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

    • I am going to pick up a box to pattern against what I am shooting now. Here is my question. They are available in both 1 3/4 oz. shot and 1 7/8 oz. shot in 12 gauge. In a 3" 12 gauge #5 shot shell, that comes out to a 21 pellet difference. The velocity for 1 3/4 is 1200 fps, for 1 7/8 is 1080. At 20 yards it would make very little difference, but say at 45 yards would you rather have the extra 21 pellets or the added velocity? I suppose the answer is to buy both and pattern them, but I am curious as to the thoughts of the folks on this board. Thanks
    • I was looking to get an otter XT pro cabin this winter, I was wondering of anyone on here has an otter in the pro platform and how they like the extra insulated walls. Does it seem bulky? Too warm on above 0 days? I wouldn't mind just the normal cabin but they only offer it with a bench it seems but having the extra insulation may be nice to have for those cold days here and there. 
    • Thank You for the very interesting and enjoyable morning read
    • we have the 4.6 merc and found it bogged down until we popped new plugs in and it ran like a champ.  This boat sees well over 75-80% of its time trolling, but throttles down when we first go out each time.  Might be a different beast but in most motors hammering down once or twice each time you use it should be enough to keep things clean as long as your running non oxy gas.
    • Ex-Fishing Guide Daze  
      I quit guiding nine years ago. I did it for five years and met quite a few characters and curmudgeons during those guiding dazes.  Come take a journey with me through the years.


      Typically I would ask clients prior to taking them out their skill level. Most under reported their casting prowess but quite a few exaggerated. I would also ask them their personal best brook and brown trout. I also got a handle on what their best numbers day was. My goal was to put them on more trout and bigger trout than they had ever caught.


      I would say 70 percent of the time they caught more than had ever caught and 60 percent of the time they would leave with their personal best as far as size.  The best brown trout during the time period was twenty seven inches.  The longest brook trout was sixteen and three quarters.   I am particularly proud of my three tiger trout morning in 2005 on a tiny secluded stream in Crawford County.  


      I have a fond memory of a father son tandem. It was the son's first exposure to trout fishing. It was a golden trip. This new to trout fishing beginner was hooked for life on trout fishing. His dad was as proud as a peacock of his son. He told me that his son was hooked for life and profusely thanked me for the outstanding outing.


      The father and son team are still chasing trout to this day together. They have expanded their horizons and fish in other places. At least once a year I get a post card from some exotic location. Their streams are in Germany and Italy and as far away as New Zealand, The post card has a trout or a stream on the front. The only thing on the message part of the post card each time was two words. Thank you


      I one time had a guy catch his personal best brook and brown but he told me at the end of the outing that he was disappointed and was not tipping me and would give me a bad review if I didn't give him another FREE outing because He had not caught a giant. He told me my page was false advertising because he had not caught a 23 inch plus brown. A long story short...I never took him again and no tip.


      I had a well known angler once refuse to ride in my vehicle because I had the wrong presidential candidate bumper sticker.  My vehicles through those years had many muddy boots and wet waders in them.      I ran into a couple on vacation once that had matching Wisconsin Badger sweatshirts on.  We talked because of our Wisconsin roots.  Come to find I had given a presentation at their son’s school and he now wanted to be a fishing guide as a profession when he grew up.  The odds of running into this couple in Florida were astronomical.  


      Once I had a guy contact me. He told me he had a disabled son and he wanted some easy places to take him. Me being gullible I gave him a couple good places. I later found out this guy was a guide and he lied to me and was looking for easy places to take clients. I once donated a trip to a VFW for an injured Gulf War veteran.  I ended up taking that vet and his father fishing.  The son was severely handicapped and took many accommodations to make it back out on the water.  The smile on his face when he caught a decent trout will forever be etched in my memory.     I presented at a couple nursing homes also.  The audience was much smaller typically but very rewarding.  Many of the residents were died in the wool outdoors people and had not been able to be “out there” for decades and the photos and my tales took them back to their younger years.


      I sat in on a couple auctions of trips I donated to cancer research and other charities.  I even presented to one of these charities to get the bidding started.  It gave me a great feeling of self satisfaction to see my guided trip bring $8,000 dollars for cancer research.  Other donations had totaled $5,000 dollars at other events prior.  Anglers have huge hearts and it was quite obvious at these events and it made me feel very proud to be a part of making money to fight cancer.     I believed in showing clients a good time. I was new to guiding and really humped to turn clients on to good fish and numbers. My success made the long time established guides in the area look lazy and inept. I had 2 of them say I was padding my numbers and lengths of trout.
      One time a client liked the stretch so well that we fished he went back the next day and tried to buy the land from the owner. I knew the owner well and he was thinking about selling but the guy wanted to post the land and especially not let me back on there. The land owner declined to sell.

      Once a fly shop owner told me I was going to do a FREE presentation at his shop. He didn't ask. He told me I would do it or he was going to spread lies about me and ruin my guide reputation. I didn't do the presentation.

      Karma has a way of repaying back deceitful folks. The shop owner lost his shop shortly thereafter and went to work for a large fishing chain store and later fell off the edge of the trout world. I was befriended by a long time guide from the area when I first started guiding.  We fished a couple of my better areas with the promise from him he would never take clients back to my favorite spots.  Two days later I found him there with three car loads of people.  I rolled up on him just exiting his vehicle.  I asked him what was up?  He explained to me he was keeping his promise.  The four other anglers with him were not clients but “guides” from other states.


      I had a client that would only use crawlers and he didn't ever keep any trout but refused to go barbless and to set the hook on the first bite. He typically waited for the second or third nibble. The trout were very hard to get the hook out and I felt bad for them.


      One season I was hired to be a long time retired Green Bay Packer's exclusive guide for the year trout fishing. He matched my year prior's total. He only went out with me 10 times that year. I got to wear his Super Bowl One and Two rings at the same time.  He told the same story almost every time we went out.  It was about the iconic quarterback sneak in the Ice Bowl.  I got the in the huddle story prior to the frigid play that only the center and quarterback knew of the last second. My packer friend introduced me to a legend of the college basketball coaching world.  This man was quite a gentleman and a character.  He will forever be known for his throwing of a chair onto the court during a game.  He told me about his mindset before and after the incident.


      During my 5 years of guiding I donated over 40 guided outings to charity and non-profits. One of my donated guided trips was with a couple school teachers and they were new to trout angling.  They had a wonderful outing.  Trout fishing is a male dominated pursuit but I would put this female principal and science teacher up against any male anglers. I presented at over 50 schools through the years for free.  It was very fulfilling watching the children’s faces.  I mixed in spiders and snapping turtles into my photo show.  Along with the creepy crawlers and snakes I mixed in flowers and breathtaking scenery photos.  My only mission I had at each school presentation was to plant the seed and leave that school knowing I had turned those kids on to the wonders of the outdoors.  I once had a contract from Field and Stream to do a 12 photo layout and feature story for them on a famous angler/hunter I took out regularly. I told the guy a couple weeks prior to our outing and he oked it.


      He showed up on the day of the trip at 10:45am and we fished for an hour and he then went turkey hunting. He didn't like any of the photos and refused to let me use them. The story and photos were to get me a $2,000 pay day and notoriety.  I took the guy for FREE each time to say I guided him and to use photos in articles.  
      I also had him ask me when I was going to pay him for fishing with me. He typically got 80,000 dollars an hour for speaking. The same guy let out seven different swear words in one sentence when I failed to clear his back cast for him and he caught a tree.


      He also had an aversion to losing flies. He would go under water and crawl out in tree limbs to retrieve flies. This angler grew to be too high maintenance for me and I handed him off to a friend to entertain.  
      During the guide daze I learned how secretive trout anglers are. I swear they would give you their first born child before they would give you information on a stream.  A Midwest Flyfishing Magazine article I had written even caused an angler to knock on my front door to talk to me to voice his frustration with me publicizing “his” streams. 


      I had a featured article in American Angler magazine. The editor told me that good articles typically received at least 6-7 angry emails from anglers because of giving too much attention to "their" fishing area. The editor contacted me later and said I got 13 hate emails.


      I once had a client do so well he didn't have enough money with him to tip me adequately and he was a former employee of Gerber Knife company and he gave me eight high end knives he had new in their boxes as a tip.    
      I once had three rich guys fish with me all at once. They were talking about buying a medical supply company. The company was on the market for 750,000 dollars. They split the price in threes. Four years later they fished with me again and bragged they had just sold the company for 23 million.


      The majority of anglers I guided were excellent anglers and stand up good citizens. They were mostly from the Midwest.  A couple came from other places in the states and as far away as Germany and Italy.  The regulations in other countries are baffling I learned from my foreign clients.  No one ever got skunked when they went with me.


      I have had my glasses and cap ripped off by clients numerous times by clients in a hurry. I have been hooked in the hand, arm, ear, face and head. When you guide you must watch and not fish yourself.  It felt like going to a gold mine without a shovel.     In the last four years I have had four knee surgeries and one back fusion.  I still get out on the water as often as my body allows.  It is a chapter of my life I would not have omitted from my journey.  Guiding was fulfilling but it took its toll on my body and my soul.  I love the outdoors and would not have missed a second of wading and talking and learning on the streams of rural Wisconsin.     Len Harris trout fishing guide 2003-2008.
    • 4-stroke or 2-stroke motor?
    • Glad to hear you're back up and running again.          
    • I got my boat back today and it runs great now but the mechanic said I had too many idling hours on it and it had a lot of carbon build up. I have trolled a lot with this motor . It has ran great but I did have  this recent issue with it where I had to bring it in and it runs good now. Mechanic recommended run it more often at higher rpm's.  For those that troll with their main engine,  how often do you run in a higher rpm's? I  use carbon guard  and thought that that would prevent the carbon buildup.  If I trolled for three or four hours at a higher RPM would that be too much ?          
    • Saw some reports from Algoma that looks like fishing has picked up some out there and some bigger fish being caught. I'm not ready for snow yet but I hope we actually get some this year. 
  • Our Sponsors