Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nymph

Another lens ?

21 posts in this topic

Was trying to decide what lens to get for shooting birds. I have it down to the canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 is usm or the 70-200 f/4L usm. The price difference isn't that much and was wondering if the longer reach and the IS would be better for wildlife shooting or would the L lens work better...faster shooting ect.

Any other suggestions welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The longer reach wins hands down. The 70-200 f4 will be a bit sharper than the other zoom, but not a lot sharper, and with birds you need every bit of focal length muscle you can get. The IS is quite nice, as well, and in low light especially you'll love having it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve. That locked me in on the 75-300 and will be ordering my xsi with it tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to throw in my two cents worth (and that's all it's worth). I'd say stick with Steve's advice in regards to focal length. I have the 100-400 and am still often wanting for more focal length. So much so that my long term goal is to pick up the 500 f/4 (we'll see how long that takes). That aside, I have the 70-200 f/4 and it is very sharp and focuses quickly. With a 1.4x teleconverter, you get a 280mm combo at f/5.6 that still focuses accurately enough to capture BIF images (if you can get close enough) and with the 70-200, you get a top notch longer portrait lens, that will function better in lower light situations than the 75-300. The downfall is that you'll have to spend an additional $250+ to get the converter, but if you really get into taking bird photos you will want the converter someday anyway as you feel compelled to purchase longer and longer (read pricier and pricier) glass to go with your new Xsi.

*Side note, it just dawned upon me that the 75-300 has IS (if my memory serves me) and as such would be a wash with the 70-200 in lower light situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any other lens one should consider is this range? The wife and I will be buying one of these two for Christmas.....everyone says to go with the L glass.....but it sounds like the difference is not that big? I would really like to have some focal length to get more pictures of wildlife, dogs working, some birds. The kit lens is not cutting it right now.

I am leaning towards the 75-300 IS at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the 75-300 IS for a year and took some great shots with it. Would have kept it except that I was really getting into shooting sports indoors and needed a faster lens. Except for that one area, I was very happy with the lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hemi, it's just a tossup for many between the 75-300 IS and the 70-200 f4 nonIS.

Definitely less expensive to choose the former to get to 300mm than to go with the 70-200 and 1.4 teleconverter. There are differences in image quality, but you can get very nice image quality out of the 75-300. I started with a 70-300 Tamron of lower quality than the Canon, and I'm still selling images today that I took with that lens five years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok gents, I'd like to here your opinion on Canon's 28-300mm. It seems to me that it offers a wide range of shooting capacity. Not the longest and far from the strongest. I was just interedted in hearing your imput... grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stu, the only knock I've heard about the lens is it's not especially sharp, and for $2,200 +, it's potentially a lot of money for a soft piece of L glass. I have not shot it myself but have pixel peeped at a lot of images from it and they do appear uniformly slightly softer than the 100-400. But we know pixel peeping is not the best way to evaluate a lens. It's all in the print.

I'd have no hesitation using it for, say, weddings, newspaper photojournalism and some portrait situations, because ultimate sharpness is not always the most important goal in certain types of photography.

As a nature/wildlife lens, I'd hesitate not only because of that softness but because it's a lot of money for what you get.

All just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the new Sigma 150-500 IS HSM It's getting great reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM, it's a good bit more expensive than either the 75-300 IS or the 70-200 f4L. But if a person has the few hundred more it'd cost, that's a really good option for excellent reach and good image quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im looking for a 500mm len's for a Nikon D80.. Doesnt have to be too fast but most im finding are F8's... If anyone knows someone who is getting rid of one could you please let me know.

Zeke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have not made up my mind between that and the 70-200 F4......ut is the 75-300 IS still available new or should I be looking for the 70-300 IS?

I don't see it on Andorama or B&k .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hemi, I always forget whether it's the 75-300 or the 70-300. There's only one Canon IS lens in that range, and it's the 70-300. There are two other Canon 75-300 non IS lenses available new.

Check out Canoga Camera online. Plus there's a $50 instant rebate on the 70-300 IS that knocks the price down below $500.

If you are still making up your mind and money is an object, in contrast it'll cost you $590 for the 70-200 f4L and another $290 for the Canon 1.4 TC needed to get you to about 300mm. I'm not recommending against it, just pointing things out. Couple other things. To get to the 280mm with the 70-200/TC combo, you'll be at f5.6, so you won't gain any aperture over the 70-300, and you won't have IS.

For image quality, when you go pixel peeping you'll be able to see a difference in IQ between the 70-300 and 70-200 (the latter being a bit better). Just a matter of which combination of price and utility interests you more.

If paying $880 for the 70-200/TC combo doesn't faze you, I definitely back up MM's recommendation on the Sigma 150-500 OS (optical stabilization, like Canon's IS and Nikon's VR), for about $1,000. It's only about $100 more than the aforementioned combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will chime in since I've owned both.

If you are buying the lens for it's range,definately go with the 70-300IS. The 70-200 is a great lens,but adding the 1.4x extender will put the price to $800,and when adding the 1.4,the sharpness is reduced to worse than that of the 70-300 [in my tests] anyway and the aperture will be the same too. [5.6] Not to mention you will still be 20mm shy of the 300.

The 70-300IS also has the 2 stage IS which is standard and panning mode.

I have alot of images on the wall that were made with the 70-300is-it's a great lens with alot of features. I believe it also has a UD element in the lens group.

The 70-300IS is similar to the 17-55 2.8 IS-while they aren't "L" class lenses,they both can produce "L" quality images.

You will really enjoy the 70-300IS. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked to the wife a little more. I guess we are looking at $1000 tops on a lens. I don't think she is interested in the 100-400, so that's out. She wants more of an all around lens. She mentioned possibly looking at the 70-200 f4 IS lens, and I have found a few for around $800/used. So that's now thrown into this. I don't think the Sigma will work for us....as that thing is a tank. We are wanting something that can be carried around somewhat easily...although I think the 70-200 are a little bulkier. I think at this point image quality is a little more of a concern than zoom...although not by a ton.

A couple more things to throw out there. We are beginners shooting an Xti with the kit 18-55 lens. We DO NOT have a tripod.....and I know we need to get one of those also so we may have to adjust somewhat here but we have our price point set for whatever we by...lens or combination of things. Most of our shooting will be hand held....thus why the 70-200 IS has come into mind. We definitely would/will use a tripod when we can, but a lot of what we do I don't always see us using one. If I am out in the field hunting, or in the duck blind, or on a walk in the field with the dog.....I like to grab and shoot and don't see myself carrying a tripod a lot of the time. The wife likes to shoot flowers and such, family gatherings....not sure how the 70-200 would work for that.

If the 1.4 converter does in fact reduce the sharpness by that much on the 70-200 over the 70-300, I don't see myself buying the 1.4 at this time. Quite frankly, good sharp images are really what I want. The extra zoom would really come in handy....but I have a feeling I might be disappointed if I don't get the IQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 70-200F4L IS is the version I had. It was a great lens and very sharp,but I needed the F2.8 version. It did well with the 1.4x extender losing a small amount of IQ. The image below was with that lens+1.4xTC. Hopefully it can help your decision.

IMG_2351.jpg

Want my advise? well, here it is anyway grin

If you have the green light to spend $1000 go for the 70-200F2.8L non-IS lens-MUCH more versatile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Canon guy but you can't beat the 70-200mm 2.8 for a great all around lens. If she wants some close up flower shots all you need are some inexpensive extension tubes. They decrease your minimum focus distance so you can get great close-ups and they do not affect your image quality. I have a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and I use it ALL the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the Tamron AF 70-300 F4-5.6 Di on my XSI body and I love it. I like using the macro side of the lense.. Not a bad lense for the money. I have used the 1.4 teleconverter and you need to make sure that you pay attention to what you are doing. It works great but it will take some practice to get used to overcoming its shortcomes. Ive used it indoors while shooting pics of my son wrestling and maybe they were not the greatest shots I at least could do the reach out and touch somebody shots from a position that gave me some nice angle shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just purchased the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS and think it is a good lens. I do wish it had a little more reach for birding.

Here is a shot that was taken through a window. You can check out some of my posts as that is the only lens I am using right now.

12202008107jpg1edited4re7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want my advise? well, here it is anyway grin

If you have the green light to spend $1000 go for the 70-200F2.8L non-IS lens-MUCH more versatile.

Man...now you really have us thinking. I am going to start a new thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Tomorrow we will be back at it
    • I am giving it a last hurrah tomorrow. Sorry I haven't been able to check in here much. I have hardly been able to get out this year between work, a baby at home, and a recent trip out of the country for a relative's wedding.    Last time I was out I had a real nice Tom within 20 yards after a very long standoff. I think I screwed it up by rushing myself a bit. He stood around 50 yards out literally strutting back and forth like someone had drawn a line in the mud that he wouldnt cross. He must not have wanted to fight with the strutter decoy we had out. He did that for 45 minutes to an hour and finally came our way after a hen led him towards us.    They came past us but were outside the decoys and angling slightly away from us. Then the tom turned and started angling straight at the strutter decoy. That meant he was basically quartering to me and when he was 15-17 yards or so out I drew because in the back of my mind i was thinking if he kept moving that way and past the decoy he would quickly be in a spot I would have had no shot.   In hindsight I think he had realized (once he got close enough) that he would have been able to whoop up on the decoy and he was coming in to do just that. I probably should have waited to see, but I didn't and right as I hit the backwall of my draw his head popped up on alert and he turned around and walked straight away knowing something wasn't quite right. I could have easily shot at him at 20 yards but he was facing away and I just didn't feel comfortable. I am confident I would have hit my mark but I didn't like shooting at something walking straight away when I am not experienced with bow hunting turkeys.   I know some people will say that I should have shot, but I have been bow hunting for awhile and never wounded anything because of a poor shot or poor shot selection, so I didn't want that to be a first. Hopefully I get a shot at redemption tomorrow!
    • Way to go team!! I sure took the avg score down with my jake
    • nice story, fishing has a way of easing the pains we have. even when we hurt like crazy when done for the day we are looking forward to the next outing.
    • way to go, guys yep, the toms not about to give up even though its close to closing time have seen several strutters the past couple weeks and heard gobbles yesterday while fishing
    • great job. makes it 5 for 5 for team 5 congrats on a nice tom, 57 and that willl give our team score a boost
    • One More Cast      Photo by:  Roger Abraham   If any of you out there are regular readers of my tales, you have followed my recent struggles with back and knees.  I can’t put a name to this drive I have to be on the stream as of late.  It borders on obsession. I guess in my mind if I am healthy enough to fish the world is right with me and I am not getting old and feeble.      Today I was a witness to that I am not the only one.  Lots of anglers and hunters live to go out into the outdoors. .  It is what drives them.  It makes them feel alive.  It is their passion.  I told my fishing buddy Abe today my thoughts.  I told him how I was feeling a little old.  I guess my 60th birthday coming up next month makes me feel mortal.  Abe laughed and said I was a young buck compared to him.  Abe turns 76 this year.     Abe told me tales about catching big trout in tiny streams in Wisconsin and out west.  The twinkle in his eye when he reminisced I had seen before in many trout anglers.      We fished a stretch for 2 hours.  I sat down and rested often.  Abe kept on fishing. He got hung up in a box elder branch and lost a lure.  Abe told me box elders trees were his nemesis when he fished.   He asked me which tree was my kryptonite.  I told him, "ones with branches."  We both had a chuckle and continued fishing.   I thought to myself this guy is really driven.  I hope I am like him at 76.     We got to the vehicle and Abe wanted to continue fishing.  Abe’s waders sprang a leak earlier and he fell in the water a couple times.  He was quite wet.  He wanted to change in to dry clothes before we continue.  Abe peeled off his wet shirt and there were two things stuck to his chest.  He could tell by my questioning look he needed to tell me what was up.     Abe told me he had been having heart problems lately and he was supposed to be wearing a heart monitor.  He left it in the car because he was afraid of getting the electronics wet.  Here I have been whining about being old and the guy I was fishing with left his heart monitor in his vehicle.      Abe reassured me that he was in no danger and he could continue fishing.  I started brainstorming on a place to fish where it was not so hard walking.  Now that I knew he was not as healthy as he looked I wanted an easy place to fish.  I knew the place and it was upstream 5 miles.     We arrived at the well manicured field.  It looked like a golf green.  I picked the area because the farmer kept sheep and goats on the land and the weeds and brush were gone because of the goats.  We walked and fished.     Abe told tales of the old days and of fish lost and landed.  I walked a little forward to fish and looked back to check up on Abe.  What I saw when I looked back scared me and I immediately asked Abe if he was ok.  Abe was laying flat on the ground face down.  I thought the worst and he could tell by my face.  He told me to calm down.  His back was acting up and he needed to straight it out and that was the best way to do it.   We fished a little bit more and he took a photo of me.  He liked the lighting. He told me it captured the essence of trout fishing.  He did not have a camera.  I let him use mine.  He was not camera savvy and needed an impromptu lesson on how to use it.   We drove to his car and we talked about our love of the outdoors. We shook hands and headed our separate ways and promised to fish again soon.  As I drove home I smiled and thought about how I am going to be when I am 76.  I hope I am like Abe and my eyes still twinkle when I talk of chasing trout and I am still driven to make one more cast.
    • The past week has had me having multiple close calls and missing a brute at 45 yards.  Tonight I talked my dad to give it another try and there were birds in the field when we got there.  Birds ended up leaving as we tried to sneak in.  A short 20 minutes later they were back and we watched and worked the big group of toms and hens for more than 2 hours before we got one to commit.  Dad shot him with his 20 gauge at 48 yards,(this thing shoots an awesome pattern).  The 3 year old was down and only flopped a few times.   Nice 1+ inch spurs, 10" beard and heavy.  A good evening for sure!
    • Sorry to disappoint guys, but this tom was not my first bird of the season. Apparently that's part of the rules. The score won't count towards the team. I don't have any measurements for the jake I shot so we will have a zero from me.    At least my freezer is full. 
  • Our Sponsors