Zoom lens recommendation

Psilonaught

Psilonaught

Psilonaught

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
3,980
Location
London Town
Am off to Ecuador and Galapagos on First Jan and need a quality zoom for wildlife.

I've been told not to get anything too conspiquous, so a big white L glass is probably going to get me mugged, what should I get between 100-400?

As I never ever feel like I need telephotos normally I plan on buying S/h and selling when I get back, so price is effiectively irrelevant since I won't actually be keeping it
 
Long telephoto and inconspicuous are just two terms that wont go together. It will be a relatively large lens, inevitably. Zooms are only small if they are rubbish, ie the 70-300mm f4-5.6 type job.

The Sigma 50-500mm (aka Bigma) is a decent lens and although it is large, it is also black, so may stand out less than a white L lens.

On the other hand if you want to sell a lens on, the Canon Ls will keep their value much better than any third party lens.

If you have other lenses to cover the shorter focal lengths and you are going to find yourself shooting at the longer end of a zoom all the time, then a long prime might be the lens for the job, and will more liekly be smaller than the equivalent zoom.
 
Alex53 said:
Zooms are only small if they are rubbish, ie the 70-300mm f4-5.6 type job.
Click to expand...

Bit of an over simplification, isn't it? The Canon 70-300 generally comes out as near enough as good as the 70-200 L range, both in absolute lab tests and user opinions. The Sigma APO DG offering is also not far behind, optically, for 1/2 the price. To say they're all rubbish seems rather unfair.......
 
Ok, they arent rubbish, but for someone with a budget to look at L lenses, these lenses are probably not what they want or should settle for in terms of quality.
 
If you want them a bit smaller and less obvious have you thought of primes? You still have the problem with big focal length (>200mm), but up to that they're small and black and nice.
 
Dfhaii said:
If you want them a bit smaller and less obvious have you thought of primes? You still have the problem with big focal length (>200mm), but up to that they're small and black and nice.
Click to expand...

My 300 F4L is small and nice, but it's white (well grey)
 
Alex53 said:
Ok, they arent rubbish, but for someone with a budget to look at L lenses, these lenses are probably not what they want or should settle for in terms of quality.
Click to expand...


Nut sure of the OP's budget....was the 100-400 the focal length range, or budget?
 
thanks for the responses guys.

Have seen a 100-400 IS L on fleebay which caught my eye - I might have to go for that and just be more careful about where I flash it around
 
Why do you need an inconspicuous lens anyway? The animals really don't care how big or shiny your lens is, just put a camoflauge (spelling) netting or cloth around it and your sorted.

Don't even bother with the camoflauge if your taking photos from a vehical or something, most animals dont see individual objects inside a vehcile, they see the vehicle as one solid object.
 
Colin_da_Killer said:
Why do you need an inconspicuous lens anyway? The animals really don't care how big or shiny your lens is, just put a camoflauge (spelling) netting or cloth around it and your sorted.
Click to expand...

I think the OP is more worried about getting mugged than scaring the animals away
 
how much do u think the animals would get for them on the market lol :p see what u mean Ecuador still has troubled spots
 
Already been mentioned, but check out Canon's DO lenses for something a bit [physically] shorter, and therefore potentially less appealing to theives (as I should imagine the equate size to value).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom