Newbie question on 75-300mm lens...dont shoot me...

P

PaulSanderson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
30
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

Having recently bought my first DSLR (Canon 1100D) I'm having a blast playing with the different lenses (NiftyFifty, 18-55 and 75-300) I am looking into the possibilities of obtaining more "zoom".

My question is, for a complete beginner what would be a good "all-round" zoom lens (i.e greater than 300mm) for general wildlife photography?? Sorry if this is a loaded/stupid question.

One of my colleagues suggested a "screw on" lens for my existing 300mm but if such a thing exists is it right to be dubious about their actual ability to "zoom".

any info would be appreciated. as for budget...as cheap as possible as I'm a complete beginner.

thanks guys...
 
The sigma 150-500 and 50-500 but these are rather expensive, i would practice with what you got and save up for a longer lens, dont think there is any alternative to getting over 300mm on a budget or none that i know off
 
Depends on how much you want to spend, most people swear by the Sigma 150-500 (also known as the bigma) http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/150-500mm.htm if you've got £600+ to spend, problem with the Canon 75-300 is you are already looking at a relatively slow F5.6 at the 300mm end, sticking a teleconvertor (if its compatible) would give you either a 420mm max at F6.3 on a 1.4x or a 600mm max at F8 on a 2x teleconvertor which would probably be to slow for wildlife.
Get saving would be my advise :)

Darren
 
thanks for the info...i just can't seem to to get close enough to the wildlife I'm trying to photo as normally its a rifle in my hand and not a camera...

..more stealth will have to be adopted.

thanks again for the info.
 
PaulSanderson said:
thanks for the info...i just can't seem to to get close enough to the wildlife I'm trying to photo as normally its a rifle in my hand and not a camera...

..more stealth will have to be adopted.

thanks again for the info.
Click to expand...

Sounds silly, but depending on the wildlife what about a ghrille suit cheap on ebay, or i know someone who was wearing one a coach load of tourists got off and chucked a apple and the wildlife wondered up to the tourists.
 
ha ha thats not a bad idea...might just look into that. I'm ex-forces so have all the DPM gear just no ghillie suit. Not much call for it in rural Norfolk!

Cheers for the info guys. Transpires there is such a thing as a Teleconverter...told you I was new to all this :)
 
PaulSanderson said:
Cheers for the info guys. Transpires there is such a thing as a Teleconverter...told you I was new to all this :)
Click to expand...

They can be useful, i have a sigma 1.4x and 2.0x that i use on my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but i wouldnt want to use them on a slower lens.

Which bit of Norfolk? Im off to Wells Next The Sea later this year, been going there off and on for 20 years.

Darren
 
i work out of wells next to sea (i work on the wind farm, sheringham shoal). I live about 7 miles from cromer in a tiny place called Alby.

Would you recommend the x1.4 on the 300mm lens with the use of a tripod etc? Sorry if this is a dat question, I'm still trying to get my head around all the numbers!!
 
I have a feeling the answer will be no, the teleconvertors only tend to work with "higher quality" lenses.
As suggested i would have a play with the 75-300 which is not a bad lens, i would try that on a mono/tripod to reduce camera shake and combine that with a bit of "stealth" to get closer.
Its an expensive hobby, I started with a Canon 1000d, the predecessor to your 1100d, i went from that to a 50d and then to a 7d + countless lenses.
What do you think will be your main subject for photographing?
 
cheers for the info...as for my main focus, i shoot a lot of landscape and wildlife. i live on a farm and do a lot of countryside pursuits so i tend to be surrounded by great photographic subjects. I try to play with some close up stuff but again I'm very new to this so its more a case of seeing where this takes me really...
 
Sounds like me, a bit of everything.
Apart from my main subject (non-league football) i also dabble in macro (sigma 105mm lens), landscape (sigma 10-20mm lens) and a bit of wildlife which is where the 1.4 and 2.0 comes in.
The nifty fifty and the 18-55 could be used for close up/macro with one of these http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-RADCR-0150-DCR-150/dp/B0007KS7D0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1335992352&sr=8-2 nice cheap way to see if its something you want to pursue.
I would stick with the 75-300 for now until you get to know your camera and then decide if its worth splashing out on a "superzoom lens, i had a Tamrom 70-300 with my original 1000d (about £120) and it served me very well till it fell apart lol.
 
Make sure that you're taking maximum resolution shots (preferably RAW, or if you want JPEG then Large) - that gives you maximum scope for "enlarging" and cropping in post-processing.
 
that macro add-on looks pretty good, i will check them out.

I have seen the use of the reverse fitting rings to create a macro lens (kind of)...are they any good?

i think my camera uses JPEG as default but i haven't tried RAW format...will be sure to check that out, thanks :)
 
PaulSanderson said:
that macro add-on looks pretty good, i will check them out.

I have seen the use of the reverse fitting rings to create a macro lens (kind of)...are they any good?

i think my camera uses JPEG as default but i haven't tried RAW format...will be sure to check that out, thanks :)
Click to expand...

RAW is the best format if you are going to "push" your images, they are as taken with no processing or compression, you can also adjust the images more without loss of quality.

Found this image BTW, taken with the Tamron 70-300 (cheap and cheerful) and Canon 1000d, I managed to focus on the wasps a**e instead of its head but you get the idea of what can be achieved with the equipment you have already.


IMG_6187 by sharpcroft, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top