Wildlife lens recommendations?

squishy

squishy

Messages
1,902
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
No
I'm currently looking into the options for my first 'wildlife' lens.

It'll get used mainly for birds, handheld sometimes, but I'll also use a monopod as well. I'll also want to use it as a 'pseudo macro' for bigger insects like dragonflies.

I've already got a list of possible lenses:

sigma 120-400 or 150-500
pros: both cheaper than the other options. Nice zoom range, popular first wildlife lenses.
cons: Sigma's slightly iffy quality control. Soft wide open (And the 150-500 is slow, only f/6.3).


Canon 100-400L
pros: Sharper than the sigmas wide open, still has the flexibility of a zoom, faster than the 150-500
cons: More expensive (probably looking at a used lens), it's white (though I doubt this really has any effect), some say it sucks dust badly (some people say it's fine). Some soft copies around.
I had a look at one a few weeks ago, and I don't mind the pump action zoom.


Canon 300 f/4L IS (+1.4x)
pros: sharper and faster as a 300mm. Still good as a 420mm

cons: It's a prime, so less flexible. Possibly isn't any sharper than a 100-400 with the 1.4x, and adding in the cost of a 1.4 means it's more expensive, even If I buy used. slower AF with the 1.4.


I would also consider a used 400/5.6L, but it doesn't have IS, which I would value on a lens this long, and the MFD isn't close enough for dragonflies.



Does anyone have any recommendations out of those lenses, or any other lenses I should consider?
 
Last edited:
Will H said:
From very limited experimenting, 400 5.6 with a set of tubes is a very capable solution for dragonflies
Click to expand...

Surely tubes don't have that much of an effect at such a large focal length?

I'm talking about birds and dragonflies in the same outings as well. Having to remove the tubes whenever I want to photograph a bird would just not work for me.
I think that combined with the lack of IS puts me off the 400L (despite it have the best image quality out of all the lenses in that price range).
 
Last edited:
The prime will always be the better lens over a zoom. The 400mm f5.6 is the affordable bird lens options, very fast optics, sharp as a tack and as long as you realise it does have its limitation like most f5.6 lenses with light conditions and trying to achieve impossible settings, then its a great lens. The same can be said of the 300mm f4, this was my prime lens until I bought its bigger brother, but I've successfully use it with a 1.4x TC and take great shots of wildlife and action photography, as long as you release you need the right conditions to use it in. Grey overcast skies don't lend to great images when you need fast shutter speeds and a reasonable aperture.

As you are photographing birds, these tend to be at the 300/400mm + range, so even if you were to use a zoom, you would be using it at the extremes, so although a prime doesn't have the versatility of a zoom, you just adapt to a different way of taking images.

Both the 300mm f4 + 1.4x TC and 400mm f5.6 are better than the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 at 400mm, but then you have the versatility of the zoom with the 100-400

If I was to pick a sigma the 150-500mm seems to get the accoladed over the more affordable 120-400mm
 
All of my bird pictures are taken with the Sigma 120 - 400, unless I win the lottery that won't change :D
 
100-400L ............ great lens .... I cover mine with camo tape to get rid of the whiteness
 
I have a 150-500mm and have no issues with it, good IQ, good IS and 100mm longer than the Canon 100-400mm.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
I have a 150-500mm and have no issues with it, good IQ, good IS and 100mm longer than the Canon 100-400mm.
Click to expand...

I bought mine for basically the same reasons. Another thing to consider is that the Sigma has four stop image stabilisation whereas the Canon has only two stop. This was a major issue for me but may not be for those with stronger arms and steadier hands.
 
alexhcowley said:
I bought mine for basically the same reasons. Another thing to consider is that the Sigma has four stop image stabilisation whereas the Canon has only two stop. This was a major issue for me but may not be for those with stronger arms and steadier hands.
Click to expand...

All the reviews I've seen say the '4 stop' stabilisation on the sigmas is really only as effective as the canon, giving a realistic 2 stop in most circumstances.
And having tried one in low light the other day, I'd have to agree that it didn't deliver anything like 4 stops.
 
squishy said:
All the reviews I've seen say the '4 stop' stabilisation on the sigmas is really only as effective as the canon, giving a realistic 2 stop in most circumstances.
And having tried one in low light the other day, I'd have to agree that it didn't deliver anything like 4 stops.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with that - from my experience with both lens 's the IS on the Sigma is Superior to the Canon especially at 500mm ;) - if your going to try and shoot moving objects the ISO performance of your body is much much more important that IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top