Lens for Animal portraits?

B

Ben M

Messages
79
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I'm wondering what lens would be best for animal photography, such as dogs, cats, cows etc (for a canon camera). I've been using my Tamron 90mm macro, but are there any lenses that would be more suited to the job?

I don't have loads of money to spend, probably no more than £350.
 
Last edited:
Within your budget, although it's 'only' F4, I would probably go for a used Canon 70-200 f4 L for outdoor (and domestic animal!) portraits. Lovely IQ, build quality and super fast focus, useful zoom range - the only potential downside is the fact that it's cream in colour.

I'm not sure how close it focuses if that's a concern.
 
Seconded - I do an awful lot of dog and other domestic animal photography, and use my 70-200 more than any other lens. OK mine's f/2.8, but you would still get great shots with the f/4, and it is much lighter too. I certainly haven't found the colour to make any difference.
 
Thanks everyone. I can't seem to find it for under £450 though, is that the cheapest I'm likely to get it? Would the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens be very good, as that is only £340?
 
Look for used gear

I cannot stress how much better then image quality and build quality is on the 70-200mm F4 vs the 70-300mm you linked. Plus the constant F4 is a bonus alongside better autofocus.

Save a little longer and get the better tool for the job :)
 
Ok, thanks. Would this lens also be good for just general photos on holiday etc, instead of using the 18-55mm kit lens?
 
Sorry, what does hsm/hsm2 mean? And that's £650 in the link, which is too much for me
 
Ben M said:
Sorry, what does hsm/hsm2 mean? And that's £650 in the link, which is too much for me
Click to expand...

Ooops, the website generated that link, I sent the message from my phone.

Anyway, HSM stands for hypersonic motor - it's just sigma's way of saying it has a silent and relatively fast focusing motor built in.

You'd have to search the second hand market but here is an example of what fits into your budget:

Sigma 70-200mm HSM

Having looked, you wouldn't be able to afford the optically superior HSM II (updated model).

Perhaps saving for the Canon f4 would be the best option as suggested above.
 
Oh right, thanks. :) Once I've saved up a bit I'll ring round my local camera shops and see if any have anything second hand. I've never bought a lens second hand on the internet. Is it easy to get your money back if it's not as described etc. And do people often have problems?

Also, I'd still like to know if the canon lens would be suitable as an all round lens as well, for general out and about shooting.

Thanks:)
 
Haha. I hoped that would be the case TBH. I don't see many people throwing lenses about.

I'm not very experienced in photography (being 17 I'd struggle to have much experience lol), but would someone who is more experienced be able to spot any problems, damage etc on a lens by looking at it?
 
Take the Canon 70-200mm F4.

The autofocus should be quick and snappy, with no 'unusual' noises. Grinding, that sort of thing. The manual focus ring should be smooth in both autofocus and manual focus modes from stop to stop. Both focus and zoom rings should be smooth but neither loose or tight. Looking at the glass it should be clean of blemishes.

That is pretty much your checks right there.
 
Thanks for the checks, I'll remember those. My violin teacher is really into photography, so I'll ask him to have a look at it as well if I do get one second hand.

And I don't really do any indoor photography TBH.
 
Another vote for the 70-200mm f4, provided thats the range of focal lengths you think you'll use. Do you find yourself needing extra length or not? If you're looking at shooting more action type shots then its a very good option, but if it's more posed static type shots, then you may be spending money just for the sake of it.

If you go second hand then a private sale will get you the canon for under £350, adn even from a shop you can get close, I did a quick scan and LCE in Bath have one for £370 (before you start bartering ;) )

I've got to be honest though, unless you really can't get close enough to the domestic animals, then I'd seriously consider saving the money for now.
 
Another vote for the 70-200 I love my 70-200 don't think I will ever sell it very very sharp lens. Here are some shots with my 70-200

IMG_0203_zpsdeddc1fa.jpg


IMG_0136_zps2649545b.jpg


IMG_0190_zps3c8668f8.jpg
 
I'd like to do more action shots, but I don't at the minute as I'm using a macro lens. We go to motorbike racing sometimes, and I'd like to do a bit of photography there too. What sort of distances would I be looking at with the 70-200?
 
Another vote for the 70-200mm f4 from me.
Animals move so I'd expect a good quality zoom will have an advantage over a prime.
One of mine, a friends dog at a wedding:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56025993@N03/7633303500/
Grab a set of cheap extension tubes and get much smaller creatures like this: :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56025993@N03/6879354168/

MPB Photographic have a few of the 70-200mm f4L in stock at the moment for £399s/h. I've not used them but have read good things on here about them. Link:
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/se...vance&results-sorter-button=Apply+price+range

To add; it's not really a walkabout lens, 70mm at it's widest is going to be too long for a lot of things especially on a crop body camera.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Is the 18-55mm kit lens a good enough walkabout lens? And would the 70-200mm be any good for photographing bike racing?
 
For moving subjects I think you paying extra for the IS version is a complete waste of money. It won't help you freeze a moving subject, and will really only be useful for fairly static subjects at slower shutter speeds.

The logical upgrade path IMO would be an f2.8 non is lens.

If you can save up a bit more then a consideration might be adding a 1.4x converter to the 70-200. That would help with your motorsport and the loss of 1 stop of light is not as critical when it comes to panning shots.
 
Ben M said:
Just checking, is the IS version going to be a lot more than £350 second hand?
Click to expand...

Yes, £600-£650 ish. Also to note that it is not an identical lens with IS bolted on, it was totally redesigned optically and is better/sharper than the non IS version under critical scrutiny.
 
Thanks. It sounds like I won't really be able to tell the difference, and in a couple of years I may have more money to upgrade. I think I'll go for the normal one. I'll have a look at the 1.4x converter. :)
 
Dont overlook the Tamron 70-200 2.8 thats a great lens for the money and incredibly sharp, Not the fastest to autofocus but it really is not as bad as some make out ;)
 
Ive posted in there too with some pics, its a great lens as does closer focusing than the others in class too but I have to be honest I'm lusting for the Nikon VR as well but cant help but feel when I do get one I will think was it really worth all that extra money :( my flickr links has a lot of pics take with the tamron 70-200 including a fair few macro shots when using tubes attached to it.
 
AdamSi said:
but I have to be honest I'm lusting for the Nikon VR as well but cant help but feel when I do get one I will think was it really worth all that extra money.
Click to expand...

Lust after the VR2 - it really is better than the VR1 - which is still very good.

If I had bought a VR1, I would have sold it straight away after trying a VR2.

Good glass really makes your camera sing.
 
I've been wondering if you get good background blur with the 70 - 200 like is possible with my macro?
 
With which 70-200? I used to have a Sigma non-OS f/2.8, and now have the canon f/2.8 IS II, and both give very nice background blur.
 
Thanks, nice photos. I was hoping that I could get a nice background blur when shooting action shots of dogs etc, and going by those photos it looks like that should work well. :)
 
The thing to remember is background blur is often as much to do with camera/subject/background distances than outright f/stop. Then there's the focal lengths too which can vary the 'blur' :)

I used to have a Sigma 70-200/2.8 non OS & that wasn't a bad lens - Sold it for £350 so they will fall in your budget & are only slightly cheaper than the Canon 70-200/4 non IS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top