Saving my pennies. What long lens to get?

[Limbwalker]

Okay, I know long lenses can easily climb upwards of $10K and I'm not going there. Not now, and probably not ever.

I've borrowed a 600/4 and 400/5.6 L before, and owned a Nikon ED 400 and 300 lens in the past, so I know what they are capable of.

But I'm looking at spending up to $1K on a lens for wildlife and nature shots. I want something I can keep in my car and have on hand for things I see as I travel.

I've just about narrowed it down to a few choices...

200-500 Tamron
50-500 OS Sigma
150-500 OS Sigma
80-400 Tokina ATX-D (I've always liked Tokina lenses)
100-400L Canon
300/4 IS Canon w/ 1.4x extender
400/5.6L Canon.
400/5.6 Tokina (if I can ever find one)


All of these lenses have their pros and cons. I've owned the 400 5.6 Tokina and wish I'd never sold it. Not the best image quality, but SO compact and light - and affordable.

I know the "legendary" L-series quality, but I'm reading great things about the Sigma and Tamron 500 zooms - esp. the ones with OS.

Any thoughts? Anyone have a sub-$1K wildlife lens they are just thrilled with? I'd love to hear about it.

Oh, and this is going on my Canon 50D body.

Thanks!

[gdawg]

Watching this one

[Casey]

I love my 300f4L IS. Bought it used for $900 and it's a performer. I need to put my 1.4 tele on it more frequently.

[Limbwalker]

Casey, that's an option I've strongly considered. I'm thinking $900 or so for a good used 300/4 IS and then another $250 for a 1.4x converter. Good IQ, 420mm/5.6 WITH IS (which I really, really like for hand-held shots).

But that still just gets me to 420mm, and the Sigma and Tamron lenses give me the option to get to 500mm. I photograph birds - sometimes very small birds - and I've found that even 400mm just isn't quite enough most of the time.

I've bought and sold a couple 400/5.6 lenses now for that very reason.

The 80-400 and 100-400 interest me primarily because of the zoom feature, which I can definitely see myself using. I'd be willing to trade the 500mm for a good zoom, and then later on maybe save up again for a used 500/4 ?

Ah, decisions, decisions...

[Limbwalker]

Oh, I left out a Tamron 300 2.8 (Adaptall mount, manual focus) on that list as well.

I've read excellent things about that lens, and with a 1.4 or 2x converter, I'd have a lot of bases covered...

Manual focus doesn't bother me at all, but no OS or IS...

[iamntxhunter]

Yep everything has a trade off. To bad we aren't all able to afford high end long range glass.
Long range for you and birding is how far? Finding a way to close the distance is usually the cheapest.

Sonetimes with the higher end glass and just a small amount of cropping it can give very good results and when no cropping is necessary the image quality is much better.
I would lean towards what Casey has set up over a wide range zoom.

Incorporating a tripod with the higher f stops is a necessity for low light shots due to lower shutter speeds. Take advantage of your ISO as much as possible also along with a goid post production software.

If you have a place to rent from you might try that to help you narrow it down even more.

[El Viejo]

The only one of those lenses I have used is the 100-400mm L Canon. I can say that it is a super lens. If you want a good zoom lens for wildlife, this is the way to go. In shooting birds in flight, or other wildlife situations, you find them at 100, then zoom in to whatever is best for your shot. I've had this lens for several lens and it goes with me anytime I'm out in the field photographing wildlife. I'm sure the others you've listed are good choices as well, but this is probably my most used lens for wildlife shots.

[Limbwalker]

Sorry folks, I should have mentioned that I'm a very experienced photographer. Not looking for advice on how to use them, but rather if anyone has experience with any of the combinations above, whether positive or negative.

And I could re-prioritize my funds and buy a 500/4 IS Canon lens if I wanted. I just choose not to. I just don't want to spend more than $1K on a toy. It's not how I make my living, so I'm being realistic about how much I plan to spend on the purchase, that's all.

Most of the bird photos are from my vehicle, along country roads. If I really want great bird photos, I'll set up my blind near a feeding station or water, or I'll get in my kayak down on the coast. What I'm thinking are just casual opportunity photos along the road when I happen to see them. That's why I'm thinking compact vs. a big prime - so I can keep it stashed under my driver's seat.

I'd love to own a 400/2.8 or 500/4, but it's just not practical to have that on hand when I'm traveling. That's why I'm looking at the Sigma and Tamron and Tokina zooms.

[Limbwalker]

The only one of those lenses I have used is the 100-400mm L Canon. I can say that it is a super lens. If you want a good zoom lens for wildlife, this is the way to go. In shooting birds in flight, or other wildlife situations, you find them at 100, then zoom in to whatever is best for your shot. I've had this lens for several lens and it goes with me anytime I'm out in the field photographing wildlife. I'm sure the others you've listed are good choices as well, but this is probably my most used lens for wildlife shots.

I'm strongly considering this option, but $1200 is the least I've seen a good used 100-400L sell for, and I'm not sure I'm willing to spend that much if I don't plan to submit my photos for publications or contests (which I have no plans to do).

How heavy is that lens? Is it something you'd be willing to leave stashed under your driver's seat or in the floor behind your seat while traveling?

[El Viejo]

$1200 is about what I paid for mine on eBay. I believe its weight is just a hair over 3#. I would leave it in my truck if it was in a case of some kind that could be easily concealed. I'm probably a little rougher on my equipment than I should be, but this lens has never failed me.

[Limbwalker]

How important do you feel the IS feature is on that lens?

Most of the time, my long lens will be on a beanbag on my car or truck window, or on a tripod in a blind, or on a monopod if I'm on foot.

I have IS on my 18-55 and 55-250 lenses, and I love it (esp. on the 55-250) but not sure it would be so useful on a long lens that I will most likely be supporting somehow. Thoughts?

[El Viejo]

To be honest, I don't notice it. I should do a test with the IS feature turned on and compare that to how it performs with it off. I leave it on all the time. I know you're not supposed to do that, but I do anyway. From listening to others & from reading on different forums, every comment I've read about IS has been positive.

[Limbwalker]

Oh, I agree that hand-held, I don't want to be without IS. But again, I'm not sure how much hand-holding I'll do with a lens that goes to 500mm. Maybe I will, but resting it on a beanbag or monopod, etc. will be more the norm.

Looking over Flikr images, the Tamron 200-500 sure is capable of producing some great images, and it's pretty light and compact. Just no OS or IS...

[BuckRage]

didn't read all the reponses but I highly reccomend a f2.8 for your use. I have a Tamrom 70-200mm f2.8 and love it. Same lens in Canon is ALOT MORE. Right under $800.

[BuckRage]

IS was a big point of concern for me when choosing a lens but I've learned I haven't needed it so far. I've taken 1000's of photos without blur. Anything larger than 200 or 300mm should really be on a tripod anyway. Good luck and let us know what you get.