Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The 100-400 MII and teleconverter is compatible with the SL1 as far as taking photos it just will not auto focus except in live view.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

Is this the one they're just about giving away in the lowest-tier 2-lens kits at Wal Mart, etc.?

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

The OP wants to zoom close for birds. I doubt the 18-135 would satisfy her wants or needs.

Walt

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

I believe the one you're referring to is the non IS version of the 70-300mm. It runs about $199 if purchased separately but is usually included in a bundle package for $100 more when you purchase a body with a kit lens. That's how I ended up with mine, but at the time I bought mine I knew absolutely zero about photography. It really hasn't been that bad of a lens but I wouldn't do it again. I'd go for either the 55-250 or I'd spring for the IS version which runs in the neighborhood of $689.

Walt

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

Point taken.

Genessi Loc: SoCal

I Have the SL1 body and purchased the Tamron16-300mm lens, not long enough for birding. It's a great lens for me as I am still learning.

Brian in Whitby Loc: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

You might consider the Sigma 18 - 250 mm lens. I bought it to replace my canon kit lenses the 18-55 mm and the 55 - 250 mm lens. I noticed an immediate improvement in image quality and I don't have to keep changing lenses. It is quite reasonably priced ` $450. CAN and will probably meet most of your photographic needs for a long time. I am very eclectic in my choice of subjects and the only time I take off that lens is to use my 150 - 500 mm Sigma for bird and small animal photography. If I had a super wide angle such as the sigma 10 - 20 mm (Probably my next acquisition.) I would use it for landscape photography but the 18- 250 is adequate for that too.

A bounus for this lens is that it is also a macro, well almost macro. tho be a true macro lens it must be capable of a 1;1 ratio of object size:image size. This lens almost achieves that at 1: 0.9.

I hope this is helpful. I know many poeople would recommend a much faster, (larger aperture lens at several times the price but for a good all round lens to expand your range it is hard to beat this lens. I think Canon also makes a lens in this range but it will be much more expensive and you probably will not notice the difference unless you are super critical of your work. If photography is your hobby, don't let yourself fall into the trap of spending thousands for your hobby. take your time and, if you discover some aspect of photography that you become really passionate about, that is the time to invest in specialized, top quality gear. Much of the advice you see applies more to professionals who may be able to justify the thousands of dollars they spend on lenses. Amateurs who want to produce photos for themselves and friends can get along nicely with more moderately priced equipment. At least 80% of what goes into a photograph does not cost a penny and can be found behind the camera.

IShootEverything Loc: TN

Nancy, I think you should look at a 1.4x to go with a lens. You would be amazed at the difference. Personally I think the Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8L II IS USM with the 1.4x would be a great match up.
But what do I know I'm just a small little bee with a yellow jacket. :lol:

OonlyBonly

Reasonable price, reasonable performance. The EF75-300 f4-5.6. Available for around $100.

Virgil Loc: The Hoosier State

Welcome Nancy! Once you get comfortable with your gear, consider a local camera club. People there will be glad to help and it is a one on one situation. And you get advice on what to do but more importantly 'WHY' you need to do it. Virgil

IShootEverything Loc: TN

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: bad lens! I hate it!

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

That was my first zoom. I only use it for races and only when I manually fix focus on a given point (like a finish line). The AF is too slow to catch action consistently.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

While photography and its many toys is actually really simple when you finally understand it all, it is also bewildering to the newbie.

For the moment an 18 mm - 300 mm would be ideal for you. That gets you a reasonable wide angler for landscapes, group shots, stuff like that and it gets you a relatively lengthy telephoto at the other end for focusing on those distant objects. That kind of lens isn't cheap but it's also not as extortionate as lenses can become.

I actually have such a lens on one of my SLRs and I use it for travel. It's the only lens I travel with in fact and this tends to keep my sensor clean when I'm travelling because I never changes lenses throughout the trip.

A second choice has also been mentioned here, the 70 mm - 300 mm which is also relatively inexpensive as lenses go and provides you a good reach as well. The only problem here is that you're going to be changing lenses all the time. That's not the end of the world, you have to learn how to do that anyway, but it can be a nuisance sometimes. It also means carrying two lenses when you go somewhere.

Since you're new I think either of those lenses will meet your needs admirably the deciding factor would be the budget you have.

Later as you become more demanding and sophisticated you can consider more expensive lenses. The focal length, the number associated with mm, determines the angle of view of the lens. The smaller the number, 24mm, 14 mm, 10 mm etc the more the camera sees of the scene and thus the more you capture of your subject. Those short focal lengths are ideal for pictures where you're trying to capture a lot.

As the number goes up - 100 mm, 200 mm, 500 mm etc - the narrower the field of view. This narrower angle of view allows you to focus on ever more distant objects and bring them ever closer. For instance if you're into birds carrying a 500 mm or longer lens gets you really close to many birds without spooking them. The only problem with a telephoto, in addition to the rapidly increasing cost, is the size and weight, there are some that you really must use a tripod for.

The other number that's important is the F-stop. You'll see a number such as f2.8 or perhaps a range f3.5-f5.6 sort of thing. This refers to the "speed" of the lens and also the maximum aperture. It describes the maximum amount of light the lens allows to get to the sensor. If you do a lot of work in dim conditions you'd want a lens that's f2.8 or faster (smaller number). If you do stuff at high noon in full sun a lens of f5.6 isn't a problem at all. The price of a lens increases sometimes substantially based on the maximum aperture with increasingly smaller numbers representing increasingly higher costs.

Lens quality comes in several flavours too. When you're starting out there are the kit lenses. These are cheap, relatively slow but still capable of providing you with reasonable images. Then there's the mid priced lenses that give you much better images at higher cost and with more weight and better build. These are what most people tend to buy since they represent reasonably good value. And there are the professional lenses that create the best images but at exceptionally high cost and weight. Each has it's place. I'd suggest minimize your purchase of kit lenses, try to afford the medium priced ones as much as you can.

There are two other things to be aware of. Older lenses rely on a motor in the camera to focus them. Many entry level cameras do not have such a motor so those lenses have to be focussed manually. Newer lenses have a motor built into them which the camera controls. All the camera models support this and this is the favoured approach to focus these days.

The other thing that's important is that many lenses have an image stabilizer. When you're working with a short lens, maybe less than 85 mm, that's not very important, you can usually hold the camera steady in slow exposures. But as the focal length increases you must consider an image stabilizer. That way you don't always have to use a tripod.

Be careful when you buy from third parties like Tamron or Sigma, sometimes the lens being offered is much cheaper that comparable lens offerings, that's often because those lenses do not have a stabilizer or a built in focus motor. Make sure you don't buy one like that.

And to just bewilder you completely, there are lenses designed for the large 35 mm sensor in addition to film and there are lenses designed for the small sensors in the entry level SLRs. Try to spend wisely, by acquiring lenses that are for the larger sensor. They cost more but the nice thing is that if you ever move to the larger sensor you don't have to buy your lenses again, you'll have a set that work with both sensors.

I hope this Lens 101 is helpful to you. If you've got any specific questions you're welcome to contact me privately. Good Luck.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Remember this is a Canon, not a Nikon. There never was a camera motor in the EOS system. So any EOS lens works with this camera.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Nancy,
You have received lots of wonderful advice and huge ranges in quality of optics suggested. I do not know your budget but if birds with motion are a subject then the EOS 100-400L II is light enough with sufficient power to get you going. Do not sell yourself short with "beginner" leneses as they will be disposed of and you will finally wind up with this lens anyway, 300mm is short for birds. I suggest you rent this lens from a place like: lensrentals.com to try it out. They are reasonable and I use them to test bodies as well as lenses before making a large purchase as this is better than all the advice in the world. Good luck, ps my wife really loves our EOS 100-400L II.