Advice please!Is a Canon 70-300IS much better than Canon 55-250IS for Birds/Wildlife?

W

wellyboot

Messages
991
Name
Marcia
Edit My Images
No
A bit of background.... I have a 450D with kit lens and 55-250IS. I also have Rheumatoid Arthritis so weight can be an issue. I have been a bird watcher for 30 years but have only recently got into photography, and of course my favourite thing to photograph would be birds and wildlife in general, with the occasional landscape image when something catches my eye, although with the Arthritis it can be difficult to change lenses in the field.
Anyway my husband is an Olympus man, and has the 620 plus a variety of lenses including his latest acquisition a Zukio 70-300 which is producing some good images. Before you all say I should have gone Olympus, I didn't like the feel of his old 510, and the 620 wasn't out at the time!!
Anyway he has suggested he buy me a Canon 70-300IS for Christmas, but I have a few reservations.
First of all it is over half as heavy again as the 55-250, and I may struggle with that sort of weight, but I shall have a prctice with his set up as the weight is almost identical.
But secondly, will the extra reach which is only 80mm be worth it and is the IQ that much better?
I lust after L glass but I think the weight would be prohibitive so I have to make many compromises, which is a bit frustrating, when I see some of the wonderful images on the Birds forum! :)
Any help and advice would be very gratefully received
Thank you!
 
I think your problem will be reach. Birds are mostly pretty small and shy - keen birders use huge lenses.

You should really be looking at something like the Canon 100-400L but that is expensive and very heavy. 70-300 IS is the next best thing.

55-250 IS is a great little lens, no question, very light and excellent value - but I think you'll need every mm you can get.

Have a go with your husband's 70-300. Set it at 200mm and it will give you the same framing/magnification as 250mm on your Canon, then try 240mm which is 300mm equivalent (due to the smaller 4/3rds format).

As an aside, if you enjoy nature how about trying your hand at macro? Might be easier. Either of those lenses would go well with a Raynox DCR close up lens - very light, cheap at £40 and easy to use. He can do the birds and you the bees, butterflies, flowers and bugs ;)
 
Just chucking something else in here - do you have access to or use a reasonable tripod?

The 400mm F5.6 is a very good lens for bird photography. It is one of the lightest L series telephoto lenses although is still twice the weight of the 70-300mm IS at 1.2kg. It may be worth handling some L glass before ruling it out as some of the lenses are lighter than you would expect. If you are local to me I'm happy to let you try out my 300/F4 which weights much the same as the 400 F5.6
 
Thank you for the suggestions Hoppy. I hadn't thought about comparing lengths using hubby's set up. That will be today's project once the mist has cleared!
As for macro, I do the best I can in the summer months and have some very acceptable images taken with the kit lens! However I am again at a disadvantage here, because bending/crouching/kneeling just aren't an option.
I hope no-one thinks I'm complaining, because I'm not :), I know it's the way things are, but I would just like to get the best out of what I can physically manage!
I am grateful for any suggestions, or advice because sometimes you can be too close to the problem to see the alternatives eg Hoppy's first suggestion!
Once again thank you Hoppy!
 
Shooting birds nearly always means a long lens, and the drawback is cost. The Sigma 150-500 offers the best reach for value and is comparable to the Canon 100-400 for IQ. An alternative if shooting at a fixed location is to set the camera up on a tripod and use a remote release, either cable or wireless. This can work well with a feeder in our garden. Alternatively set up a hide in the garden or shoot from a conservatory door with a cloth concealing you.
 
Hi Richard
First of all thank you so much for your very generous offer of letting me try your 300/F4, I really appreciate that. Unfortunately I am in Bedfordshire but thank you again!
I do occasionally use a tripod at home, but I am pretty sure I couldn't carry it!!
I hope you don't think I am being negative here, I suppose I am trying to be realistic!
I do think you're right though, and I need to handle some lenses to try and see what I would be physically capable of carrying, and also hand holding for those once in a life time grab shots! I wonder what Jessops have available (our only dedicated camera store!)
Once again thank you so much for the offer!
 
Thank you for the reply Ken. I really like your art work by the way. I was born by the sea and miss it very much, and the ones with crashing waves remind me so much of home :)
Anyway back on topic! I will definitely make more effort this winter with garden birds, my first task being to entice them closer to the house. Unfortunately we don't have a conservatory, but I like the idea of some kind of structure in the garden where I can go away from everyone wrapped up warm with a flask of coffee, my binoculars, and a camera!!
Thank you again
 
Just to report back, I did try hubbys Oly 620 and 70-300mm. It does make more difference than I thought it would reach wise, using it at 200mm and 240mm to make it equivalent to the Canon 1.6 crop factor.
Having said that, I found the combo quite heavy, but I am having a bad day anyway, and the ergonomics of the Olympus are difficult for me. So the weight experiment isn't conclusive, and I will definitely have to try a Canon 70-300 on my 450D before I make a decision.
My final quest for advice though, is to ask if anyone can tell me from experience, if I can expect the IQ of the 70-300 IS to be better than the 55-250 IS
Many thanks again
Marcia
 
Marcia, if weight is critical, then the 55-250 starts as favourite. It is not miles behind the 70-300 in terms of reach and doesn't give much away in terms of quality. There are so many things that contribute to image sharpness, not least perhaps unsteady hands with a heavier lens. Having said that, IS is good on both of them. Unless you print big (say over A4) and are very critical, I don't think you'll find the smaller lens wanting for much. And it's very usefully cheaper. That would be my choice :thumbs:
 
As a complete aside if a tripod is too heavy to carry, you could try a bean bag, very light to carry, can rest the lens on (if you have something to rest it on of course (assume in a hide you might?).

There is someone on here sells them I'll try and find the link - I'll be back shortly!
 
HoppyUK said:
Marcia, if weight is critical, then the 55-250 starts as favourite. It is not miles behind the 70-300 in terms of reach and doesn't give much away in terms of quality. There are so many things that contribute to image sharpness, not least perhaps unsteady hands with a heavier lens. Having said that, IS is good on both of them. Unless you print big (say over A4) and are very critical, I don't think you'll find the smaller lens wanting for much. And it's very usefully cheaper. That would be my choice :thumbs:
Click to expand...

:agree: not a great deal of difference between the 55-250mm and 70-300mm in terms of image quality until you start getting picky, and if weights a major issue then 55-250mm is nearly 1/2 that of the 70-300mm. The 70-300mm is slightly the better lens, but you might struggle with both to get some wildlife shots, as 300mm is usually a minimum focal length for wildlife and birds in particular, 400mm being the preferred focal length.
 
HoppyUK said:
Marcia, if weight is critical, then the 55-250 starts as favourite. It is not miles behind the 70-300 in terms of reach and doesn't give much away in terms of quality. There are so many things that contribute to image sharpness, not least perhaps unsteady hands with a heavier lens. Having said that, IS is good on both of them. Unless you print big (say over A4) and are very critical, I don't think you'll find the smaller lens wanting for much. And it's very usefully cheaper. That would be my choice :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thank you Hoppy - that all makes sense. ;)
 
pete.rush said:
:agree: not a great deal of difference between the 55-250mm and 70-300mm in terms of image quality until you start getting picky, and if weights a major issue then 55-250mm is nearly 1/2 that of the 70-300mm. The 70-300mm is slightly the better lens, but you might struggle with both to get some wildlife shots, as 300mm is usually a minimum focal length for wildlife and birds in particular, 400mm being the preferred focal length.
Click to expand...

Thank you Pete. Going for a longer focal length would be wonderful, but as I do more photography, I am realising my restrictions, so I am trying to find the best solution that will work with my limitations.
It is frustrating but as long as I get some images I am pleased with then I will be satisfied with that. :)
And you never know one day there may be an affordable light weight 400/500mm lens that I can manage! ;)
 
i just added a canon 18-200mm lens to my 500D and the first thing i noticed was the extra weight
your combination will be over 2.4lbs which is a fair weight with your
Rheumatoid Arthritis
hope you find something suitable
 
I have been looking at these two lenses myself and reviews seem to indicate that at full zoom the 250 is slightly sharper than the 300 though reviews state that both are good value for money.

To help make a choice you could look on Flickr to compare IQ. There are groups for both these lenses and both contain many nice sharp (to my eyes at least) shots of birds at full zoom.

On Ebay new 250s are about £150 ish and second hand 300s are nearer £300 but still £100 saving.
 
Flyfisher said:
I have been looking at these two lenses myself and reviews seem to indicate that at full zoom the 250 is slightly sharper than the 300 though reviews state that both are good value for money.

To help make a choice you could look on Flickr to compare IQ. There are groups for both these lenses and both contain many nice sharp (to my eyes at least) shots of birds at full zoom.

On Ebay new 250s are about £150 ish and second hand 300s are nearer £300 but still £100 saving.
Click to expand...

Thank you Flyfisher! I hadn't thought of looking on Flickr. Very interested to hear what the reviews you have read say, as that seems to make a case for the 55-250!
 
both 250 and 300mm are really too short, at least I couldn't get close enough to any more interesting bird, including heron or blue tit. Olympus is 2x crop so 300mm acts like a longer lens.

If you can get 300mm f/4 and 1.4x TC or 400mm f/5.6 AND get a good lightweight monopod (or tripod, and make sure it extends to your height). The weight should not be an issue with support. I don't think many photographers handhold their super teles for the whole day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top