| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2004 09:22:19 PM · #1 |
Hi
- I did a quick search but didn't find any recent relevant thread -
I need some advise on what lens to buy (for my 10D) for birding w/o breaking the bank, i.e. up to about 1000 USD - so no L glass, sorry :(
I have the Canon 75-300 USM IS which is ok up to maybe 200 in good light but no good after that (I actually think my lens is broken). I also have the 100 F2.8 which is good for anything not to far away, and just brill for macro.
I need a lens that I can pan with and follow birds in flight (fast autofocus would be lovely) and is bright enough to be usable in low light.
Ideally light enough to carry without wheelbarrows and use without a superduper tripod.
What focal length do I need? I'm chasing big guys, both slow (duck, swans, divers, geese) and fast (falcons, eagles), and also all sorts of LBJ's
Am I better of with a fast prime (or a couple of primes) or is the range in zoom critical?
Has anybody tried any of the Tamrons, Tokinas, Sigmas etc?
I have more or less made up my mind to buy a standalone data storage unit like Flash Trax before next spring - cool to be able to listen to mp3's while waiting for the shot :)
Thanks
ps. Or should I save for a couple of years and get a good L?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 09:30:04 PM · #2 |
| I just got the canon 70-200 f4 L . And it is the best zoom ive ever had. If you can afford it go with either the 70-200 F4 L or the 70-200 F2 L. You could add an extension tube if you need more zoom than that. These lenses have supper fast autofocus and the image quality is incredible. Kevin |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 09:50:08 PM · #3 |
For what i had heard the sigma version 70-200mm 2.8 ex are very sharp and good lens, they are cheaper so you can get the 2x teleconverter sigma ex made for telephoto sigma's lens, and you will have a 140-400mm f3.8 (or so, i mean, two stops up).
Let us know what you decided.
Message edited by author 2004-10-20 21:50:33.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 09:57:17 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 09:59:48 PM · #5 |
To do serious birding you need much more than a 70-200 plus the 1.6x crop factor offered by most DSLR's.
I want to get into bird photography later on and I'm seriously thinking about getting something like a Canon 300mm f/4 IS and coupling it with a Canon 1.4x extender. With the camera's 1.6x crop factor that would give me a 672mm constant f/5.6 lens. Not bad for an amateur. Another option would be the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5/5.6 L IS which comes out to 640mm with the camera's 1.6x crop factor.
Either way it's $1500-plus investment
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 10:47:11 PM · #6 |
As Beagleboy suggests the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is probably the 'lightest' investment you'll want for serious birding.
IMO, the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM is next at about five times the price.
Then the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM which, again, is even more expensive (with extender, add two stops - a very usable aperture, still).
All of these work well with an 1.4x, even a 2x, extender too.
Message edited by author 2004-10-20 22:47:48.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 10:57:33 PM · #7 |
The Sigma 100-300 F4 seems to be a great lens. I think it's about $750. It'd work really well with a 1.4x teleconverter, too, which would get you the equivalent of 672mm at f/5.6 on the long end when considering the 1.6x crop factor of the 10D. Plenty of reach for birding. When I want reach I use my 70-200 F4L with my 1.4x tele, which is pretty long, and no discernable loss of image quality. I have to look at the EXIF data to see which photos were used with it and which without. That'd be a good combo if you don't want super long reach.
A lot of good Canon telephoto lenses (300 F4L, 400 F5.6L, 100-400 F4.5-5.6L) are available for just over $1000 US so consider those.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 11:04:44 PM · #8 |
Gauti, one more suggestion: Sigma 50-500mm for less than 1000. I have read in favor reviews on this one.
Reggards.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 11:06:56 PM · #9 |
| For those of us without dSLRs, google "digiscoping" where we can somewhat compete against the big boys. |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 12:33:47 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by ramevi:
Gauti, one more suggestion: Sigma 50-500mm for less than 1000. I have read in favor reviews on this one.
|
Yeah. I had seen this one. 500x1.6=800 = very nice. Is this lens usable in the field? i.e. on a bit wobbly tripod in wind and cold? Or is IS a must on that focal length? F6.3 is a bit dim, but not overly so.
I must admit that such a long range (50-500) sounds a bit suspicious, what's the catch?
Has anybody tried this one?
On a side track: what kind of tripod head do you recommend?
Message edited by author 2004-10-21 00:36:55.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 12:36:29 AM · #11 |
oh yeas. This looks like it. My 75-300 seems to be always on the 300 end and always a little bit too short. IS sound very good. 400*1.6=640. Handheld? Hopefully :)
Has anybody tried this lens?
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 02:37:49 AM · #12 |
There are TONS of user reviews on all these lenses at both DPReview.com in the Canon SLR lens forum, at fredmiranda.com and other places.
The 400 was desined specifically as a handheld bird lens. However, it was designed with full frame 35mm film in mind. This means that an a 10D it's pretty long, and with that comes a need for higher shutter speeds and a narrower view angle. I'd carefully consider 400/5.6 vs 100-400/3.5-5.6 for this reason alone. The zoom is often very useful for finding a target without removing your eye from the viewfinder. Clearly the focusing speed and the sharpness and contrast are going to be better with the prime, but the 100-400 is no slouch in the image quality department either.
f/5.6 is completely usable in almost all conditions where you'd be shooting birds. With the high-ISO performance of the DSLR, it's quite possible to shoot clean images at ISO 800 so wide apertures are less critical than with film.
Originally posted by Gauti:
oh yeas. This looks like it. My 75-300 seems to be always on the 300 end and always a little bit too short. IS sound very good. 400*1.6=640. Handheld? Hopefully :)
Has anybody tried this lens? |
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 05:37:25 AM · #13 |
The Sigma 50-500 had a cult following at the DPReview Canon lens forum, but from the developments that I've been following many have deserted for the Canon 100-400L due to its IS.
Another alternative to the 400/5.6L is the Canon 300/4L IS which, combined with a 1.4X extender, is almost as good as the 400/5.6L but also has IS which can be quite useful at such a long range. The 300/4L IS and 400/5.6L are close in price, but you need that additional extender for the range.
:)atwl
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 10:09:27 AM · #14 |
Many good options have been offered in this thread but here are a couple of newer lenses designed for digital in the price range you mentioned.
Sigma 80-400 f4.5-5.6 EX OS - see: Sigma Lens
Tamron SP AF 200-500 f5-6.3 Di LD (IF) - see:Tamron 200-500
For serious bird photography you may want to keep in mind the option of using a teleconverter with any lens you buy. Canon, Sigma and Tamron all make 1.4x and 2x versions.
If you want to spend a lot more the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX APO HSM has wide aperture thru the zoom range and image quality to rival "L Glass".
However, I think you are going to need a tripod for the long focal length bird shot ranges. Stabilization and wide apertures will help in ideal, or nearly ideal, conditions (read as bright sunlight) but a good, solid tripod will extend your opportunities. |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 10:30:31 AM · #15 |
I do tons of birding. I use the Canon 100-400 IS L. This lens with the 1.6x crop factor is a 160mm - 640mm. For the price Aprox $1000 on ebay all the time. It is a great birding lens.
Goldfinch
Horned Owl
Blue Jay
Cardinal |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 10:34:15 AM · #16 |
I have the 70-200L 2.8 IS USM.. is probably the sharpest, fastest and best all around lens I've ever seen however 200mm may not be sufficient for birding... it's also quite expensive.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 11:14:03 AM · #17 |
I have the 400/5.6 and got it second-hand for ~$900.
I ultimately opted for it over the 100-400 for several reasons: first of all, I saw comparitive shots at f/5.6 on Luminous Landscape that showed how much sharper the 400 is than the zoom.
It was less expensive.
It is a gorgeous lens with great optical performance, but you DO need bright light or strap that thing to a boulder to minimize shake.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 11:19:17 AM · #18 |
I was in your position not very long ago and had hard time to choose the right lens for me for birding. I checked out reviews, forums and talked to photographers in birding photography. After that it was up to me to choose between Canon 400/5.6L, 300/4L IS combined with a 1.4X extender or Canon 100-400L. In the end I chose Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS, it suits me very well as I want to have the option of the zoom range. Ofcourse I don't use it only for birding, but birding was the main reason for buying it. I'm very happy with my choise, the only thing that I don't like is how the ring that permits adjustment of zooming friction is attatched to the focusing ring, so if you have focused on a subject and want to turn the friction ring then the focusing ring may turn with it. Some people don't like the push-pull system, but I like it.
This lens is ideal for a wide variety of applications. It includes a tripod collar, a hood and nice case and the price at B&H photo is just under $1400.
In birding photography you will always "need" more zoom, I will not be surprised if I will buy the 1.4 extender before next summer, it would be great to have almost 900mm (on the 20D).
Message edited by author 2004-10-21 15:22:36. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 07:13:10 AM EDT.
