I first started this thread as I had borrowed a neighbours Canon camera and lens and I was so impressed that I wanted advice from the forum members on what lens I should buy. I now have 2 choices that I want to have a look at. The thread has now evolved to include everyones favourite lens be it Nikon, Canon, Sigma or any other lens not mentioned. So if you would like to tell us all about your favourite lens just post away.
In the next couple of weeks I would like to head up to one of my local camera shops to have a look at Canon lenses and bodies. I have not wanted to go to a shop until I learn more as I really don't know what I am talking about and I think I will get lost in the lens jargon and leave the shop more confused. I am between the 7d and the body below but that is not really the problem as it will depend if I like the feel of them. I held the Nikon 7000 through the week which I did not like at all. I want to go for Canon simply because of its popularity and the resell value if I want to upgrade later in life!.
Anyway I was spoiled using the Canon EF Ultrasonic 35-350mm 3.5- 5.6 that I had on loan for a few days so I thought I would look in the lenses and see what my choices are available. Remember I am a complete novice and I am going to take my time learning and choosing the right lens. My gosh there are so many to choose from and the prices vary quite wildly. I have decided on what I want my new camera for and what I would really use the lens for giving me shots like the ones below. Not great but I want to practice this more. I have my fuji big zoom and that still gives me the faraway shots and I could not afford the lens that gives me the equivalent in canon terms. My budget on a lens is £1500 but if I can find a lens less I will obviously be pretty happy. I have also decided I would like to stick to a prime lens as I want quality of detail, sharpness and I really want a lens that will give me lovely "Bokeh!" hope I have the terminology is right. I was hoping that someone could point me in the right direction and suggest a few lenses that I could look at in the camera shop. I would like to have the Canon 350mm that I borrowed but maybe one of you experts could suggest a lens that I would like. I don’t really want to go below 300mm so that might mean a second hand lens. Forgot to add that I want that f. number quite high ie 3.5 ish. "Not asking for much eh!"
EF200ml f/2.8L IIUSM £600
EF200ml f/2L IS USM £1400
EF300mm f/4L IS USM £920
EF 300mm f2.8L IS II USM £4589 sadly cant afford this one!
The prices are just a guide and I am sure if I shopped about I could get them cheaper!
Thanks
Lolly, the payoff of fixed against zoom is always objective. A 300 prime is lighter, and will accept a converter, either 1.4X or 2X, and is higher quality. The 400 prime, is a bit of a beast, and very expensive, so I see why zooms are popular. For general use, (websites, and album photos), you wont see the difference in quality. Only when poster size will it be more noticeable. The camera body is less important than the glass, but check out the spec before you decide. Just to throw a spanner in the works, Nikon have a new box, D7100, which has a built in 1.3 times converter. Don't ask me how it works, but worth thinking about. (sorry canon lovers)
Take care all, Stich.
My gallery Here Flickr Here
If you really push me for a decision, I would go 300, and 1.4 converter. My wife uses a 300, cos it's not too heavy. She struggles with my 80-400 zoom cos it's a lot heavier. As said previously, the new Nikon has the built in 1.3 converter, so with the 300, would a versatile bit of kit.
Stich said:Nikon have a new box, D7100, which has a built in 1.3 times converter. Don't ask me how it works,
It's actually a "Crop Mode" rather than a built in tele converter lens. One claimed benefit of only using part of the sensor ( 15Mp instead of the full 24Mp ) is a faster burst rate of 7fps. Haven't seen any in depth reviews of this yet.
My gallery here
Checkout the forums' Community HOMEPAGE for lots of interesting posts from other members.
Lolly, you need to move to Suffolk, you could try the 300 f/4 + 1.4x or 100-400 straight from my camera bag :-) Stich makes a good point - the 300 is lighter - it's the lens Mrs WJ tends to use on the 40D whilst I'm lugging the Big White & 7D around. The hood is also built in, rather than attached each time you want to use it. That's both good and bad - good, as it's always there and you can't lose it. Bad if you clonk it and it breaks - you'd have to send it off for repair, whilst with the separate hood on the 100-400 you can simply go out and buy a new one.
___
Find me on Flickr / All about your camera - The Getting off Auto Index
Go armed with the prices at WEX - they're all genuine UK stock and are generally a good yardstick to measure others by. If the prices you're offred are higher, you have a good negotiation position :-)
Hi Lolly,
Just a few comments, hopefully to reassure you rather than confuse you!
Size IS everything: for birding, it's generally accepted that 400mm or greater is optimal, although that assumes you'll be doing "field work" as well as garden shots. So your "best" options for birding would be either the 400mm 5.6L or the 100-400mm f4-5.6L. (Unless you want to invest in a teleconverter - which significantly reduces your budget for the lens, but which may give you more flexibility overall).
Prime vs. Zoom: yes, prime lenses are generally better quality, but the Canon L-series tag means you're buying some of the finest bits of glass in the world. And that applies even to their zoom lenses. So, as long as you stick with the L-series - and unless you're a perfectionist OR are looking to create billboard-sized piccies - image quality is actually not the most important consideration.
More important are the other 3 factors previously mentioned, namely image stabilisation, close-focussing and flexibility. Let me just state for the record that I have the 400mm f5.6L and my birding mate has the 100-400m f4-f5.6L, so any observations here are based on knowledge and experience - not just theoretical:
Image Stabilisation (IS): We don't have many brilliant sunny days in this country, so IS is a consideration. With the prime lens, you would ideally be looking to use a shutter speed of 1/400th second or faster when hand-holding the camera. You'd be lucky to get a shutter speed of 1/60th second in most wooded areas on a gloomy spring day without boosting the ISO and risking a grainy pic. However, unless you're wandering around all the time, a good sturdy tripod (or a bean-bag resting on a convenient fence / tree stump / hide window-sill) solves those problems very easily. With the IS-enabled zoom, you can hand-hold at anything down to around 1/100th second and get away with it - and even lower if the lens is not fully extended.
Close-focussing: Not the 400mm prime lens's strong point but, as someone previously pointed out, it's not often you'll get so close to a bird that it becomes an issue. That said, at Leighton Moss yesterday, we came upon a family of dunnocks foraging amongst a pile of branches by the side of the path. They weren't unhappy with our presence and my mate, with his 100-400mm lens, was able to get some nice shots. I would have had to walk backwards 10 feet into the undergrowth to get a shot! (Thankfully I have dunnocks in my back garden... but you get the point!).
Flexibility: There will be times when 400mm is just too much! Occasionally, I can be at an RSPB feeder station when a pheasant hops up onto one of the tables. My 400mm will give me a fantastic "head and shoulders" shot (do pheasants have shoulders?), while my mate can zoom out and get the full picture.
If that sounds as though I'm pushing you towards the 100-400mm, then I make no apologies - it's a fantastic lens, especially (and this is REALLY important!) if you only have the budget for one lens. Would I trade my 400mm prime for a 100-400mm zoom? Not for the world! But there are times when I wish I had both...
It's a big decision, Lolly - best of luck!
Roy.
PS. Just to clear something up: it's a SMALLER f-number that allows more light to enter the camera - which is why the Canon 400mm f2.8L is such a massive, expensive beast! However, both the lenses mentioned above are f5.6 at the 400mm end, so that shouldn't affect your decision in any way.
God loved the birds and invented trees. Man loved the birds and invented cages - Jacques Deval
Photos on Flickr
PS. Any decent camera shop will let you take in your own CF card and try the 7D with any lens you like. Take a number of shots - preferably outside or at the door, if they'll let you - and make a note of which images are taken with which lens. DON'T buy there and then; take the CF card home and have a look at the images on your computer. Then go back and buy the camera / lens you're most happy with.
I use Calumet in Manchester (there's one in Edinburgh too) and they were happy to let me do that when I bought my lens.
If any of the lenses being considered were new to the market or were getting mixed reviews in any of the excellent responses you've received to date, then rental might be a good way to put your mind at rest. But all the lenses mentioned to date are tried, tested and used by birders everywhere - so I'd recommend you don't waste your budget on renting.
It really comes down to what feels right to you when you get your hands on the kit. Take your time in the shop and make sure you get a good feel of the camera and lens(es) you're considering. Try all the different settings, make sure the focussing feels right, make sure the zoom (if applicable) is smooth and the weight is manageable around your neck and in your hands. Don't let the assistants rush you - sometimes it helps if you tell them you're not going to buy today (manage their expectations), but let them know that you are serious and "will definitely buy from them"!
Calumet staff tend to be serious photographers themselves and will understand that this is a biggie for you!
Let us know how you get on.
Cheers,
OK, the sun has appeared this morning and I've snatched a few mins away from the hundreds of emails to do you some (hopefully) helpful shots of the 300mm f/4, the 100-400 and (for fun) the 600mm f/4. All bare, with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. The pics below are all reduced size - I didn't think the RSPB servers would cope with 9 x 15MB pics! However, the full size ones are under "Technical Tinkering" on my Flickr site and are probably better to see the detail and make any comparisons http://www.flickr.com/photos/whistling_joe/sets/72157624539737303/ I've done the same basic post-processing to each - not made any particular effort, just tweaks to colour, saturation, sharpness etc. Each pic is shot wide open too. Shooting wide open (ie at f/4 where possible) is not ideal with any lens - sharpness improves when you stop down a little (eg that f/4 lens will be sharper at f/5.6 and even better at f/8), but when taking pics of wildlife, invariably the light isn't brilliant, you need to keep the shutter speed up etc so you often don't get much choice. I fixed the ISO at 640 - something middling and a bit more realistic than 100! Basically, I was trying to make the shots typical rather than seeking absolute perfection. Distance to target was around 12m (the lenses reported wildly different distances!). Autofocus was used for all pictures, when the aperture got above f/5.6, I used Liveview AF.
First the 100-400 at 400mm, 560mm and 800mm
Now the 300 f/4 at 300mm, 420mm & 600mm
And finally for giggles, the 600mm f/4 at 600mm, 840mm and 1200mm
Unknown said: X post with Joe
X post with Joe
Lol!
First person to compare us to busses gets a clonk on the bonce from a 100-400 :-)