Which lens for birds and animals?

lionfish

lionfish

Suspended / Banned
Messages
258
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

As i`m not rolling in money, what would be a good lens for pics of birds and animals?
Lens would be running on a 40D so not a bad body with frame rate.
Budget could possibly go to a max of £1K
Look forward to hearing from you all

Phil :bang:
 
I think a Mint, used 100-400mm L IS would be the obvious choice.
 
I'd also say a used 100-400L as they're a fantastic piece of kit.

A cheaper option could be the Sigma 120-400 which I've jsut bought myself.
It has OS, gets some pretty good reviews and at £600 new is a fair bit cheaper than the Canon
 
Hi

I have neither, but am hoping one day to get the 400mm f5.6, similar in price to the 100-400. It's got no IS and obviously youlose the flexibility of the 100-400.

However it is meant to be fanstastic optically, with great AF speed. For birds especially you are often at the max reach you can get, and I think a lot of birders (is that a term?) use this lens. If you are always going to be at the 400mm end might as well get the 400 prime.

I'm sure both will get you good results from either, but I've only ever read good stuff about the 400mm prime, whislt the 100-400mm seems to get a more varied set of feedback.

Good luck, I'm jealous either way!
 
akr said:
Hi

I have neither, but am hoping one day to get the 400mm f5.6, similar in price to the 100-400. It's got no IS and obviously youlose the flexibility of the 100-400.

However it is meant to be fanstastic optically, with great AF speed. For birds especially you are often at the max reach you can get, and I think a lot of birders (is that a term?) use this lens. If you are always going to be at the 400mm end might as well get the 400 prime.

I'm sure both will get you good results from either, but I've only ever read good stuff about the 400mm prime, whislt the 100-400mm seems to get a more varied set of feedback.

Good luck, I'm jealous either way!
Click to expand...

I consider myself a "birder", with a 400 prime and love it, it can produce some amazing bokeh and great sharpness making it just as good for portraits and everything else but I am a prime guy :p
 
I'm seriously getting into wildlife photography and torn between a 400mm 2.8 or a 500mm f4. I'm beginning to think that maybe I'd be better off with the former and use a converter due to its portability (!) compared to the 500mm.

However, 300mm is always an option but I hear the 2x softens an other wise excellent lens - oh and the fact its a 1.3 crop camera unless I drop to the 400d.

Hmmm.. choices choices :D
 
I have recently started bird photography and use the 400mm 5.6L with a 30d. The lens is everything that has been said about it. The only negative with the 400mm is the least focussing distance (which I think is about 12 feet). I was recently at a bird photography day and a fellow tog was using the 100-400. I had to stand a lot further away from the subject than she was to get my subjects in focus. I haven't seen my colleague's images so can't compare them to mine but I am very pleased with my own efforts.

The other lens you might want to consider is the 300mm f4 IS plus a 1.4 extender. That gives you more flexibility than the 400mm but you get IS and the same lens speed, albeit at (arguably) a slight reduction in IQ and higher cost if buying new kit. You may need to purchase 2nd hand if you want to stay under a £1k.

I noticed MPB had a 400mm used for £809 ish.
 
+ another for the 100-400, not from experience but its on my want list after a lot of thinking on the best lens general lens for this sort of work.
 
razor777 said:
I'm seriously getting into wildlife photography and torn between a 400mm 2.8 or a 500mm f4. I'm beginning to think that maybe I'd be better off with the former and use a converter due to its portability (!) compared to the 500mm.

However, 300mm is always an option but I hear the 2x softens an other wise excellent lens - oh and the fact its a 1.3 crop camera unless I drop to the 400d.

Hmmm.. choices choices :D
Click to expand...

I think the deciding factor would be how often you go to the gym, as I believe the 400 is the heaviest canon do :D The 500 is what most pros go for.
 
Sigma 120-300mm 2.8

really good for wildlide, probably going to sell mine soon as I use it too much for motorsport & its a heavy b****r for that!
 
Hmm.. interesting perhaps its time to crack open another tub of creatine :D - though i guess I could just hang it over my shoulder on a monopod or something. Time to do some searching on the net comparing the two as I've got that burning feeling again that always ends up in tears (when I check the bank statement 4 weeks later).
 
razor777 said:
I'm seriously getting into wildlife photography and torn between a 400mm 2.8 or a 500mm f4. I'm beginning to think that maybe I'd be better off with the former and use a converter due to its portability (!) compared to the 500mm.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps you want to look at the two lenses in the flesh and then reconsider your views on portability.

The 500mm f/4 is big. The 400mm f/2.8 is h-u-g-e.

For (relative) portability, the 300mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter has a lot to be said for it. 600mm f/5.6 in a hand-holdable package.

But for the OP, with the £1k budget, it's really a choice between 100-400 L IS, 400 f/5.6 L, and 300 f/4 L IS with an Extender. All similar prices, all have their advantages and disadvantages. It might be a hard decision, but be thankful you bought a Canon DSLR.
 
For me it would be 100-400 all the way. I have looked into the 400mm prime, but was put off by the minimum focussing distance as I like to photograph butterflies, dragons etc. At least with the 100-400 I only need to be 1.8m away! Also it is very flexible with the zoom.

There are some tricks as well to getting closer with the 100-400, such as adding some extension tubes. I am absolutely happy with mine and would not change it now.
 
I was going to say Sigma 120-300mm f2.8

on the 40D that will give you 192-480mm

and because its a 2.8 lens you can add the sigma 1.4x converter this will push the lens minimum aperture to f4 and give you 168-420mm (on the 40D 268-672mm) or a 2x converter and get a minimum aperture of f5.6 this will give you 240-600mm (on the 40D 384-960mm).

The 100-400mm Canon is already at f5.6 at 400mm, you wouldnt want to be adding converters to that.
 
StewartR said:
I think perhaps you want to look at the two lenses in the flesh and then reconsider your views on portability.

The 500mm f/4 is big. The 400mm f/2.8 is h-u-g-e.

For (relative) portability, the 300mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter has a lot to be said for it. 600mm f/5.6 in a hand-holdable package.

But for the OP, with the £1k budget, it's really a choice between 100-400 L IS, 400 f/5.6 L, and 300 f/4 L IS with an Extender. All similar prices, all have their advantages and disadvantages. It might be a hard decision, but be thankful you bought a Canon DSLR.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update, I knew the 400mm was heavier but didnt realise it was also bigger! 500mm f4 sounds good and have been reading your site (good site by the way) with the info regarding 1.4x teleconverters utilised with this lens and its definitely opening up some potential possibilities.

As always, thanks - info is invaluable when considering this sort of purchase. :)

Marl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top