movement and will surely disappoint you as they actually contribute to image problems instead of help belay them.
I bought one and may have just as well flushed the cash down the toilet. In fact, if the OP wants it I will give it to him if he covers the postage, although, I strongly feel I wouldn't be doing him any favors. He would also have to promise not to bad mouth me over the tripod as he was duely warned in front of witnesses. lol

Mike

85/1.8

It's a little short for wildlife, perhaps. But it shines in low light.

For $500, I'd look at at Canon 55-250. You'll have funds left for a pod, but I'd strongly recommend buying a good flash first. Something like a 430ex. Then save a little longer, and get a decent pod. I've been very happy with my Velbon carbon fiber tripod. $200 at best buy.

I don't consider $200 a cheap tripod. Cheaper than a lot of the really good pro models but not cheap like the $30 ones. I have a Davis & Sanford with a fluid head that I gave $150 for and it is miles and miles ahead of those cheap cheap cheap $30.00 models imo.

shutterfiend wrote in post #7601675
85/1.8

It's a little short for wildlife, perhaps. But it shines in low light.

Do you think this Canon Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.8 Autofocus Lens Soft Focus ($300 new) would give a little better reach, or would the higher 2.8 degrade the light too much?

And could this Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens (used) double as a Telephoto perhaps?

That aside I have been reading about the 85mm and it seems nice.

binlerne wrote in post #7600803
The 17-50 will do fine on your 450D for nature and landscape types of things. I remember you. It's what I have and use most of the time.
.

Heh, yeah. Thanks for the advice man I decided to keep the 450 and use the difference for a 40D on glass. Now I'm here

250mm is the longest you'll get on a budget. After that, you'll have to spend at least $1000.

Tamron makes a 70-300 that you can get for $100 or less, but then you get what you pay for.