Best camera/lens for taking pictures of Wildlife? (Page 2): They may use both.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

They may use both.

WildBill Loc: South West Florida

Blue64 :
Google your camera brand and what you are shooting and you can find reviews to help you pick up the right lens for the job.

search example: canon indoor sports lens

There are many 50mm lens out there and what they do is dependent on the aperture or f-stop and if the lens is a macro or not. if you do not want the tech stuff, just look at reviews to find a lens for the pictures you want to take.

gessman Loc: Colorado

blue64 wrote:

Is there a link for just lens descriptions of what there used for. No tec stuff!

like 50mm what is it best used for? and so on!

www.luminous-landscape.com and look for "reviews" on the left sidebar then pick the letter your camera starts with from the alphabet box but don't overlook the other information on the site. There's a wealth of photography information there.

rsieber Loc: Waukesha,Wi

I would go with the camera t2i with a 100 - 400 lens with a 1.5 multiplier. It would still enable the auto focus, and with the sensor giving you an extra 1.6 because it is not a "full frame" sensor. this is the cheapest way to go and give you a more than reasonable 960mm shot. I use the 2x multiplier as well, but auto focus then becomes necessary, but great if you are stable and sitting. When using a lens that is that long, it usually is necessary anyway.

Nanc Loc: Rocky Face

rsieber wrote:

I would go with the camera t2i with a 100 - 400 lens with a 1.5 multiplier. It would still enable the auto focus, and with the sensor giving you an extra 1.6 because it is not a "full frame" sensor. this is the cheapest way to go and give you a more than reasonable 960mm shot. I use the 2x multiplier as well, but auto focus then becomes necessary, but great if you are stable and sitting. When using a lens that is that long, it usually is necessary anyway.

I have done a lot of research today and have almost decided on the Canon ESO 60D with a 100-400mm IS f/4.5-5.6 Telephoto Zoom lens. I am also looking at the 70-300 lens. I'm just wondering are these two lenses about the same when taking a picture at the 50ft. range?

gessman Loc: Colorado

Nanc wrote:

quote=rsieber I would go with the camera t2i with... (show quote)

I would think not, hence the difference in the price. :)

SpiffyPhoto Loc: Southern Wisconsin

lol ..... this is an A-1 comment and very true ..... however today it is very hard to buy a BAD camera .... :)

gessman Loc: Colorado

SpiffyPhoto wrote:

lol ..... this is an A-1 comment and very true ..... however today it is very hard to buy a BAD camera .... :)

Very true. "Common" has climbed the ladder in the last few years.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Nanc wrote:

I have done a lot of research today and have almost decided on the Canon ESO 60D with a 100-400mm IS f/4.5-5.6 Telephoto Zoom lens. I am also looking at the 70-300 lens. I'm just wondering are these two lenses about the same when taking a picture at the 50ft. range?

As The Man of La Gess has so adroitly noted, the 1-4 beats the snot out of the .7-3. Totally different classes of lens. As mentioned the 100-400 is in nearly every pro Canon wildlife shooters bag. (Although it is getting a little long in the tooth, as the basic design is from about 1990..)

EDIT : I am mistaken - I got the 75-300 consumer lens mixed up with the new 70-300 L lens. I officially remove my comment about beating the snot out of it. The 70-300L and 100-400L are probably very close in IQ.

memorykeeper Loc: Indianapolis, Indiana

For me there is no question, Canon anytime. Nikon lenses might be the it thing but it takes more than a lens to make a photograph. Canon is the real deal and priced accordingly. Nikon has been playing catch up to Canon since the EOS 630 way back in the 80's.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

I have used the 100-400 Canon lens for about 6 years as my primary wildlife lens for birding and animals and find it to be outstanding. I normally hand hold using higher ISO's and shutter speeds and I'm pleased with the results. On a 60D it would give you about 13X magnification. The current new price on the lens is around $1700.00.The only reservation I have is that I have not had much luck using it with convertors. I have a Canon 1.4 tele convertor and do not like what I get with it.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

I had wonderfull results with the 1.4 converter on the Nikon 400mm lens.

mrustici Loc: Elmira NY

I am also looking to shoot birds but sometimes the lighting is not the best. How much difference is their in the f2.8, f3.5 and f4.0 in terms of quality pictures (I understand the price goes up as the f-stop goes down? Just lookign for the best value on a budget. Thanks.

gessman Loc: Colorado

mrustici wrote:

I am also looking to shoot birds but sometimes the lighting is not the best. How much difference is their in the f2.8, f3.5 and f4.0 in terms of quality pictures (I understand the price goes up as the f-stop goes down? Just lookign for the best value on a budget. Thanks.

What kind of camera are you using? I might be able to help you get an answer to your question if you're using Canon. I know what lens do at those numbers but other than Canon lens, I don't know which other manufacturer's model numbers have what features. Generically, the lower the f-number, the better you can get pictures in lower light, and you're right about the lower the number, the higher the price. There are practical reasons for that which we don't really need to get into but it involves the cost of making the lens to allow you to do what you want to do. All of that said, there is a point in the darkness thing where there is no lens that will take a picture. What you you'll have to do is determine what that point on the light scale is and take your pictures when your equipment will allow you to do so and not try to force mother nature to work on your schedule. Regardless of how much money you spend for lens, there'll come a point when it won't matter.

rsieber Loc: Waukesha,Wi

If you have them both at 300mm, it is hard to tell the difference on the picture, but I understand that the extra 100mm on the 100 - 400L series is costly. I have the 20d and upgraded to a 5d about a year ago and still use the 20d for the distance because of the 1.6 sensor magnification. 300mm will give you roughly 480mm on the camera you want and the 400mm will give you 640mm. that extra 160mm could be the difference between a face shot and a body shot. Also I have found on the L series lens, the cropping enhancements are better.
I have found that "the quality is long remembered after the price is forgotten".
Rick