Canon Wildlife / birding options

pooley

pooley

Messages
6,032
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I fancy shooting some wildlife next! My current suitable kit is a canon 20d body and a 70-200mm f4 lens. I've only ever owned nikon / canon lenses with 1 exception which was a sigma that developed a focussing problem pretty much straight away, putting me off the brand.
However I've seen enough quality on here to reconsider, so with a budget of £750 max, do I
1) buy a second hand canon 100-400
2) buy a second hand canon 400mm
3) buy a new sigma 120-400mm and keep some change
4) buy a second hand 120-400 or 50-500 for around £475 (both already located) and spend the rest on upgrading my body?
5) accept someone else's fresh idea?

Image quality is the no 1 concern followed by focussing speed

Cheers
 
"Image quality is the no 1 concern followed by focussing speed" then there's only one choice from those listed, the Canon 400mm f5.6 prime.
It's significantly ahead of all the other lenses in those regards (sharpness on average versus the 100-400 accounting for sample variation anyway).
 
Last edited:
400 prime if you are going to be shooting long all the time. Focus speed and lock is very good. Image quality is exceptional.

Obviously if you think that you are going to need to work closer at intervals then the 100-400 would be the choice.

Personally i went the route of the 100-400 due to the versatility of the lens.
 
Agreed with all the above, 100-400 for flexibility or the 400 if you want focus speed and IQ.

Personally I'm looking to get the 50-500 OS, but thats out of your price range and rare as hens teeth for find second hand (believe me I'm looking!)
 
Thanks for the input guys. I did fancy one of the canons myself. I'll most likely use it on a monopod so the IS isn't a deal breaker. That seems to leave the choice between the flexibility and close focussing of the zoom fighting with the arguable IQ advantage of the prime.

Aaaaaarghhhh!!!
 
Werecow said:
sigma 120-300 versus the canon 400 prime...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=381&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Nuff said :P

That prime will blow all the others out of the water for image quality.
Click to expand...
that site is so up canons bottom, and have you seen the picture on here recently of the 120-300mm with a 2x tc on against the canon 300 f2.8 and a 2x tc, theres not alot in it apart from the price tag.
 
The 20D is a good camera, but at 8mp it's looking a bit long in the tooth now and for bird photography you can't beat a crop sensor and high pixel density. You'll probably see just as good an increase in effective reach with your current lens by upgrading the body to a 50D, 60D or 7D and have a better platform on which to build your future wildlife lenses.

In your situation I'd upgrade the body first, but I can heartily recommend the 100-400L and I know the 400mm 5.6L prime is a crisp performer so they would be my first choices.
 
Actually I just took a look at your gallery and those underwater shots are very good... damn, there goes the cheap 400!
 
pooley said:
A half price 400mm when I realise I'm rubbish at wildlife!
Click to expand...

Well you bought the right lens there - if I was replacing that focal length now I'd take the 400mm f/5.6 over the 100-400 purely because for small birds you'll almost always be at full zoom anyway and it's a tack sharp performer.

Wildlife photography is like most things - a bit specialised and it needs a lot of practice and most of all a bit of application and determination, but the rewards are enormous when it all comes together and there's a huge pleasure in just being out there anyway.

Wrap up warm if you're going out there far from the madding crowd in this weather - you can get seriously cold real quick just standing around.
 
Werecow said:
sigma 120-300 versus the canon 400 prime...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=381&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Nuff said :P

That prime will blow all the others out of the water for image quality.
Click to expand...

Not once you take into account that the 120-300 is f/2.8 and the prime is f/5.6!

Stop the 120-300 down to f/5.6 and there's damn little in it. Or don't, and appreciate shots without high ISO noise :p

pooley said:
Dr. Bob, I did seriously think about the 120-300 but I use my 70-200 for everyday stuff so don't fancy having it with me all the time. Like your thinking though!
Click to expand...

Fair enough! :)
 
Werecow said:
sigma 120-300 versus the canon 400 prime...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=381&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Nuff said :P

That prime will blow all the others out of the water for image quality.
Click to expand...

That's the old Sigma 120-300, non-OS version. Completely different lens, and not nearly as good as the new one with OS.

scottthehat said:
that site is so up canons bottom, and have you seen the picture on here recently of the 120-300mm with a 2x tc on against the canon 300 f2.8 and a 2x tc, theres not alot in it apart from the price tag.
Click to expand...

And that's with the new OS version.
 
Last edited:
If you mean this thread http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=369853&page=3 then yes i did, and there's a world of difference between the lenses if the 120-300 is that soft from only 4m away.

I'm actually a bit shocked people have been suggesting the sigma zooms in this thread when the OP had mentioned the 400 prime as a possibility, and said his two main priorities are image quality and focussing speed.
There's nothing better than the 400 prime in those regards other than Canon's Super-teles (i'm including the 300mm 2.8 in that) which are way out of his budget.

Anyways, OP has bought a lens now so thread over i guess.

scottthehat said:
that site is so up canons bottom, and have you seen the picture on here recently of the 120-300mm with a 2x tc on against the canon 300 f2.8 and a 2x tc, theres not alot in it apart from the price tag.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top