I have a great desire to do wildlife photography, but am very much a beginner. I just bought a Canon rebel Xti and would like to get some additional lenses/equipment. I'm interested in shooting all wildlife including close ups of insects. Money is an issue, but I'm willing to stretch things a bit. Can anyone suggest a good zoom lens(es) to start with? Any info regarding teleconverters, macro lenses (really any advice at all) would also be appreciated.
If money is an issue, I would recommend the Canon 100-400 mm. Perhaps by a teleconverter. The problem is when doing wildlife so many people like to see the focussed animal and blurred background. To get that nice blurring effect you need a lens with an aperture around f2.8, you can get by with f5.6, get by enough.
Really it all depends on what you want to do with your pictures and what you are trying to convey. I would recommend that 100-400 lens, I believe it is in the ball park of roughly $1200-$1600, much cheaper then the 400mm f2.8 which generally runs $6500 -$8000. Good luck and post your photos for feedback, that is how we learn and get better
Oh yea, you'll also want a good tripod.
The 100-400 L IS is my go-to wildlife lens. It's not quite as sharp wide open at max focal length as the best Canon prime lenses, but it's plenty sharp enough to produce marketable images. I cherish the flexibility of a zoom. The 100-400 also can almost double as a good macro lens. It's closest focus distance is just under six feet, and it works well for flower/butterfly photography. With the addition of a set of extension tubes (autofocus is lost, as is distance focus), it becomes a macro-equivalent lens, though a very unwieldy one. It's right about at $1,400 now.
If you really want close-up insect photography, you may be able to get by with the Canon 100mm macro, but that may not have a far away enough working distance. It's quite sharp and very fast focusing. Since most of my macro work is on flowers, not critters, it has plenty of working distance for me. It sells for between $400 and $500. Insects, however, sometimes demand a longer working distance, and then you have to more than double the price to get the Canon 180mm L macro. If you want to stick with Canon, that is. There are options out there from some of the other lens makers such as Tamron and Sigma that are around 150mm, if memory serves, and are quite sharp, as well as being less expensive than the Canon 180mm.
Another option to consider, the route I chose, is the 300mm f/4 IS (I think around $1100). This is a very sharp lens, and my most-used after the 17-40mm. You can use a 1.4X converter to get to 420mm for wildlife/birds (but your maximum aperture then becomes f/5.6 like the 100-400mm zoom). I've used this lens to photograph sports, too. I've also taken some nice flower shots with the 300mm. And for macro, I have combined the 300mm with my 36mm Kenko extention tube with some great results. Just another option to consider...
I completely agree with Stacy - my 300/4 (Nikon) is my can't be without lens. As she mentioned with an extension tube, it's awesome for dragonflys, butterflys and other larger insects and flora; coupled with a teleconverter (1.7x in my case) it suffices for birds and wildlife. I promise you, you will never regret the purchase.
I'll add another vote for the 100-400 L IS. I have been using it for several years now and love it. Yes, it is not nearly as sharp and my 500 f4 IS, but it costs 80% less! you will not get good results with a TC on the 100-400. I found the results to be spotty and intermittent. However the flexibility of the zoom is fantastic. It is my most used lens. You will hear about the 100-400 being a dust sucker - it is. You will hear that it is not sharp - I find mine is quite sharp. However, I did have it calibrated by Canon shortly after I got it. This made the lens very very good. After a trip to Africa where dust is a way of life I sent it in again for cleaning and calibrating. It continues to be my go to lens for most situations other than birds and far away wildlife.
While I have not used the combination I believe the 300 f4 IS with 1.4 TC is about the same sharpness as the 100-400.
For macro I love the 100 f 2.8 Macro. While it is not an "L" lens it should be. It is superbly sharp and easy to use.
What ever you get have fun and enjoy the addiction we all suffer from.
Before you spend kilo-bucks I would suggest you try some cheaper options to get more out of the lens(es) you have. Canon makes a very fine screw-on close-up lens: the 500D. It will set you back $100 or more, depending on size, but that's cheaper than a "real" macro lens and it will either whet your appetite, or show you that insect photography is not as fun as you thought it would bee.
You don't say which lens(es) you have, but if they're zooms, an extension tube is likely to drive you mad when doing macro photography. Too many things change at once when you have a zoom lens on an extension tube. At least that was my experience. You'll likely want to focus manually and everytime you zoom the focus and the magnifcation will change. That's what happened to me and I've been mad ever since.
If you don't have them already you should get a tripod and a remote release of some sort. If you can stop your camera from moving you only have to worry about your subject be still, in focus, interesting, perfect, etc.....
I started with a 500D Pete - and never liked it on a zoom. The weight of it constantly pulled the manual focus out (however, that was before I was buying quality lenses). It's now just sitting in a drawer. If you go that route Rene, I'll let you borrow mine for a bit.
I really, really suggest that instead of starting out "whole hog" and buying a bunch of so-so lenses, decide first what you want to shoot the most and purchase one or two very good lenses...first. Nothing affects the quality of your images more than poor to middlin' optics. Concentrating first on a specific type of nature subject and buying one or two really good lenses for that subject, first, will be more encouraging than trying to do "everything" with so-so optics.
I love my Canon 100-400. It's heavy, but I'm lost without it. Though money is an issue, I justified it as my "smokin' lens" - if I smoked, a pack a day would be about $1700, so I'm rewarding myself for not smoking with a great lens for the cost of a year of cigarettes.
Anyway, my real advice would be to invest a little more for insurance. My camera body stopped working after the warranty was up, but since I had a 4-year extended warranty (Best Buy), I received a new camera - well worth it. I'm not usually one to buy extended warranties, but I take the camera/lens everywhere and there are a lot of risks involved - the computer systems get old (like my camera body), chance of theft and chance of impact. This year I bought a ryder to my homeowners policy for my 100-400, and two weeks later I fell down on some late frost. I didn't think there was any damage to the camera/lens as I was holding it and it didn't touch anything, but it's sensitive and broke. My lens is being repaired and will be covered and my camera body suffered a little damage and will likely be covered, again, by my extended warranty. I would highly recommend them!
Discussion
10 repliesReally it all depends on what you want to do with your pictures and what you are trying to convey. I would recommend that 100-400 lens, I believe it is in the ball park of roughly $1200-$1600, much cheaper then the 400mm f2.8 which generally runs $6500 -$8000. Good luck and post your photos for feedback, that is how we learn and get better
Oh yea, you'll also want a good tripod.
Regards,
Welcome to the obsession.
The 100-400 L IS is my go-to wildlife lens. It's not quite as sharp wide open at max focal length as the best Canon prime lenses, but it's plenty sharp enough to produce marketable images. I cherish the flexibility of a zoom. The 100-400 also can almost double as a good macro lens. It's closest focus distance is just under six feet, and it works well for flower/butterfly photography. With the addition of a set of extension tubes (autofocus is lost, as is distance focus), it becomes a macro-equivalent lens, though a very unwieldy one. It's right about at $1,400 now.
If you really want close-up insect photography, you may be able to get by with the Canon 100mm macro, but that may not have a far away enough working distance. It's quite sharp and very fast focusing. Since most of my macro work is on flowers, not critters, it has plenty of working distance for me. It sells for between $400 and $500. Insects, however, sometimes demand a longer working distance, and then you have to more than double the price to get the Canon 180mm L macro. If you want to stick with Canon, that is. There are options out there from some of the other lens makers such as Tamron and Sigma that are around 150mm, if memory serves, and are quite sharp, as well as being less expensive than the Canon 180mm.
Hope this helps, and good luck.
While I have not used the combination I believe the 300 f4 IS with 1.4 TC is about the same sharpness as the 100-400.
For macro I love the 100 f 2.8 Macro. While it is not an "L" lens it should be. It is superbly sharp and easy to use.
What ever you get have fun and enjoy the addiction we all suffer from.
Ed
You don't say which lens(es) you have, but if they're zooms, an extension tube is likely to drive you mad when doing macro photography. Too many things change at once when you have a zoom lens on an extension tube. At least that was my experience. You'll likely want to focus manually and everytime you zoom the focus and the magnifcation will change. That's what happened to me and I've been mad ever since.
If you don't have them already you should get a tripod and a remote release of some sort. If you can stop your camera from moving you only have to worry about your subject be still, in focus, interesting, perfect, etc.....
Pete Dee.
Anyway, my real advice would be to invest a little more for insurance. My camera body stopped working after the warranty was up, but since I had a 4-year extended warranty (Best Buy), I received a new camera - well worth it. I'm not usually one to buy extended warranties, but I take the camera/lens everywhere and there are a lot of risks involved - the computer systems get old (like my camera body), chance of theft and chance of impact. This year I bought a ryder to my homeowners policy for my 100-400, and two weeks later I fell down on some late frost. I didn't think there was any damage to the camera/lens as I was holding it and it didn't touch anything, but it's sensitive and broke. My lens is being repaired and will be covered and my camera body suffered a little damage and will likely be covered, again, by my extended warranty. I would highly recommend them!