 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 13
Hi all,
I am interested in getting a zoom lens for wildlife photography but unsure about what focal length would be ideal? I currently have a 55-250 mm f4.5-5.5 and iddon't feel as though I don't have enough zoom to capture the birds etc. On top of that trying to capture the split second movements of animals would you expect to need a f2.8 or faster or slower?
Any assistsnce would be much appreciated
Thanks
Jamie Young photography
It would help if you nominate which camera you have, FF or crop like 7d. Usually longer lenses are better to get you closer to the action but with that comes cost. Perhaps add in how much your willing to spend and you will get some further replies. cheers Brian
Cheers Brian.
Canon 7D Kit lenses EFS 18-55 IS EFS 55-250 IS EF28-90 Canon EF 2xll Extender Sigma DG150-500 OS Speedlight 420EX. 580EX
One of the main criteria which will help you decide is cost. I use a 400mm for birding. I would love a 500mm but it would cost me another $5,000 which is pretty hard to justify.
I am a Sony shooter but my comments would apply to all makes.Originally Posted by Ragsy
I use my Sony 70-300G (Sony's designation for the top of the line lenses like Cano L or Nikon Nikor). It weighs ~800 grams and I can carry it all day. I have a 1.4 tele convertor to put on but then have to use it in manual mode.
Sony make a 70-400G but it weighs twice as much and I could not carry it for too long. I also have a sigma 50-500mm that weighs even more and only take it if the car is close by.
For F2.8 long distance lenses, the same applies, they are heavy and expensive.
Questions ponder
How far are you going to carry your kit?
Quality long zooms are expensive, how much do you want to spend?
Can you up your ISO to increase your shutter speed without going to a faster lens?
A birders lament... if only I had a longer lens.... john
Last edited by chappo1; 12-01-2014 at 11:05am.
“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."
Hector Berlioz
Threadstarter
Thanks all for your reply and contribution
I currently have a 60D but wanting to upgrade to a full frame once the boss let's me . Although it's my first dslr I feel as though it's pretty good for starting out photographers.
I have heard that a teleconverter will effect the quality of the shot, i have never used one, is it true??
Not knowing your budget, but if you are looking to head down the full frame track at some point, id suggest the Canon 100-400mm. It seems to be almost one of the staple lenses that people use for wildlife without stepping up to the big primes. Reasonably good value for money, decent sharpness at the long end also. There has been rumors of a v2 for many years now, but it will be more expensive than the outgoing model I would imagine.
As for extenders, you'll always lose a bit of image quality, focus speed, and light of course by throwing one on. I use one occasionally with my 400, and it does slow the AF down slightly, but the IQ isnt too bad slightly stopped down, but the loss of light is the real killer.
It depends on extent, and whether it is noticeable in the final image. It can be due to magnified lens defects/little other contribution of teleconverter (TC), or it can be
that the TC is really poor in quality or is not suited to the particular lens. I use a Σ50-500, sometimes with Σ 2XTC, with no noticeable effect due to the TC.
Tim, I hilighted part of your post. The rest of the explanation is OK, but it would be a more helpful reply to expand on that statement as well.
Am.
CC, Image editing OK.
Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer then.
Teleconverters are essentially adding another optical element to your lens formula. The way I think about it is, Canon design each lens to be as good as they can get it in terms of IQ (sharpness, contrast etc). So when you add another element into the mix, your adding something that doesnt belong in their formula. So things like sharpness will decrease slightly in some cases, or drastically in other cases.
e.g. Canons 1.4x and 2x converters are designed by Canon generally around the 300 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 lenses optical formula. So with these lenses, you can get pretty good results. On the new 300 2.8 v2 for with the 1.4x III, the difference in sharpness and AF speed is harldy noticible. Add the 2x III to it, and you can definitely notice a drop in AF performance and sharpness (I think personally). The older 2x II wasnt as good sadly, and the AF and IQ took a pretty decent hit.
The reduction in light is going to make it more difficult to AF as well, as your wide open aperture will change. eg. use a 1.4x on a 2.8 lens, and the widest aperture is now f4. Use a 2x, and the widest aperture is now 5.6. Do the same for a 100-400 5.6, with a 1.4x it will be f8, and a 2x will be f11. Generally people stay away from 2x converters unless they really need it, as they almost always reduce the IQ fairly noticibly. The 100-400 is a lens where many people agree that it doesnt play too well with teleconverters unless you stop it down.
Another thing to keep in mind with TC's is, if the base aperture of the lens is higher than 5.6, then most cameras wont be able to AF with it, unless you have a 1 series, or a 5dmk3 which allow up to f8.
With a Sigma 50-500, and a 2x converter I would think that you'd lose AF all together?
Yes, you do lose AF with my setup, but at least not OS (Opt. Stabilistion). I mostly have to use the lens wide open at nominal "f/6.3", which is really f/13, but at least it's still
good at that aperture. It's purely for pulling in objects (distant or close-up) when the straight lens is ju-u-st not quite long enough.
Am.
I know what you mean - sometimes when you need as much length as you can get, you have to make a few sacrifices!
Back on the question of lenses, I think with larger mammals, you can get away with something in the 300-400mm range, but for smaller animals (birds in particular), and more distant mammals - you take as much as you can get really! Sometimes 500-600 isnt even enough.
Try this link. None will be cheap, but if you want quality, this is an area where you'll be paying for what you get. If upgrading to a FF, I would strongly recommend only EF Canon lens or a third party lens desigened for FF, if you then use that said lens on Crop body, you'll gain the EFOV for the crop factor. I.E 100 mm EF lens on a 1.6 factor crop body like your 60D has the same effective field of view as 160mm. Try this link for EFOV and crop factor.
I have the 300mm F4 L IS and can add my 1.4 TC to it so it gives me 420mm @ F5.6 and works a treat. For me, the IS and the ability to have 300mm at F4 over 400mm (Fixed) @F5.6 was a better fit.
I shoot sport over birds, but the equipment requirements are very similar.
They call me "Blue" it's a red head thing.
"My Flickr Site"
Canon Bodies - 1DMk2N + 50D - Lenses - 17-35mm F2.8 L - 24-70mm F2.8 L - 70-200mm F2.8 L - 300mm F4 IS L - Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 - Sigma 10-20mm - DJI Mavic Pro Platinum
" I Never get tired of looking at our diverse country, even if its through the lens of someone else".
CC is always appreciated.
There is really only one question to answer here: why wouldn't you get a 100-400?
You will find anything under 400mm too short for birds, and not really long enough for most other things. A 70-300 (or 300 prime) is just barely usable, less than that - forget it.
So what about other things that offer similar reach? The third-party zooms (Sigma 50-500 and the like) don't cost much less and most of them are too slow - the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is significant, particularly when it comes to focus systems. To simplify, SLR AF systems work by comparing the same part of the image as seen by two different parts of the lens. The smaller the effective distance between "sample A" and "sample B", the harder the AF system has to work to figure out the correct focus. It takes longer and makes more errors. For our present purposes, we can regard the maximum aperture of the lens (f/4, let's say) as a pretty good measure of the ability of the lens to give the camera the information it needs to focus. Cameras always focus wide open (the lens stops itself down only a moment before the shutter fires, and opens up again while the mirror is flipping back up) so it's the wide-open f-number we need to consider. All else being equal, an f/2.8 lens will focus faster and better than an f/4 lens, which is still better than an f/5.6 lens.
But it gets a bit more complicated than that. The AF system in your SLR has a fixed "receiving aperture" - in other words, the points it measures the focus from are set in the factory and can't be changed. For this reason, most SLRs have two sets of AF sensors: typically, a camera will have a high-speed, high-quality set which samples light at f/2.8 (and if your lens can't do f/2.8, this set remains unused) and a second set which samples at f/5.6 (this, less accurate, slower set of AF sensors is used when the f/2.8 set is not available because your lens is (say) f/5.6 max). Some cameras - notably the Canon pro models like the 1Ds III and the 1D IV - have a single third AF sensor set: in this case, a single AF point in the centre of the picture which works at f/8. It's very, very slow because at f/8 it has hardly any "optical leverage", but it does work quite well.
When your lens is too slow for the designed "width" of the AF sensor (and f/6.3 lens with an f/5.6 sensor, for example, either one of two things happen: (a) the AF simply shuts down and says "I need more aperture to work properly, better if I just switch myself off and you can try to focus manually" (most Canon bodies do this), or else it just tries to focus anyway, generally not doing a very good job of it. For this reason, most f/6.3 lenses lie to the camera and say that they are f/5.6. The camera dutifully tries to focus anyway, but it battles to do it quickly and correctly. Remember, the camera maker could redesign the AF system to work at a smaller aperture (f/8, say) but chooses not to because that would reduce the "leverage" of the AF sensors and degrade the focus performance of the camera at all apertures and with any lens.
The extra reach you gain with (say) a 50-500/6.3 is pretty quickly swallowed up by the slower, less accurate focus. Yes, you can get great pictures with a 50-500/6.3, but it is tricky and difficult. For the same amount of skill and effort, you will (on average) get better, sharper pictures with a 100-400/5.6, even though you have to crop a bit more. Also, remember that a bigger, heavier lens is harder to hold still, and that counts too.
What about a prime? Sadly, there are no good, modern, small and affordable 400mm primes for Canon. (Or, last time I checked, Nikon, which is the only other brand you'd look at if you were serious about wildlife photography.) The only one is the delightful but ancient 400/5.6 prime, which is excellent in every way apart from its lack of image stabilisation, which is pretty much a deal-breaker.
Then there are the various shorter primes, things like the Canon 300/4 IS and various 300/2.8s. These are generally great lenses, but too short and you have to add a teleconverter to get (say) a 420/5.6. At that point, you are focusing about as well as you would with a 100-400, you have gained very little focal length and, all up, you have spent more. My rule of thumb is only buy a 300mm lens if you actually want 300mm. If you want 400, buy a 400 in the first place. If you have to add a teleconverter as routine practice, you own the wrong lens. (Yes, I use a teleconverter with my 500/4 to make it a 700/5.6, but only where 500 really isn't enough and the light is very good. I have also used a 2x converter with it, but I found that I wasn't really gaining enough to make up for the slow AF and reduced IQ. I'm not saying "don't get a teleconverter", I'm saying "regard a teleconverter as a minor add-on to your lens to be used in special circumstances, never as a routine main part of your equipment.)
PS: but with a good f/2.8 lens - say a 300/2.8 - a modest 1.4 converter is very, very usable. You are at 420mm f/4 with the converter, which is pretty good. But then, a 300/2.8 IS costs $7000-odd and weighs two and a half kilograms.
Nice work Tony, and well said.
In the 60D owners manual, there's a reference to the AF and lens selection, which adds to what Tony's mentioned above, regarding the maximum aperture and focus points/sensitivity.
Now a 500 F4 would be nice indeed..
Hi Jamie,
my suggestion is to think twice about whether you really are into bird photography. It is an important question because it changes everything!
The dedicated bird photographer never has enough focal length. The whole system becomes much bigger, heavier, and more expensive to pursue this specialist field of photography.
Without special emphasis on birds, the nature photographer's kit is pretty well catered for with a 250mm or 300mm lens on a crop camera. The new STM model of Canon 55-250mm is quite a lot sharper at 250mm than earlier models, and has no serious weakness for the hobby photographer. The next step up would be the Canon 70-300mm 'L' lens - not the non-'L' models. The 70-300 'L' offers more sharpness again, much faster focusing and responsiveness, and better IS.
Beyond the 70-300 'L', the 100-400 'L' is half a step forward and half back. Yes it has that bit more reach, but it is significantly bigger and heavier, and not as sharp, and definitely not as fast and responsive, with less IS. It is a lens from an old era, with good optics, but the modern Canon cameras can focus better when matched to the modern Canon optics like the 70-300 'L'. Whereas the 70-300 is completely hand-holdable (not solely due to weight but also being short helps) the 100-400 is not really, becoming a bit of a pain and begging for tripods and monopods after a while. The fully hand-holdable lens will let the photographer be much more flexible and adaptable to what is going on around him/her. Less missed shots!
I will also mention that the successful bird photographer is a bit like a duck in water: it might look serene on top but there is a lot going on out of sight! The idea that you might get bird shots like the pro grade shots on display by getting the same lens they have, is very seductive but in my experience it is nothing more than an illusion. Great bird shots take a *lot* of time and a *lot* of dedication. Those guys really know their birds, and how they behave and where to look, and put a lot into their shooting technique. I really admire them. If I walk around a park with these guys and shoot with them, I don't get the same photos but 50% smaller: I get nothing, blurs, empty sky, dark shadows, and bird backs disappearing into the distance. Hah!
That's just a long way of saying that buying extra lens power for birds has a lot of negatives, and the only real positive isn't even going to happen unless birds are your 'thing'.
As a general nature tool, look at this review of the Canon 70-300 'L'. http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/e...-6l-is-review/
cheers and good luck with your decision.
I have just got back into photography after 20 years 2 weeks ago and have some good results with the Sigma 150-500 lens on the 1st day I owned it, I have 6 pics from that day on Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/114016155@N04/ these photos were taken mostly at 500mm and wide open and are sharp. The Water dragon was 150mm and wide open.
I didn't know that I would get shots like this or I may not have spent so much time racing mountain bikes.
Also I took these shots hand held, but a monopod is on my shopping list and will lead to better shots for many reasons. I have a tripod but haven't used it as I just got the 150-500 and many opportunities would have gone before I framed it up.
it is also at very reasonable cost (under $900 brand new) with results better than many more expensive options, and has the benefit of being a zoom.
There is also the Sigma 50-500mm or the Tamron 200-600 that give similar results.
Carl
Last edited by Carlgroover; 13-01-2014 at 8:38pm. Reason: typos
I'm afraid that just isn't so. The 100-400 is very hand-holdable. See here - http://tannin.net.au/browse.php?firs...rt_by=aperture - for examples of hand-held 100-400 shots. (There are probably three or four out of the 120-odd in there done with a tripod; no idea which ones though.) Any able-bodied adult or teenager should have no trouble hand-holding a 100-400 all day long. It might become a problem if you are elderly or possibly even an unfit and very lightly-built young teenager, but for anyone in normal health, hand-holding a 100-400 is simply not an issue. Compare with the 400/5.6 prime, where the lack of IS makes hand-holding quite difficult. A 500/4 is hard to hand-hold, a 400/2.8 is really difficult unless you pump a lot of iron, and even a 300/2.8 is pretty heavy, but a 100-400 is easy.
However, with that point cleared up, Arg makes good points. the 100-400 is ancient and the IS is old second-generation stuff. I'd swap mine (the second of two I've owned) for a 70-300L in a heartbeat .... but only if I wanted to give up doing bird photography with it. Arg's view that you need to decide whether birds are on your radar or not is spot on.
One day, Canon will replace the 100-400 with a new model which is smaller, lighter, and even sharper, but it will come in at close to double the current price. We have all been saying "a 100-400 replacement is just around the corner" for ten years now. One day, eventually - like the economist who correctly predicted seven out of the last three recessions - we will be right. In the meantime, it is still by far the most popular birding lens on the market, and rightly so.
As Arg says, do you really want to do birds? I think that's the best question raised so far in this thread. They are tremendously rewarding, but (again as Arg says) you have to put in many hours of sustained hard work even with the right equipment.
The Field of View (FoV) of a 300 mm lens is not that much difference to that of the 250mm lens you already have.
I doubt you will see much value for money in buying any 300mm lens - if your main criterion for buying a new lens is to have more reach.
*
“faster than F/2.8” You will not get a lens, with a FL longer than 250mm and an aperture faster than F/2.8.
“F/2.8” Whilst a longer than 250mm lens, that has F/2.8 available would be nice to have – it will cost you a lot of money.
“Slower than F/2.8” is probably where you are realistically looking.
So therefore to get the SHUTTER SPEED that you require to capture the “split second movements of animals” my advice would be to place more emphasis on:
> the HIGH ISO CAPACITY of the CAMERA that you choose to use;
> making the CORRECT EXPOSURE;
> refining your POST PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES to use much of the available HIGH ISO of the camera:
and NOT place your primary emphasis on the MAXIMUM APERTURE of the LENS.
*
My advice is for you to seriously re-think that.
You need to critically assess why would buying a ‘full frame' camera, be an “upgrade” to suit your requirements.
*
Yes – it will. Whether one will see any difference is, however, the better and more relevant question to ask.
I use only Canon EF Extenders.
Note that CANON EF Extenders will NOT mount to ALL of the Canon EF Lenses and will NOT mount to ANY Canon EF-S Lenses.
Whereas there are third party tele-converters that will mount to (all?) the Canon EF Lenses.
However I do NOT know of ANY third party tele converter that is made to mount to ANY Canon EF-S Lens.
As a broad rule of thumb a tele-converter (tele extender) will be better on a prime than on a zoom.
However, I’ve used both my tele-extenders (x1.4MkII and x2.0MkII) on my EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 USM and I have been happy with the results – but I agree with Tony that an extender is an addition to a lens kit.
For example – the EF 100 to 400 L is better wide open at 400mm than the EF 70 to 200 /2.8 wide open at 400mm with the x2.0 extender – BUT on the other hand it would not be that noticeable a difference - or perhaps even go un-noticed if those two lens rigs, were on an APS-C Camera.
Also note that, the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM and the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS MkII USM are quite special in their relationship with the Canon EF Extender x2.0 MkII and MkIII – as it is these two zoom lenses which perform exceptionally well and are the two notable exceptions to the general rule to not use tele extenders with zoom lenses.
*
The EF 100 to 400 F/4.5~5/6 L IS USM is a lens which is absolutely hand-holdable: I have used three copies of this lens and used them hand held at least 60% of the time.
The 100 to 400L is a lens which does not take all that well to the x1.4 MkII EF Extender, but with skill can be used in that pairing.
I did a quick field test a few years ago, using an EOS 5D - you may double click on the images to see them bigger.
You might note that many of the "problems" caused by the Extender can be remedied in post production.
However also note that I "set up" that field test; was relaxed about it all and took my time; used a tripod; it was a nice clear day; and the car was not moving . . . etc.
*
(Tony) Tannin has already covered the points about the Camera’s AF Limitations and the relationship to Maximum Aperture of the Lens.
Re-iterating that for practical purposes you’ll lose:
1 stop of lens speed with a x1.4 extender (or x1.5 extender);
2 stops of lens speed with a x2.0 extender
3 stops of lens speed with a x3.0 extender
One can tape the pins of the EF Extender to make the camera "think" it still has AF available - there are no guarantees though:
*
I suggest that you do NOT totally rule out the EF 400 F/5.6 L simply because of the lack of Image Stabilization.
I don't shoot (very many) birds - so if Tony says the 100 to 400 is better for birds than the 400/5.6 I am not debating that point at all: I will make the point though, that there are also many (good) bird shooters who do use the 400/5.6 L.
That stated, when (if) you are considering the EF100 to 400/4.5~5.6L - then your question is also very much about whether you want (need) 'only' a 400mm lens or lots of lenses between 100mm and 400mm.
Having a ZOOM range of 100 to 400 will allow you to use the lens, I expect, for much more other than only your "wildlife" pursuits: and of course you will need consider how valuable (or not) Image Stabilization is to your shooting, generally.
WW
Last edited by William W; 27-01-2014 at 8:34am. Reason: corrected a typo
I agree with Tony's and William's advice. I'd also hope that you don't get rid of your 60D even if you do buy a FF body.
If you do decide on a 100/400L or a 400 prime and mount it on your crop body, you'll have the equivalent reach of a 640mm lens so you may not need a TC very often.
During many years of shooting wildlife in our travels in Oz and OS, my wife and I have enjoyed the versatility afforded by carrying two bodies- a crop body and an FF body. We carry other lenses, but the combination of the 24-105 on the FF and the 100-400 on the crop has worked very well and has helped us to get good shots in a wide range of situations whilst still allowing us to keep the camera backpack as cabin luggage even on smaller domestic aircraft.
Using two bodies helps minimise lens changes, especially in adverse conditions (dusty, snowy, rainy, salty...). Sometimes, if you have to change lenses, you've missed the shot.
Animals and birds are frequently quite a distance from your best vantage point and having a 400+ lens mounted is required. But, by surprise, another animal/bird of interest can pop up close by. That's when being able to zoom down to the 100 end (160 crop) or use the 24-105 to properly frame the shot is handy. I really enjoy using my 500mm f/4 II but, if that was all I was travelling with, I'd have a collection of eye-ball shots. You aren't allowed to hop out of safari vehicles or zodiacs to do sneaker zoom out with your big prime.
The 100-400 is very hand-holdable, which is good when you want to capture shots of birds in flight or animals on the move. With a bit of practice, you might even be able to cope with the extra bulk/ weight of a battery grip on the camera. It at least doubles your shot capacity and the back end then better balances the larger lenses.
We took a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 on the 7D to Borneo to see if the extra reach was worth the slower top end (compared to our staple 100-400). We had to make some adjustments in tactics because the Siggy was slower but the extra reach was good, particularly when the target was fairly settled in the forest canopy (Orang-Utans, Proboscis monkeys & various Hornbills were our main interests). This lens is a little heavier than the 100-400 at a shade under 2kg and it's a little longer and broader and doesn't use the Canon's push/pull zoom method. It is still hand-holdable for shorter periods but, because of its slowness, we often used a monopod for crisper results. Several other people staying at the same lodges were using the 100-400. At day's end when comparisons were made, we generally concluded that the Siggy's extra reach had worked in our favour and IQ was comparable.
A lens I think you should look at is the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD which Kym mentioned in the Photographic News forum fairly recently. At almost the same weight as the Sigma 150-500 (still under 2 kg), this lens is attracting very favourable reviews. On a crop body that's the equivalent to 960mm!!! Apparently, its optics are pretty good.
Whichever way you go, Jamie, I'd like to hear what you decided.
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
