Photographing wildlife at 55mm. =(

norvic-boy

norvic-boy

Messages
2,233
Name
Toby
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey,

After a few months of being without my 100-200mm canon lens (after it retired - blown engine, it was 15+ years old.) I'm looking for a replacement. As I enjoy photographing wildlife, its (funnny this) difficult to take pictures of wildlife with a bog standard 18-55mm lens.

I have a Canon 450D and I don't want to spend my more than £130/140. I was originally looking at this lens Sigma 70-300mm Its not gonna be an awesome lens, but I'm a student and I just want to be able to photograph wildlife again. I would prefer something around 70-300.

Anyone got any ideas/ help with what sort of thing is on the market? I've been looking around myself but aren't entirely sure... :help:

Thanks for looking. =)
 
Hey Norvic,
I have the Sigma 70-300 (on a Nikon) and you're right, its not an amazing lens, but it is exception value for money. I'd say for the £100 you could either get a new Sigma or be lucky and get a decent second hand one
 
Have you considered the Tamron 70-300 ? The price is well down from when I bought mine for my Nikon [ typical :lol: ] but even though I paid way more than what they go for now it was well worth the money in my opinion :)

Canon version here
 
I would agree the Tamron is a better buy than the non APO sigma, not a bad lens for the price.
 
the tamron is terrible for wildlife , the autofocus is just not fast enough
 
As a fellow 450D jockey and wildlife fan I would advise a 70-300mm lens. You can never have too much zoom when stalking wildlife. Have you considered second hand, if your financial situation is tight?
 
I have the Sigma 70-300 and I find it ok the autofocus does make a little noise and the autofocus can be a bit slow. Last weekend I went to Danbury common and took some photographs of birds and it did what was asked of it.
 
Let's face it, you need 400mm AND IS*, or just forget about the "proper" wildlife. (*Tri/monopod may replace IS if you have the time to set it up). 200mm is just not long enough, even with 1.4x TC.
 
I have the 75-300USM canon. I complain about it cause i love complaining but at the end of the day was cheap and delivers. Could be better but wouldnt sell it until I have a better one in hands. AF is good unless the bird is in flight but usually I find MF more fun


Down here is a pic I took. Its cropped but even without crop is pretty decent if it wasnt for forgetting the exposure at -2


http://i45.tinypic.com/2cp5ctd.jpg

Staff Edit : Images changed to clickable links. Pictures must not exceed current forum limits as per the rules.
Please feel free to replace this with a fresh/resized image and remove this text :)
 
daugirdas said:
Let's face it, you need 400mm AND IS*, or just forget about the "proper" wildlife. (*Tri/monopod may replace IS if you have the time to set it up). 200mm is just not long enough, even with 1.4x TC.
Click to expand...

That's really not very helpful given the OP's situation...

OP - I have a 55-200mm lens and would say go for the 70-300 if you can. I also understand that you should go for the APO version of the sigma if possible. Sorry I can't be more help.
 
.....i read the Tamron is sharper AT 300mm than the Sigma....FWIW ?

new Jessops £99 ....
 
daugirdas said:
Let's face it, you need 400mm AND IS*, or just forget about the "proper" wildlife. (*Tri/monopod may replace IS if you have the time to set it up). 200mm is just not long enough, even with 1.4x TC.
Click to expand...

Oh don't be daft.

With good fieldcraft you can easily get on with 300mm and IS is not necessary either. You just need to pick your opportunities and go after the 'proper' wildlife that are more acommodating.
 
What about the Canon 55 - 250mm IS ???? Got mine for £160 from HK on ebay, so only £10 out of budget. Extra 50mm on the 55-200 and works really well! Still use mine for wildlife and motorsport!!
 
daugirdas said:
Let's face it, you need 400mm AND IS*, or just forget about the "proper" wildlife. (*Tri/monopod may replace IS if you have the time to set it up). 200mm is just not long enough, even with 1.4x TC.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Is that from experience?

The best bird images I have taken have been from a budget 35-70 lens. The best bird images I have seen were taken with a lenses shorter than 200mm.

IS is for girls.


A 70-300 lens would be perfect, its what I used for a year before getting a 300 prime. You could look for a 300mm f4 (non IS) as they sometimes come up very cheap.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Oh don't be daft.

With good fieldcraft you can easily get on with 300mm and IS is not necessary either. You just need to pick your opportunities and go after the 'proper' wildlife that are more acommodating.
Click to expand...

Something i agree with. I recently discovered that my big lenses were useless when out last week photographing red deer and pine martin. Most of my shots were around 30mm or so and my big lenses were just useless extra weight the majority of the time.
 
Lol. I didn't expect to see this thread pop back up... but totally... all my previous wildlife shots were all shot with a non IS 100-200mm lens. It was a perfect little lens until the bloody motor went lol. I photographed Barn owls, Sedge warblers... is this not proper wildlife?? They were all relatively good shots too...

3635239670_72b6592166.jpg

3713361325_7733b946c6.jpg

3581467290_a93383d1d5.jpg


Plus reading part II of this thread you will see I nearly got a barn owl at 50mm. but one thing led to another and well... lol. my mistake. :nuts:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top