best lens for 500to600 squid

garymicheal

garymicheal

Messages
910
Name
gary
Edit My Images
Yes
help iam after a walk about/ wildlife lens for around £500 to £600 i know i wont be getting the big boys but whats out there in this price range thanks for your help and happy new year
 
Canon 70-200mm F/4 L should be available for under £500.

Might even be able to squeeze a nifty fifty in with it too
 
Don't think you can do walkabout and wildlife in one go, focal length wise, one ends as the other one begins, around the 70 mark.
wide-70 is a walkabout, 70-200 is a starter for wildlife.
Saying that though, I could easily walk about with 70-200 and not be fussed about anything wide, depends what you're after.
 
Edit: Sorry Gary - crossed post below. The 70-200mm and 100-400mm are not really comparable. Go and try them and you'll see what I mean :)

---------------------------------------------------------

Rightly a very popular lens, but it's at least 50% over your (alleged ;) ) budget. It's also a serious bit of glass - not the kind of thing you'll be slipping in your pocket just in case.

Go have a try and you'll quickly see what's available and what suits you. Most Jessops stores stock this lens. They also quite often have the 70-200mm L IS in both f/4 and f/2.8 versions (which go well with a 1.4x Extender) and also the 70-300mm IS which is probably the best compromise on range/performance/price for most people.

Richard.
 
If you shop around you can pick the Sigma 100-300 F4 up for not much over your budget - less if you buy used. Might be worth looking at?
 
so which is best canon 70-200f4 L is/ canon 70 200 f/2.8 L / canon 70 300 is f/4 L/ canon 100 400 f/4.5 L is /sigma 70 200 f/2.8/ sigma100 300 f/4 ex .please its doing my head in( p.s i dare say i can stretch my wallet but don't tell the wife )
 
garymicheal said:
so which is best:
canon 70-200f4 L is
canon 70 200 f/2.8 L
canon 70 300 is f/4 L
canon 100 400 f/4.5 L is
sigma 70 200 f/2.8
sigma 100 300 f/4 ex
.please its doing my head in( p.s i dare say i can stretch my wallet but don't tell the wife )
Click to expand...
You'll need to define "best" before that question is meaningful.

Best for photographing a particular subject?
Best image quality?
Best bang for the buck?
Best resale value if you make the wrong decision?
Best for persuading your wife it's money well spent?
etc etc
 
You have to think of weight (as well as price and the reaction of the missus)
Canon's 70-200 F2.8 and 100-400 are heavy lenses and are not something you can just sling over your shoulder as a walkabout.

The Canon 70-200 F4 is lighter and more manageable.

My option would be the sigma 70-200 F2.8 and a sigma 1.4 TC for when you want a bit longer reach.

It's a combination I'm happy with, and light enough as a walkabout.
 
all these lens have been suggested to me i can carry the lens iam 6ft 6inch tall twenty one stone i could carry it all day long(all muscle bye the way)i like to get out and about but also use bird hides from time to time. which would you guys pick then iam off to try the ones you think best
 
Les McLean said:
You have to think of weight (as well as price and the reaction of the missus)
Canon's 70-200 F2.8 and 100-400 are heavy lenses and are not something you can just sling over your shoulder as a walkabout.

The Canon 70-200 F4 is lighter and more manageable.

My option would be the sigma 70-200 F2.8 and a sigma 1.4 TC for when you want a bit longer reach.

It's a combination I'm happy with, and light enough as a walkabout.
Click to expand...

You say the canon 70-200 is heavier than the sigma 70-200 ... i would be very suprised and even if it was.. i doubt it would be that noticable..
 
garymicheal said:
i can carry the lens iam 6ft 6inch tall twenty one stone i could carry it all day long(all muscle bye the way)i like to get out and about
Click to expand...


its not a dating agency :LOL:
 
Gary, it sounds a bit like you are equating 'best' with 'most expensive' which only applies (which of course it doesn't always) when you're comparing like with like. Is a Ferrari better than a Land Rover? Not a perfect analogy here, but it's certainly true that if a 70-200mm f/4 is the best lens for you, then you will be pretty unhappy with a 100-400mm, regardless of image quality.

I'll take a punt and say that so far I've not heard any reason why a Canon 70-300mm IS is not the best choice for you - it's just such a great all-rounder. And it's not an 'L' by the way - just an observation. A less convenient option would be a 70-200mm f/4 L IS with 1.4x Extender. A reasonably compact package and stunning image quality without the Extender, and probably as good as the 70-300mm IS with it (1.4x Extender turns it into a 98-280mm f/5.6).

You really need to answer Stewart's questions ;)

Richard.
 
garymicheal said:
all these lens have been suggested to me i can carry the lens iam 6ft 6inch tall twenty one stone i could carry it all day long(all muscle bye the way)i like to get out and about but also use bird hides from time to time. which would you guys pick then iam off to try the ones you think best
Click to expand...

Based on this information, I would confidently say 600mm f/4 L IS will deliver the best results bar none. Check it out. Do you see the problem? :D

Richard.

Edit: being more helpful, if birds are a priority then you do need reach, which leaves only the 100-400mm. It works well optically with an Extender, but you'll lose auto-focus on anything less than a 1-Series camera (currently either 1DMkIII or 1DsMkIII, at a price). Plenty of people on here use this lens for birding very successfully :)
 
Hi Gary,

I would recommend the 100-400mm lens if your planning on photographing birds. I recently bought the 70-200 F/4 IS which is brilliant and pin sharp, but it is just too short for all but the closest of small birds. I'm know looking at getting the 400 prime, so it looks like I'm going to being carrying two lenses about for my wildlife photography.

Richard
 
thanks for taking the time to help me i think i will be looking at the 100 400mm as most of my interest is birds youve all been very helpful
 
If you want to photograph birds and have £500ish to spend there is also the Sigma 50-500mm. I know it doesn't have the quality of the Canon L lenses but it has that bit more reach. I had this lens until earlier this year and it served me very well.
 
ive got a sigma 170 500 mm i was looking to up grade or should i get a teleconverter for this lens
 
Looking at the OP, you originally said a walkabout lens. Throughout this thread I am thinking that the 100-400 is no way a walkabout lens in any sense of the word.Not only for carrying round, but the shear reach of the thing - minimum of 100mm - Stay out of towns and places with buildings and scenery!

I have one and its fine for wildlife, but not general purpose. As Stuart said, really think about your needs - Although it sounds like you have made up your mind:nono:
 
i will try and be more specific i do a lot of walking and take my camera with me i take my 18 55 is to try for the fungi and general pics my 55 200 for any thing a little further and my 170 500 for the birds the 170 500 is on the body most of the time trying to get bird shots i get some good shots but i feel i need a better lens than the 170 500 i don't think its sharp so would like to find a better lens for the birds at around £500/£600 :thinking::shrug::bonk::bang:
 
100-400 would be your best choice for birds, the push/pull zoom is iseal for it too, but you'll have to stretch your budget a bit. It is a great lens, i've only sold mine (as you know) as it doesn't fit in with my type of photography and it's money that's best elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top