Excellent stuff.
Think this thread name should be changed to "questions for newbies". It's all been helpful sound advice.
Body or Lens or Both?
- Thread starter Buddy
- Start date
Excellent stuff.
Think this thread name should be changed to "questions for newbies". It's all been helpful sound advice.
I would forget a FF camera like the 5D, or even newer ones (the mk3) unless you can afford the lenses, especially on canon since canon don't offer a reasonably priced high resolution FF body yet. On Nikon I shoot wildlife with D800 but that still gives 16MP DX crops, and TBH, if I was buying again I probably would have just stayed with crop for wildlife. However, at the time I was doing a lot of landscape and the D800 works great for for both.
If wildlife is you focus, stick to a crop camera, like the 7D. But I wouldn't bother upgrading your 550D and would throw every penny at the best glass you can afford, the longest reach and fastest apertures.
For large wildlife a 70-300mm on a crop camera is great. For small birds you will need more reach, a 100-400mm would be better.
Associate
Don't forget though that if you want to take pics of wildlife, you're going to have to buy a new lens whatever you decide with the body, unless your subjects are incredibly tame. You can't really take wildlife unless you have a longer reach lens even with a cropped sensor. I suppose you could crop a picture to zoom in....
Yes,but under a limited budget I would throw all the money at a lens. then there is the simple fact that pixel density is fairly critical for wildlife unless you have megabucks for a 600mm f/4.0, and even then you will find professionals reaching to their bag of converters AND putting the lens on a crop body.
A crop body with a 70-300mm lens is a reasonable wildlife kit for larger animals, and is very reasonably priced. Even a cheap FF camera and a 100-400 would be a lot more expensive but not really any better, and potentially worse. Then at the end of the day the only advantage in the FF setup with a much bigger more expensive lens is about 1 stop lower ISO and slightly sharper pixels -important if you are trying to sell wildlife photos for $1200 on a 30x20" canvas but not for mortals.
Associate
Sorry, perhaps wasn't explicit enough. Like you say, I'd throw 100% what money you have at a lens. A new body, particularly with your lenses, will have negligible benefit compared to decent telephoto.
Last edited:
Hmmmm now thinking of stretching for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens for £435. Better image quality but the focal length is reduced + no IS.
I can't stretch to the L 70-300 - £900 is a bit much.
OR:
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...non-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-do-is-usm/sku-604371/
The 70-300mm DO IS USM version for £369
I can't stretch to the L 70-300 - £900 is a bit much.
OR:
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...non-ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-do-is-usm/sku-604371/
The 70-300mm DO IS USM version for £369
Last edited:
Associate
Had a non-DO version a few years ago and it was a superb lens. Particularly if you want to shoot things where reach is important, I'd go for that over a 70-200 myself.
And if budget limited, something like a used 70-300 could be an option? Looking like £200 or so second hand or £339 or so brand new.
Last edited:
I wouldn't get the 70-200 for wildlife, too short.
Just get this:
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Canon/Canon-EF-lenses/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens
Just get this:
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Canon/Canon-EF-lenses/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens
Associate
Literally posted the same lens at the same time from the same website......!
Soldato
I was taking some shots with an old Sigma 400mm prime this morning from my attic converted room back windows of birds in the trees about 20ft away earlier and felt like it was too short, think I'd re-evaluate my desire for the 100-400mk2 now with the Tamron 150-600 instead, as when cropped in on my 700D the noise was horrific at iso 100!
Yeah that seems to be main one I've got my eye on. It's only £290 on amazon. Worth paying an extra £70 for the DO version? (second hand) - its £1k new! - oddly second hand much cheaper than the L version which is £900 new but approx £650 second hand (??)
Last edited:
The DO isn't really worth it, there is a reason why the second hand price is cheap.
The DO version sacrifices a fair bit of image quality / sharpness to achieve its compactness. For some this is an acceptable tradeoff if they want a compact walkaround lens for travel etc. But if you're after the sharpest possible wildlife or sports shots it's probably not such a good choice.
I think it's only the Canon mkii DOs that are good from what I remember?
I don't think wildlife is one you're gonna be happy cheaping out on. I wasnt. Zoo is fine. But true wildlife.. To get anything you're happy with I'd say 100-400mm canon lens is probably cheapest I'd even consider.
But I'm pretty fussy
What exactly do you mean by wildlife?
If you mean UK birds.. That's gonna be expensive
Of you mean zoo that's not too tough
If you mean bugs (macro) that sits in between.
I don't think wildlife is one you're gonna be happy cheaping out on. I wasnt. Zoo is fine. But true wildlife.. To get anything you're happy with I'd say 100-400mm canon lens is probably cheapest I'd even consider.
But I'm pretty fussy
What exactly do you mean by wildlife?
If you mean UK birds.. That's gonna be expensive
Of you mean zoo that's not too tough
If you mean bugs (macro) that sits in between.
Last edited:
Probably birds/zoo
Macro would be a huge bonus for insects and general
The pure reason I suggested 70-200 is because the sharpness in the L lens is amazing. With the 550d crop equates to roughly 320mm?
Look at this guy e.g. he uses this lens.https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/steviec-photography/sets/72157628258201743/
Last edited:
And if if you use a 70-300mm then you have 480mm, and a100-400 will yield 640mm which is much better for wildlife.
If you are shooting birds then even 300mm won't cut it, you will want a canon 100-400mm or a Tarmon/sigma 150-600mm.
The canon 70-200mm is great for portraits and landscape, not wildlife. I have a 70-200mm. F/2.8 that has never once been used for wildlife. Way too short even on crop, my 70-300mm worked just so much better.
If you are shooting birds then even 300mm won't cut it, you will want a canon 100-400mm or a Tarmon/sigma 150-600mm.
The canon 70-200mm is great for portraits and landscape, not wildlife. I have a 70-200mm. F/2.8 that has never once been used for wildlife. Way too short even on crop, my 70-300mm worked just so much better.
The 70-200 f4L is a beautiful lens. But a lens is only sharp if you can keep it steady. At 200mm (320mm equivlent on crop) you might struggle to hand hold in anything other than optimal light without IS. L lenses tend to be larger and heavier than their consumer grade counterparts too - some like the extra 'heft' some don't, definitely a case of try before you buy.
Those bird shots are very good, but I suspect he's fairly close to the action (in a hide if it's a RSPB reserve?). A lot of the birds appear to be approaching a feeder to land, so you could probably get similar results in a garden setting. Would be much harder to get wilder shots with 200mm though.
I have a couple of kite shots with the 70-300 IS that you can compare to those taken with the 70-200:
Kite 1
Kite 2
These were at 300mm and are crops, the kites were hovering above the next field and attempts to get closer just pushed them away. Which is why people are saying that even 300mm isn't often enough for bird photos, unless you're in a controlled environment like a feeding station or bird sanctuary etc. 400mm and above is best, but then you're talking serious pieces of expensive (and heavy) glass and a tripod / monopod.
Soldato
The compositions are pretty cool and all but I'm not a fan of those pictures really - too much digital noise for my tastes, he's cropped in hard but that's what happens if you shoot birds with a 200mm, even if it's on crop sensor. As a result of the cropping the IQ isn't really that great. He'd be much better off with a 100-400mk2 or even a Tammy 150-600 and the ISO bumped up a bit.
This is a shot I took this morning (the first bird shot I've ever shared as I'm just getting into birding and wildlife proper) it's on an ancient Sigma 400mm prime non IS and you can see some noise, not best pleased with that but this is ISO 100, f5.6 (its locked at this aperture because of compatability with my 700D)... I'd say from this image though it looks no worse in terms of IQ compared to that guys's L glass. Because although I've cropped in, he's cropped in a lot harder being further away..
This bird was about 20ft away from me on top of a tree in the back garden and it's really made me re-think getting the 100-400mk2 and instead plumping for the much cheaper Tamron 150-600 lens.
Goldfinch in the Morning by Joel Spencer, on Flickr
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses 
Quite impressed with the IQ of the cropped shots on this thread. Cern the IQ at 300mm cropped is great.
Joel the one of the monkey on your Flickr is great. I've given it a fav and follow.
There should be an OCUK nature reserve/zoo meet
Quite impressed with the IQ of the cropped shots on this thread. Cern the IQ at 300mm cropped is great.
Joel the one of the monkey on your Flickr is great. I've given it a fav and follow.
There should be an OCUK nature reserve/zoo meet
Last edited: