Animal Portrait lens

Scott UK

Scott UK

Messages
285
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
I am looking to get in animal photography, a few friends are asking for some photos so I thought i would give it a go.
My lens really aren't up to it in iMHO so I have been looking around.

I like to get my subjects doing what ever it is they like doing and with animals this could be sat still or running away so I thought a decent zoom would help, I have a nifty which is really good for easy sat a few foot away pics but thats not always possible.
A few I have looked at are
28-105 f3.5 to f4.5
24-105 f4
70-200 f4 and f2.8

thats after a very short look around.

Does anyone have any better suggestions or maybe confirm one of the above

Many thanks
Scott
 
I take lots of photos of our Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and use the 70-300L which is excellent. AF is super fast and quality is typical L glass. Before that, I had the 70-200L f4 IS and that was very good too. Nice and light and fast AF which is essential if you want to capture fast motion. I had the 2.8 IS version too, but it was very heavy for prolonged handheld use - or perhaps I'm just a wimp! ;)
 
I purchased a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 a couple months ago and just love it for dog photography - in fact I was taking some flyball with it this evening. The reach is ideal and the large aperture great for both lower light levels and for isolating the subject. Perhaps I am built like a gorilla and haven't noticed (although I will admit to being 6ft), but I don't find it hard to carry or hand hold at all.
 
MadWoman said:
I purchased a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 a couple months ago and just love it for dog photography - in fact I was taking some flyball with it this evening. The reach is ideal and the large aperture great for both lower light levels and for isolating the subject. Perhaps I am built like a gorilla and haven't noticed (although I will admit to being 6ft), but I don't find it hard to carry or hand hold at all.
Click to expand...

+1. I've recently got some fantastic shots of my dog and some friends dogs with with my sigma 70-200. Check out my flickr. The set Viggo was taken with it mostly.
 
Another vote for the 70-200mm L from me. I've not tried the f2.8 version, but I'm very happy with my f.4.
Good range, fast and silent af and excellent image quality.
 
Whichever lens you choose, make sure it's;

-long (70-200 being the minimum) animals are easily disturbed and they love coming up to see what's taking photos of them!
-preferably fast (f4 constant being the minimum)
-super sharp at all lengths and apertures, you want details like eyes and fur to really stand out - I don't think you can get away with soft photos for animals!
-fast focusing.
-zoom. You won't have time to keep moving and faffing around with primes.

From what I understand about canon, the 70-200mm f4 maybe your best option.

The sigma sounds good but I believe it has softness towards the edge of the frame wide open (which might not be too bad if it's really sharp at the centre as you'll most likely be working with good DOF here anyway.

I think your best option would be sigma 120-300mm f2.8 bar the price ;)

Otherwise I'd be going with sharpness & optical quality over aperture - some samples of the 70-200mm sigma and canon f4 might help.

Try www.pixel-peeper.com
 
Last edited:
Thank you all so much for your suggestions, honestly I expected everyone to say canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS mk2. So pleased other cheaper options do such a good job
 
This was taken with my 70-300L The focus is on the dog in the rear and the camera latched on to him instantly. Zoom in on the eyes to see how sharp it is.

 
Both brilliant pics,
Well a good scope around for 70-200mm f4 I think it is then
 
I have a 70-200 f4l and it is just phenomenal the best lens I own and it's a decent price too!!
 
This was with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8, wide open. it cost me £400 off here :)

7536906362_be72dfba21_o.jpg
 
Really is a call between those 2 lenses the £400 mark is about the money I want to spend
 
I use the 70-200 f2.8 the focal range is perfect even better on full frame I did have the 70-200 f4 L which was also great.

Anything long and grey from canon is good :)
 
My Sigma is tack sharp at f/2.8, my canons ( I had the IS and non IS f/4) we're good, but I think the sigma gives nicer images. I prefer the build of the sigma too, it's a bit beefier.
 
I'll also vouch for the canon 70-200 F4 IS. I've had pretty good results with it.

The Canon 50 f1.8 sucks though! It's sooooo slow! Only good after a really heavy workout when your dog is sleeping. :baby:
 
Just a throw out there, I have been pointed towards a very good priced sigma 50-500mm I would guess this would not be anywhere near as good as the canon f4 and sigma f2.8 for this kind of work
 
Cheers Phil for the confirmation, will keep looking for the 2 choices canon f4 or sigma f2.8 they are in my budget ish, borrowing a canon f2.8 in a week or so thats going to ruin my bank balance i can feel it :D
 
Mine is the original dg macro HSM. Nothing wrong with it at all. Super sharp even wide open, quick, quiet focusing, built like a tank.
 
Phil Young said:
I wouldn't mind seeing some 100% crops from that if you have any Tom.

I'm interested in this lens now!
Click to expand...

I'll get some later or tomorrow. Alternatively full size photos are on my Flickr. In the sets entitled sigma 70-200mm, viggo and tewks medieval fayre.

www.flickr.com/tcr4x4
 
Hi sorry to bring this one to the fore again

So many sigma f2.8 out there f2.8 EX APO, MK 2, macro and macro mk2, plus of course the new OS. Which to go for?
 
Sorry all I'm back again, last question I promise.
I have come across an interesting lens the

Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX DG HSM

Any opinions on this lens ?

Cheers
 
As long as the lens is not too short I don't think it matters terribly what you use. It's more important to know how to use it - lighting, composition, timing, environment and basic focusing and exposure competence. I'm not saying I have those things mastered, but I've shot my dogs at focal lengths from 50mm (65mm equivalent) right up to 560mm.

50mm (65mm equivalent). I missed focus a little, but this is about the lens qualities rather than photographer (in)competence.
20120731_105031_0437_LR.jpg


560mm (100-400 + 1.4X TC with taped pins, so it doesn't show in the EXIF)
20120802_084751_2633_LR.jpg



If you want to shoot action then fast focusing, aided by a fast (f/2.8 or faster) aperture will do no harm at all. I think something like a 70-200/2.8 would be ideal, and I've certainly used mine for dogs as well, but for a "portrait", like I say, anything with an adequate focal length. My 100-400 is perfectly fine for action, despite the slower aperture and focusing....

400mm (520mm equivalent)
20090420_160200_6933_LR.jpg


.... so don't sweat it. Buy what you fancy, and if you don't want to spend a bundle how about the 85/1.8 or 100/2?
 
Phil Young said:
Test results suggest the latest one, the OS.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's the pick of the bunch though the HSM II is also excellent. The trouble with OS version is that it isn't far shy of the price of a decent used Nikon VR1 and I think the Nikon pips it generally.
 
scottwaltonuk said:
Sorry all I'm back again, last question I promise.
I have come across an interesting lens the

Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX DG HSM

Any opinions on this lens ?

Cheers
Click to expand...

I used to use one and image quality is superb!..Its a big heavy lens though but the images are worth lugging it about.(y)
 
Thanks again for the comments

Stuart
So in your opinion a decent lens to go for for animal stuff?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top