i'm interested in starting up wildlife photography. At the moment i have a ef 55- 250 is lens,on my 450d and was wondering if the ef 70-300 is lens would be a better option, would the70-300 bring the subject a lot closer than the 55-250, or would the difference me minimal,between the two lenses.
which lens
- Thread starter spennie
- Start date
Wozzaaah
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,430
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Jason, I've been researching the same thing.
I've also got the 55-250 but would like to go longer for bird shots but I've come to the conclusion that I don't think it's worth the expense of a new one just to gain 50mm though if I can get a used one at a decent price I may consider it.
A friend has a 75-300 I can borrow so I could do a side-by-side comparison to see how much of an advantage the extra 50mm really is though I wouldn't buy a 75-300 as I gather they're not too good.
I'm interested to see what other people say though.
I've also got the 55-250 but would like to go longer for bird shots but I've come to the conclusion that I don't think it's worth the expense of a new one just to gain 50mm though if I can get a used one at a decent price I may consider it.
A friend has a 75-300 I can borrow so I could do a side-by-side comparison to see how much of an advantage the extra 50mm really is though I wouldn't buy a 75-300 as I gather they're not too good.
I'm interested to see what other people say though.
pete.rush
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
As Wozzaaah pointed out not a great deal of difference between the 55-250mm and 70-300mm. The question you need to ask yourself is what wildlife, the ones that visit your garden or more further a field and what budget are you willing to set aside.
At the affordable end of the scale, you have the long sigma's 50-500, 150-500 etc or offering from tokina like 80-400mm, then you go right to the other end of the scale with the primes like 500mm or 600mm depending on what you want to photograph. In between you have the canon 300mm f4 400mm f5.6 with TCs or 100-400 or sigma 120-300 or canon's 300mm f2.8
But for wildlife 300mm a minimum, but your looking towards 400mm + for the reach.
300mm F2.8 (MKI) + 1.4x and 2x TC (MKII) stacked on a canon 20D
Thanks equivalent too over 1300mm including the crop factor of the 20D.
At the affordable end of the scale, you have the long sigma's 50-500, 150-500 etc or offering from tokina like 80-400mm, then you go right to the other end of the scale with the primes like 500mm or 600mm depending on what you want to photograph. In between you have the canon 300mm f4 400mm f5.6 with TCs or 100-400 or sigma 120-300 or canon's 300mm f2.8
But for wildlife 300mm a minimum, but your looking towards 400mm + for the reach.
300mm F2.8 (MKI) + 1.4x and 2x TC (MKII) stacked on a canon 20D
Thanks equivalent too over 1300mm including the crop factor of the 20D.
Wozzaaah
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,430
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The other thing that throws a spanner in the works is that as you go longer you increase the amount of blurring due to camera shake if you hand hold so you either have to go IS/OS/VC (£££££££££
) or tripod/monopod which isn't always convenient for spur-of-the-moment shots where you may have just a couple of seconds to snatch it.
Try your 55-250 with the IS turned off and you'll see how well it works.
Edit: That sigma Cliff mentions has got OS and is actually not a bad price at all for what it is, might have to get saving!
) or tripod/monopod which isn't always convenient for spur-of-the-moment shots where you may have just a couple of seconds to snatch it.Try your 55-250 with the IS turned off and you'll see how well it works.
Edit: That sigma Cliff mentions has got OS and is actually not a bad price at all for what it is, might have to get saving!
Last edited:
CH!P
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 116
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I hope you don't mind me jumping in a little on this. Are camera manufacturer's also generally better lenses than say Tamron for example? Ie. Would i be better off with a Canon lens rather than a Tamron?
Sorry for jumping in
Just thought i'd ask here whilst you're talking lenses rather than making a new thread.
Sorry for jumping in
Just thought i'd ask here whilst you're talking lenses rather than making a new thread.
andyred
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
CH!P said:I hope you don't mind me jumping in a little on this. Are camera manufacturer's also generally better lenses than say Tamron for example? Ie. Would i be better off with a Canon lens rather than a Tamron?
Sorry for jumping in
Don't worry about starting a new thread, probably get more response. Are the manufacturers lenses better - yes and no would be the short answer.
Obviously there are the L series Canon lenses which are very good. But take the 50mm 1.4, some like the Canon others prefer the Sigma
StewartR
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It depends on what you're after. If it's something like a budget 70-300mm zoom, then all the manufacturers make them and the 3rd-party manufacturers are probably just as good as - and probably cheaper than - the OEMs. If you want a top quality telephoto zoom then the likes of Sigma and Tamron don't make anything to touch Canon's 70-200 L series or 100-400 L - but the quality comes at a price!