Wildlife Lens - 300mm f/4 IS

[Keagle]

In another thread I posted, I was advised to go for the 70-200mm f/4. However, thinking about it, there's some stuff I'm still not sure about which has made me consider longer focal lengths.

There's deer and other birds and wildlife in my local woods, and I'm thinking 200mm is too short a range for this. I'm tempted to go for a 300mm f/4 L IS and save for a 1.4 TC. I have the Sigma 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6, but it only works if it's on maximum aperture. Otherwise I get Error 99, so I could just use that for the lower range, and get the 300mm.

Another option would be to perhaps get the 70-200mm f/4 an get the 1.4 TC - on a Canon EOS 350D body, will AF still work? I'd like to know this for the 300mm or 400mm with a 1.4 too.

I could go for the 400mm f/5.6, but the lack of IS on such a large lens, and I'm unsure how far back I would need to be to avoid cropping off the body, or how close I would need to be.

I've read plenty of reviews and all say each of those lenses is great, but I don't know wether 400mm will be too long, or 200mm too short, etc.

As I'm 14, it's kind of important I get this right first time, as I'm not made of money. My budget is probably £800max.

Thankie

Keagle

[TPF Sponsor]

[Buszaj]

hmm, you could look at the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

[Alex_B]

I use the 300mm f/4 L IS , and I hardly ever thought it too long when shooting wildlife. Therefore I personally do not miss the lack of zoom down to say 200 or 100 mm.

A colleague of mine uses the 100-400mm L IS for shooting surfers and such, there the zoom seems to be an advantage. However the f/5.6 is a limitation sometimes.

The 300mm f/4 L IS also works nicely with a 1.4 teleconverter from Kenko.

[Keagle]

Thank you both for your replies!

I was considering the 100-400mm, and still am. The thing is, the deers and such are around in the morning, so there's not going to be a huge amount of light. I can't afford the f/2.8 300mm though. Thank's for the help Alex B, do you ever find the IS too noisy? That's one of the only things I've heard that people have complained about.

Thank you for your replys!

[soylentgreen]

I have both lenses you are considering; the f/4 70-200 now the f/2.8, and to tell you the truth, the 70-200 zoom is nice but I find I use it wide open most of the time. I will probably eventually get rid of it and get some primes. The 300 f/4 IS is an amazing lens. IQ is superb and the IS works flawlessly. I practically use that lens hand-held most of the time. It's really light and easy to handle. For more timid and elusive wildlife, you may need the extra focal length. Tripod/ monopod comes out when I use the 1.4x TC. The f/5.6 with the slower AF practically requires it if you want really crisp images. You can steady against a tree or what-not if you do not want to lug one around. You really can't go wrong with either lens. I settled ont eh 300 f/4 over the 400 f/5.6 mainly due to IS and am very happy with the choice. A 1.4x TC slapped on makes it a 420 F/5.6 with IS.

[soylentgreen]

I have both lenses you are considering; the f/4 70-200 now the f/2.8, and to tell you the truth, the 70-200 zoom is nice but I find I use it wide open most of the time. I will probably eventually get rid of it and get some primes. The 300 f/4 IS is an amazing lens. IQ is superb and the IS works flawlessly. I practically use that lens hand-held most of the time. It's really light and easy to handle. For more timid and elusive wildlife, you may need the extra focal length. Tripod/ monopod comes out when I use the 1.4x TC. The f/5.6 with the slower AF practically requires it if you want really crisp images. You can steady against a tree or what-not if you do not want to lug one around. You really can't go wrong with either lens. I settled ont eh 300 f/4 over the 400 f/5.6 mainly due to IS and am very happy with the choice. A 1.4x TC slapped on makes it a 420 F/5.6 with IS anyway. The 100-400 is another to consider if it's in your budget. A lot of folks really like it.

[Buszaj]

get a Canon 400mm f/2.8L IS USM

[Keagle]

I have both lenses you are considering; the f/4 70-200 now the f/2.8, and to tell you the truth, the 70-200 zoom is nice but I find I use it wide open most of the time. I will probably eventually get rid of it and get some primes. The 300 f/4 IS is an amazing lens. IQ is superb and the IS works flawlessly. I practically use that lens hand-held most of the time. It's really light and easy to handle. For more timid and elusive wildlife, you may need the extra focal length. Tripod/ monopod comes out when I use the 1.4x TC. The f/5.6 with the slower AF practically requires it if you want really crisp images. You can steady against a tree or what-not if you do not want to lug one around. You really can't go wrong with either lens. I settled ont eh 300 f/4 over the 400 f/5.6 mainly due to IS and am very happy with the choice. A 1.4x TC slapped on makes it a 420 F/5.6 with IS.

Thank you so much for your in-depth advice! I'm now pretty much solidly convinced to go with the 300mm and get a 1.4 teleconverter. I have a tripod, my Dad gave it to me. However - it's very heavy, it's meant for camcorders but fits for my camera. Perhaps I should invest in a lighter one for lugging around, and use that one when I don't need mobility? I was looking at the 100-400mm, It's pretty much between that and the 300mm.

get a Canon 400mm f/2.8L IS USM

At £6,699.99? :p Slightly over-budget.

[usayit]

First, I would check with Sigma to see if a rechip is required to fix that error.

I would have no problems recommending the 100-400mm L. I really like mine (paired with the 24-105 f4L).

BUT..

If you can get that 70-210 Sigma working again then I think you are best served by the 300 f4L. I am a bit biased towards the quality of primes and I am considering the 300 f4L to added to the primes I carry (24,50, 85, 135).

Have you considered the Bigma?

[Keagle]

Yup - I'm going to call them tomorrow about rechipping. I had a look at the Bigma...but the lack of IS and it's weight puts me off, as I'm not the strongest guy. If I can't get the Sigma rechipped, would it be better to go for the 100-400mm then?

[usayit]

That is my thoughts... If you can't get the Sigma fixed my thoughts are the 100-400mm or something similar will fill in the gap just nicely.

[Keagle]

Thank you very much I'm contacting Sigma now. If they can't rechip it, or fix it, then I'll go for the 100-400mm.

[Alex_B]

Thank's for the help Alex B, do you ever find the IS too noisy? That's one of the only things I've heard that people have complained about.

Well, when it is switched on it makes a clock sound and then some buzzing ... first this was a bit unusual to me, but I got used to it. You will certainly hear it when waiting quietly for the beasts in the morning mist But I do not think it would scare them away, unless they are VERY close.

IS on the 300 mm is first generation IS I think, so the IS of more recent lenses compensates for more stops.

[Keagle]

Thank you for that So it's 2 stops improvement? Does AF still work with a 1.4x?

[usayit]

100-400mm L with 1.4x doesn't work to well unless you have a 1 series body

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWor...xExtender.html