Wildlife Photography Lens

P

Pelly

Suspended / Banned
Messages
253
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I'm moving on from the Sony A200, which has been a great servant for my beginner years of Photography and now making a switch to Canon. After research and looking at my budget and other things.

I've opted for a Canon EOS 550D as the movie facility appealed to me as well, the EOS 7D will have to wait for a few more years as I'm not quite ready for one having checked out both cameras in the shop.

All I need to know now is... which lens for wildlife photography?

I'm hoping to get to 500mm and the L series lens would be BRILLIANT, but I have a tight budget, so out of the two, which is the best?

The Tamron 200-500mm F5-6.3

OR

The Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.5

If you have another lens to suggest, please do as I'm happy to evaluate all areas. Has to be a Canon fit and fit within £1000 budget.

Cheers in advance. :thumbs:
 
Not used the Tamron, but the Sigma 150-500 is a great lens with an awesome OS system.

http://SPAM/c3whur/7Dtest/Img_1730.jpg
 
Something I just read on KenRockwell: "If 200mm or 300mm isn't long enough for wildlife for you, nothing is. Getting closer will get you better results than a longer lens."

If you think this applies to you maybe you can get away with say a 55/70-300?
 
Ken Rockwell is photography's answer to Goofy, and everything that he says needs to be taken with a pinch (make that a bushel) of salt.

200mm will work for something aggressive and inquisitive like a Robin, but otherwise you are going to find yourself either coming up short or cropping heavily.

Joe, have you thought about the 400mm/5.6? There one going on here currently for £800 odd:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=283744
 
I would, but I dont have the funds for this right now. I'm making a decision now ready to make the purchase around February time when I have earned a bit of money to pay for the lens.

Thanks for alerting me, but I think I'll have to give it a miss, unless its still there in February.
 
The siggy 150-500 is superb. I tried out a number of lenses, including the 400mm suggested above and the siggy was by far the most versatile and gives good quality images too. Also the canon 400mm f5.6 will only manually focus with a tc attached on the 500d.
 
How about the 100-400L, cracking lens and would offer some versatility.
 
menthel said:
The siggy 150-500 is superb. I tried out a number of lenses, including the 400mm suggested above and the siggy was by far the most versatile and gives good quality images too. Also the canon 400mm f5.6 will only manually focus with a tc attached on the 500d.
Click to expand...

The newest kenko 1.4 TC is high quality and doesn't report aperture, so keeps (albeit slowed) AF. And the quality is still supposed to be very good.

I would discount the tamron 200-500, because it doesn't have a hypersonic motor.

The sigma 150-500 is superb value, you get reasonable image quality at the top focal lengths, HSM and OS.
If you can afford it, I'd consider the 100-400L. It's sharper than the sigma at 400mm and lighter. The sigma has slightly more effective OS though. The 100-400 has an unusual 'pump' zoom style, which some people don't get along with at all. It's worth trying one to see if you can get along with it. There are also some soft copies of the 100-400 around, but canon can fix these up to standard.

The sigma is superb value and a great lens. If you can afford the 100-400, I would take that instead, but if I couldn't find a 100-400 within budget, I would have no hesitation getting the sigma.

The canon 400L is the sharpest 400mm available in the price range. It's also the fastest focussing. It doesn't have stabilisation, and has a poor minimum focussing distance of 3.5m. This is a good option for birding, where you often are in a hide so can easily use support of some kind and IS isn't necessary. I've seen a comparison with this lens and the sigma 50-500 (more expensive and sharper than the 150-500 (though the old version lacks OS and the new version is even more expensive than the 100-400)), and the sigma at 500mm f/8 resolved less detail than the 400mm at f/5.6. If you can do without IS and close focussing (shouldn't be a problem at all for birds, only for things like butterflies), the 400mm prime will deliver stunning images.

There's also the 300mm f/4. This is a very sharp lens, often combined with a 1.4x TC to make a 420mm f/5.6 prime that has IS. With the 1.4tc it's about the same IQ wise as the 100-400 at 400mm (i.e, reasonably sharp wide open, very sharp stopped down).

My personal choice was the 100-400. I was originally planning to get the 150-500, but I got some unexpected money, and decided I prefer the lighter weight and slightly sharper 100-400, but had I not had the extra money I would have happily had the 150-500. My other main consideration was the 300/4 and 1.4x, but at the time I could not afford this combination, and I didn't see any advantage for me over the 100-400. Sadly, I didn't really consider the 400 prime because I wanted close focussing and IS, but this would have been my first choice if I could do without said features.

Here is a comparison I found helpful
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm

It's a hard choice to make, there are many choices, each has fans and each has people who dislike it. They are all good and all capable of producing good images though, so once you've made a choice, don't worry about it :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
lolage said:
Something I just read on KenRockwell: "If 200mm or 300mm isn't long enough for wildlife for you, nothing is. Getting closer will get you better results than a longer lens."
Click to expand...

Sounds like the sort of total and utter shullbit that KR would come out with.
 
lolage said:
Something I just read on KenRockwell: "If 200mm or 300mm isn't long enough for wildlife for you, nothing is. Getting closer will get you better results than a longer lens."

If you think this applies to you maybe you can get away with say a 55/70-300?
Click to expand...

Art Wolfe uses 400 and 500mm lenses at times and is a well respected wildlife photographer

Last time I checked, Rockwell was not one of the most respected photographers in the world- wildlife or otherwise:lol:
 
use your existing camera and a Sony 70-400 ;)
 
Awesome, happy with the responses on here, Sigma 150-500mm or the Canon 100-400mm L series.

I would be spending most of the time with the lens walking round taking photos of the birds mainly, with the Canon L Lens, would I still be able to use a teleconverter and retain autofocus?

Might be pushing it a bit, but would there be a teleconverter available for the Sigma and retain autofocus?

I will be using these on a Canon EOS 550D btw.
 
Neither lens will AF with a teleconverter. Some people will tell you that it will work with taped pins. But you do need a lot of light, even more so with the Sigma.

If you're planning on walking around a lot then the weight difference between the two lenses may become important.
 
Have a look HERE for comparisons for different Lenses and focal lengths.
This comparison is between the Canon 400/5.6 and the Sigma 150-500 when both are at 400mm and f6.3 for accurate comparison - you will see that the Canon is significantly better. You can compare any two lenses yourself in this site. My recommendation would be to go with the Canon 400/5.6 or 100-400
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
Have a look HERE for comparisons for different Lenses and focal lengths.
This comparison is between the Canon 400/5.6 and the Sigma 150-500 when both are at 400mm and f6.3 for accurate comparison - you will see that the Canon is significantly better. You can compare any two lenses yourself in this site. My recommendation would be to go with the Canon 400/5.6 or 100-400
Click to expand...

I have to say, I think the 100-400 used on that site performs above average at 400mm. Bare that in mind if you compare the 100-400 on that website.

It will be sharper than the 150-500, but maybe not by as much as it shows on that website. That said, I do recommend the 100-400 :)
 
Last edited:
Can also recommend the sigma 150-500 for the money it's great
 
lolage said:
Something I just read on KenRockwell: "If 200mm or 300mm isn't long enough for wildlife for you, nothing is. Getting closer will get you better results than a longer lens."
Click to expand...

Young Ken has obviously never tried stalking the Chimps or the Flamingos at Chester Zoo. Both require significantly more than 300mm. As for 200mm lenses, unless you resort to a teleconverter, they are only use for photographing something the size of an elephant or rhino or else something that's sitting in your lap.

Someone once described the Sigma 150-500mm as the perfect lens for photographers who are terrified of their subject. I have one and I can only add my praises to those above.
 
If you would consider a second user lens that has been looked after, I think the Canon 100-400 L would be the way to go, it is a slightly lighter lens than the Sigma 150-500mm and if you get a good copy, it is quite sharp at the centre at 400mm @ F5.6
 
would anyone know if its true that some of the sigma 150-500mm lenses wont work properly on some canon digitals.
 
Canon 100-400 is not be over looked. Better IQ then Siggy and Tam from the feed back I've had but I've only used the 100-400.
 
On the subject of the Sigma, I bought one recently off here for a friend of mine. |I tested it before I gave it to him and was sorely tempted to keep it, it was a cracking lens with a good range, sharp enough as well.

That said, it was Nikon fit and I have no knowledge of the Canon lenses mentioned here.So can`t offer much other than the Sigma is a cracker.
 
I have one with my 7d and for the money it is great and capable of very sharp shots. It IS is also very effective and I can hand hold the lens in half decent light.
 
squishy said:
The newest kenko 1.4 TC is high quality and doesn't report aperture, so keeps (albeit slowed) AF. And the quality is still supposed to be very good.

I would discount the tamron 200-500, because it doesn't have a hypersonic motor.

The sigma 150-500 is superb value, you get reasonable image quality at the top focal lengths, HSM and OS.
If you can afford it, I'd consider the 100-400L. It's sharper than the sigma at 400mm and lighter. The sigma has slightly more effective OS though. The 100-400 has an unusual 'pump' zoom style, which some people don't get along with at all. It's worth trying one to see if you can get along with it. There are also some soft copies of the 100-400 around, but canon can fix these up to standard.

The sigma is superb value and a great lens. If you can afford the 100-400, I would take that instead, but if I couldn't find a 100-400 within budget, I would have no hesitation getting the sigma.

The canon 400L is the sharpest 400mm available in the price range. It's also the fastest focussing. It doesn't have stabilisation, and has a poor minimum focussing distance of 3.5m. This is a good option for birding, where you often are in a hide so can easily use support of some kind and IS isn't necessary. I've seen a comparison with this lens and the sigma 50-500 (more expensive and sharper than the 150-500 (though the old version lacks OS and the new version is even more expensive than the 100-400)), and the sigma at 500mm f/8 resolved less detail than the 400mm at f/5.6. If you can do without IS and close focussing (shouldn't be a problem at all for birds, only for things like butterflies), the 400mm prime will deliver stunning images.

There's also the 300mm f/4. This is a very sharp lens, often combined with a 1.4x TC to make a 420mm f/5.6 prime that has IS. With the 1.4tc it's about the same IQ wise as the 100-400 at 400mm (i.e, reasonably sharp wide open, very sharp stopped down).

My personal choice was the 100-400. I was originally planning to get the 150-500, but I got some unexpected money, and decided I prefer the lighter weight and slightly sharper 100-400, but had I not had the extra money I would have happily had the 150-500. My other main consideration was the 300/4 and 1.4x, but at the time I could not afford this combination, and I didn't see any advantage for me over the 100-400. Sadly, I didn't really consider the 400 prime because I wanted close focussing and IS, but this would have been my first choice if I could do without said features.

Here is a comparison I found helpful
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm

It's a hard choice to make, there are many choices, each has fans and each has people who dislike it. They are all good and all capable of producing good images though, so once you've made a choice, don't worry about it :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Very good and helpful summary from Adam above :thumbs: This question comes up a lot. It's a tricky one - lots of options and none of them perfect! One way or another, most folks end up with a Canon 100-400L, either new or used - it's a great all-rounder and holds value very well.

A couple of comments. Using a telecon with any of these lenses either doesn't work, or works poorly. Image quality aside, some cameras will try to AF with a non-reporting TC or if you tape the pins, but the problem is that the f/number is increased and you can't change that. The result is poor AF (and reduced sharpness of course) and some cameras, eg Canon 40D and 7D amongst others, will not AF regardless. Live view contrast-detect AF is different and that it still retained, given good light, but that's not really a practical option for wildlife.

Squishy's link is a good comparison, but I'd just say that it appears to be done at very close range. The problem being, some of these lenses don't perform at their best when used very close like that and they also reduce focal length quite a bit, depending on the design. It would be interesting to see exactly what the actual framing was with the different lenses at the same nominal focal length (I'm assuming that the images have been resized for comparison). I would guess that the 500mm zooms are effectively no longer than a Canon 400mm prime when used close, and if it's small garden birds you will still need to be no more than 2-3m away.

Other lenses to consider, depending on your requirements. Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS Mk2 is so damn sharp that it is up there with any of these lenses even with a 2x extender, becoming a 400mm f/5.6. If you don't need the reach, new Canon 70-300L is stella. Also, new Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS is looking very promising (not tried one yet) even with an extender, and is a snip even at £2k.

Edit: AF performance is usually very important with lenses like this, and that rarely gets tested in a meaningful way. I'd put my money on Canon lenses there, but that's not much more than a hunch - plus a good body of course ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top