Need lens recommendations

[Sea Monster]

I am using a Canon T2i with a Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Lens. I want to acquire a zoom or telephoto for wildlife (birds/critters). My preference is for a lens that can get me close enough so I will not have to crop in. The Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 looks good but something tells me it may not get me in close enough. However I am using a crop sensor camera so focal length will be adjusted. Any and all comments are appreciated.

[MN Shutterbug]

If your budget allows it, you can't go wrong with the Canon 100-400/f4 - 5.6. It's the most reasonably priced L lens there is. At least 95% of my shots are taken with this lens. Others swear by the 400/5.6, but I like the versatility of the zoom.

[CFRay]

I'll put up two pictures taken with a Canon 70-300IS on a 50D. I was about 20 feet away from the bluebird for this shot and its been cropped a tiny bit. The baseball shot was from 50 feet away but the subjects are much larger than a bird. 300 is not really long enough to be way back from the subject. It costs $375-400 these days. I'd like a 100-400L as well, those are $1200? Good Luck.

[Dbl]

If you do a search in the Photography section here there are actually quite a few discussions on the lens you mention. There is some very good information in a number of those threads.

[finnbay]

Mike is right on about the 100-400. When I'm out either riding or walking for wildlife, the 100-400 is my "walkaround" lens. It also works well for outdoor, daytime sports. It isn't a fast enough lens for indoor or "under the lights" sports photograhy - but then the 70-300 isn't either.

[hookncook]

Just picked up a 70-200 2.8 today.

Can't wait to get out and play with it!

[finnbay]

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a fantastic lens, but I find it's somewhat short for critter photography.

[hookncook]

My Vis-com instructor loves his 70-200 I got it on his recommendation. But what would you recommend for some good critter shooting.

Might be my next lens.

Thanks for your input!

[Spearing Machine]

I think you will find that most canon shooters here are going to suggest (as well as myself) the Canon 100-400 F/4-5.6 IS.

[hookncook]

Thanks! I'll have to make a few more shoots to justify the price of the 100-400 but I'll definitely add it to my "must have".

[Dbl]

And at about half the price of the 100-400 you could buy a 400/5.6 which is a very sharp from edge to edge and has fast focus. If you look at Canon's published MTF charts for the 400mm f/5.6 and the 100-400mm you'll see that the 400mm prime is a superior lens, no surprise since it is a prime. Of course that is what the charts say...your mileage may vary on your camera. With today's higher pixel cameras they put considerably more demand on lenses and your own technique. Just another opinion of course, but I would definitely shoot both and explore a few others before I upgraded.

[Dbl]

I will add a few thoughts which touch on a PM I received on lens selection.

It is my humble opinion that the best thing you can do when you are just getting into photography or upgrading lenses is to use what you have for a few months or more. Find out exactly what you shoot, how you shoot and look at your photo data. If you find you are constantly shooting at your maximum focal length then a longer lens might be in order. If you find you shoot with the lens wide open and in low light, a faster lens might be up next. Will the lens you own allow you to add a tele converter? Will it maintain auto focus and image quality when paired with a TC?

Take the time to see what your needs will be. I know it is hard in our "want it now and the grass is always greener" era but it is better to take your time and to base your decision on the lens that works best for you and your pocket book. There really is only one person who can best make the decision on equipment...and that is the person buying. These forums and knowledgeable mentors can provide excellent guidance on a direction to take so please use them for that.

The 100-400 is a great example. I owned one for 4 months. Did not like the quality of shots, focus speed was not what I wanted and the variable aperture zoom was a hindrance for MY SHOOTING. Most of the folks here are more than happy with that as a lens choice, it works for them. It just didn't work for me. Frankly most of my lenses have become primes. I looked at the camera data and found most of my shots were close to 400mm with the 100-400. Why have a zoom when most of my use was on the long end? I only use one zoom lens with any regularity, the 70-200/2.8. All of my other work horse lenses are primes. That works for ME and the type of shooting I do.

We could debate all day long about primes vs. zooms, starter vs pro qrade quality but it honestly is moot. For me I almost always carry two camera bodies, sometimes three with various lens choices. If I only carry one camera I carry one or two others lenses. If I want to carry one body and one lens what am I doing? Shooting landscapes, wildlife, city life, portraits? There is no one magical combination that works 100% of the time for everyone!!! If there was we would not have the huge selection of lenses and bodies available to us. Keep that in mind and gear selection becomes easier.

The bottom line, take your time to see what works for you before you rush to buy. There is plenty of inventory available from the manufacturers. The lens you want today is very likely going to be available next month, possibly at a higher price More gear might make you happy but it won't necessarily make you a better photographer. We have lots of beautiful photos that are shared every day on this site with Iphones, point and shoots and yes even DSLR's with starter lenses. Take more time into seeing how you can exploit what you have to produce the results that make YOU happy.

Take my advice for what it is worth, maybe not much but it has served me fairly well through shooting film and the transition to digital. I am a bit on the slow side evidenced by my many poor purchases and decisions, but finally have started to get a handle on what works for me and makes me happy over the past 32 years I have been involved with photography! Most folks given the instant feedback digital photography provides will be able to better see what works for them in a much shorter time frame!

[MN Shutterbug]

Regarding the 100-400, be advised that there are some soft copies out there. If you get a good copy, it will be extremely sharp. If not, you'd want to exchange it. If the light is decent, focus speed is adequate, but the lens does require good light. However, when I was at the bog a couple months ago with a friend, one day that we were shooting birds, it was a gray and gloomy day. My friend was shooting with a Sigma 150-500. He noticed my lens was having a tougher time that day, but he had to admit that it was still focusing faster than his Sigma.The variable aperture has never been a hindrance to me, but then I shoot mainly critters and Dan shoots mainly sports.I do admit that 95% of my shots are at the 400mm end, but one of my best selling photos of an eagle flying by with a fish, was shot at 270mm. He surprised me when he flew by that close, but if I would have been shooting a 400mm prime, I would have missed the shot.

I went back and forth between the prime and the zoom, before I bought my first lens. In my situation and shooting style, I'm glad I went with the zoom. I have a couple 16 X 24's shot with that lens hanging on my wall, that are sharp from end to end.

Good luck with your decision.

[Sea Monster]

Wow! Great responces eveyone. This is one of the best forums for photography advice I have been in. Apparently I will need a Canon lens (zoom or prime) to get the critter photos. Time to start picking up all those pennies I see lying in the street. To determine what I want, I am going to rent the zoom for a couple days then rent the prime and see what works best. Thanks again for the insight and practical advice.