Looking for an upgrade in lenses

[Spearing Machine]

Hey all! I currently have the standard cannon lens (18-55) and a 55-250. I am just a college student but I am out as much as possible photographing what i see and do. I have found out what most of you already know waterfowl is not easy to capture and most of the time its tough to get close for a decent picture. Over the last few weeks i have seen some beautiful captures by some of you and wonder if most of them are the actual picture or alot of cropping was involved?? Advice to trying to find the bird in the viewfinder and getting a quality picture?? Zoom out, find it, and quickly move in a start snappin??

So my main question is what type/size lens should i look for as it seems a 55-250 isnt quite powerful enough ( i know though it will never seem you have enough reach on the zoom) Will there be a big difference if i look into a 70-300?? Ideas If i can find a good used lens for a good deal i would be interested. Thanks!

[dukhnt]

Since you already have a 250, upgrading to a 300 doesn't give you a whole lot extra. I picked up my 170-500mm used for what I feel was a pretty good price. You could also pick up a teleconverter that would give you extra reach if you wanted to try that out.

As for trying to find the bird in the viewfinder. It just takes a lot of practice. I grew up waterfowl hunting, so when I started to take waterfowl pictures it kind of came naturally on the following of the bird.

[MN Shutterbug]

Actually, most of us shoot with at least 400mm. Myself, along with many others, use the Canon 100-400L lens. Sometimes it's overkill, but most of the time, it barely does the job, if it all. You are right, waterfowl in flight is not easy. The best advice is to practice, practice and practice some more. Also, cropping doesn't change the actual picture. It just magnifies it and allows you to change it to a more pleasing composition.

If you can find a park with a pond or by a river, where the waterfowl is used to people, you have found an excellent place to practice.

[MN Shutterbug]

I grew up waterfowl hunting, so when I started to take waterfowl pictures it kind of came naturally on the following of the bird.

I will readily admit, hitting them with a shotgun was actually easier.

[2u77matt]

X is right. It's way easier to hit the bird with a shotgun than a 400+ mm lens. It's like trying to shoot a flying bird with a shotgun, but the shotgun only has a riflescope for aiming. I'm only a week into my 400mm experiment, and getting fast flying birds in the viewfinder has been a big struggle so far.

I've found that starting with the lens set to infinity focus helps a lot since most of the birds are a long ways off. This allows you to at least see the bird before attempting to autofocus. Also, make sure the camera is set-up to use the full array of focus sensors. I was so used to using just the center point that I forgot I had that feature until after an afternoon of frustration.

On the lens: I'd definitely recommend something 400 mm+. I've heard good things about a newer Sigma 500 zoom with OS in terms of bang for your buck. I decided to go with a used 400 5.6L. I think you could find a good one in the $850-$900 range if you are comfortable buying used. I know that's still a lot for a college student, but they do hold there value quite well. If you take care of it you should be able to get a good chunk of your investment back when you sell it (unless Canon releases some major technology change).

[MN Shutterbug]

The 9 or 7 point AF would be fine, if there are no other objects in the viewfinder. If there is, the camera may decide that they are more important and choose those points instead. On single birds, I always use center point AF. I think it's the only way to be guaranteed sharp focus on the intended target. A flock of ducks may be a different story. At least with plenty of focus points, your chance of hitting one of the targets increases. That would beat missing the whole bunch. To be honest, the only time I've used 9 point AF is for landscapes. I guess my actual experience in the matter is limited. What works for me, may not work for the next person, and vice versa.

[2u77matt]

Certainly listen to X and not me. After thinking about it, the 9 point AF probably only worked for me because I have been doing mostly shooting with a plain sky background. I will definitely need more practice to track reliably with just the center point. The worst is when the bird is fairly close, I finally get it in focus, the center point slides off the bird, and the focus goes to infinity. I guess it just takes a lot of practice.

[Hwood]

Quality goes down after I go past 200 on my 300. Listen to these guys, and save for it if you have to. I have been meaning to put up a post about this and ask if I would be better off by getting a 1.4x or a 2x and then staying under 200. If so it maybe something to consider for yourself. A good 400 or 500 is not going to happen for some time for myself.

[DMN]

I also like just center point focus so it doesn't lock on something other than the subject. One thing you could try if you are using a zoom lens is to start trying to find your bird with the lens zoomed wider and when you get it in the viewfinder you can zoom in.

Dan