So confused over the choices.

John Mc

John Mc

Messages
742
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Okay, So most of my threads in the "Talk Equipment" Thread mostly are about 1-2 paragraphs long, So sorry if this is a long post to read.
I've recently purchased a 7D, and Whilst I love it, It's not getting used for what I intend it to be used for. Birds and wildlife photography. To solve this issue, I really only need one bit of Equipment, A Telephoto lens.

My Issue is, I have so many choices. Too many if I'm honest. And whilst for the past day or two, I've not really thought about it too hard. Today I sat down to try and make a decision, and my mind took me all over the place. I never thought it would be hard to choose a lens! I've looked at both Primes with and without Tc's, Long zooms and Shorter zooms with Tc's(70-200 f2.8).

I'll start with the obvious question some will ask. Budget. The answer is, I'm not sure. There certainly will be a minimum of £500 going to a lens. But There could be more. All depending on if I see it fit to sell my current 70-200 f4, Which I've been offered a decent £380 for it. I suppose the choice of lens depends on my budget, but I can argue the point and spend more if I think it would be a worth while investment.

I'll start of with short zooms and Tc's. One option I have been thinking of, Is a Canon 70-200 f2.8(or sigma?) IS L with a 2X TC and then possibly a 1.4 X TC for shorter ranges. This would mean I would have a Mid range zoom lens for my landscapes, and the Lens plus TC would still operate on my 7D. Con's of this being the IQ, which would suffer from the TC's. Unsure if the AF would struggle slightly with Tc's on.

I have a couple of choices for Long Zoom's, Canon's 100-400 L or Sigma's 150-500 OS. Either of these would cost me around £750,Used canon and new sigma, Or used sigma at £500ish or less.I can get the Sigma through my work for around £650, so that too is an option. I would prefer as much reach as I can get, so the sigma is winning in this section as it would also be cheaper. Meaning I can get accessories like a Gimbal, and possibly a decent Hide. The Cons I feel in this section, are only really to do with IQ. I have heard, and seen on some photos, were IQ is an issue with zooms. Which Is why I have also looked at Prime lenses.

For primes I've looked at the two "cheaper" Canon's. 300 f4 IS L and the 400 f5.6. The 300 would be coupled with a 1.4 TC, making it a 420mm f5.6. Similar to the 400 5.6, but with added benefit of having IS. I would accept a loss in IQ due to the Tc. And the only real Con I can see on these, is that they're fixed focal lengths. Also, the cost. Primes tend to be pricey.

These are my choices, But I'm open to more suggestions. Nothing is really set in stone, though I am focusing more on Long zooms for some reason. I feel it might be cause they're flexible, and I'm still unsure if a prime would suit me at the moment. I wouldn't say no to other people's choices. What they would do in my situation. What they have done. Even recommendations to what they opted for. If it was Canon's 100-400 L or a Prime. What made you opt for that? I don't have a deadline as to when I'll be purchasing the lens. It might be next March when I get my Bonus. Or it could be this November. I need to make my mind up first, But I could use some help to do that.

Cheer's
John
 
It would help a bit if you could clarify what you intend to use the lens for. "Birds and wildlife" covers a multitude of sins. What kind of birds and wildlife, in what kind of situations?

The reason I ask is that it would help clarify whether there is any value at all to having a zoom, or whether it's just the maximum focal length that matters most. For example the other day I was talking to a guy who leads birding tours, and he was seriously thinking about switching from a 500mm prime to a 800mm prime. In his environment, zooms are pointless.
 
Good question, but in all honesty I think it would be for a mixture of Bif and feeding station shots. I have set up a little hide in the shed and a station thats the perfect distance away for use with my 70-200. Though when I head out into the field, 200mm just isn't enough. Very little reach and I end up cropping the image with rubbish end results.

I'm all for walking/stalking my "prey", but you can only get so close. And where I go walking, there's a few Kites and hawks. Which can obviously spot me a mile off.

I think having a zoom would give me the versatility over a longer focal range. It would also mean I would only need to carry one lens when out.
 
I've got a 7d, and find that one of the overlooked issues in relation to avoiding the (alleged) noise issues is the amount of sharpening thats done in PP. I believe that with this camera in particular you need to be using the best possible lenses - it really doesn't get on well with poor quality glass.

Now, I'm not saying for one minute that the 100-400 is poor quality, it has a lot going for it, but I think that if you're already covered with your 70-200 then you should look at one of the primes.

Having used the 400mm then I can confirm that it is an excellent lens. There are only 2 downsides in my opinion. The first is the lack of IS which can obviously be worked around with good technique and/or additional support. The second issue is the poor minimum focussing distance - around 3.5 metres from memory. Not a deal breaker, just something to be aware of.

The 300mm on the other hand has IS and a better MFD, and will be spot on as a bare lens. By all reports its still good with the 1.4x attached - just not as good as the bare 400mm f5.6.

If you're keeping the 70-200 then I'd imagine you'll be at 400mm most of the time for birding, so that would be the best route for me.
 
Thanks for the Reply Mike. Whilst at the moment, I do have a 70-200, It's very rarely used. which is why I have been considering selling it, and investing the funds into a new lens.

I would imagine, that I would always be towards the 400/500mm side of a lens when out. which is why I have looked at Primes. I suppose I'm just unsure at this moment in time if I would keep the 70-200 as its hardly ever used.
 
Could you not rent (or borrow) a 400/500mm for a weekend and see how you get on with it? That may help you decide.
 
I was looking at Hiring a lens, But that would ultimately eat into some of the budget. I agree it would be a worth while thing to do, I just can't justify spending £60-80 on a lens for a weekend.
I may go down the route of meeting up and trialing a long lens. But I think at this moment in time, I'll just do the research. After all, I know I want a long lens, I'm just unsure what I want(Prime vs Zoom).
 
I had a play with a canon 100-400 and 400 5,6, IQ wise there is not a huge amount in it, the 400 is smaller and lighter, if you are going to be using that FL then id say its the better choice, however for myself i kept the 100-400 for the greater versatility and IS.
 
It will always be a tough call John. A few examples for you, as some will no doubt point out I am only taking shots of garden birds. So you have to ask yourself how far with the bird photography do you think you will go, and how close will you be attempting to get to your subjects. Are you going to be chasing after all sorts of species? A lot of them you will not get close too, as will be the case with wading birds.


70-200F4L +1.4TC



House Sparrow by Richard Venn, on Flickr


Female Blackcap by Richard Venn, on Flickr




100-400 F4L

Nuthatch by Richard Venn, on Flickr


Coal tit by Richard Venn, on Flickr
 
Get the primes (not suggesting the big fat ones :lol: ) IQ will be far better and I presume you will still end up cropping most of the shots a little bit.
I'd only go with 70-200 if you want to primarily get a lens for weddings or portraits.
 
I also shoot a bit of wildlife - mostly birds in urban areas (not feeders) that are not real skitish.
I ended up with a 100-400 which is a very versatile lens (I also shoot motor racing) and I am very happy with it. However for birds etc in the "wild" it is much too short and as a general purpose "walk aroud" long tele it can be a bit heavy. It is mostly used on a monopod.

One of my motor sport shooting friends use a Canon 400mm F5.6 and he loves it when he wants the reach. He does do a lot of lens changing or has a second body with a 200m prime.
 
RichardTaylor said:
I also shoot a bit of wildlife - mostly birds in urban areas (not feeders) that are not real skitish.
I ended up with a 100-400 which is a very versatile lens (I also shoot motor racing) and I am very happy with it. However for birds etc in the "wild" it is much too short and as a general purpose "walk aroud" long tele it can be a bit heavy. It is mostly used on a monopod.

One of my motor sport shooting friends use a Canon 400mm F5.6 and he loves it when he wants the reach. He does do a lot of lens changing or has a second body with a 200m prime.
Click to expand...

Exactly Richard, we will all have different situations outside of our main genre that we like to shoot, this can play a part in deciding which lens will suite, as will can we afford to buy two or just the one lens :shrug:
 
I really couldn't afford two prime lenses. I wish I could though! I'd be using the lens for garden birds to begin with whilst I get used to grips with it. Then I'd be out in the fields arround my girlfriends. There's a fair few birds of prey around, And I'd like to take advantage of them.
I have been looking more towards zooms over the past few days. Mainly for the cost and versatility of them.
 
I have decided!
I'm not sure what I want. I keep making my mind up and then changing it. So instead of buying something and then selling it, im just going to save my cash. The way it's looking though, I might sell up my 7D and Tamron and go full frame.
 
I mainly shoot Landscapes, Richard. Which is why I may look to sell up and go Full frame. It's not a certainty, Plus it would require me spending more money than just buying a lens. I feel the safest thing for me to do right now is to just save. And if I decide I want a telephoto longer than my current setup, I'll purchase one then. More money means I might be able to look at used primes. I've seen a couple of Sigmas 500mm f4.5's for about £2K, but at that point, I'd probably still keep saving for a Canon version.
I have the opportunity to set up a feeding table in the GF's parents garden around 3 meters from their summer house. I can put in a mesh window (in place of the original), Have a little heater and comfortably sit in there all day and photograph whatever comes to feed. I've already set up a mock table and with mt 70-200, It's perfect for the time being. Bird's as small as Blue tit's fill the frame, So I can zoom out for larger birds. And we've also got a Squirrel that frequents the garden for seed and nuts.
So I'll be entertained for a while at least.
 
panamoz have the 150-500 at £562 just now or £533.90 if you do the (bacs) route
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top