I am totally new to UKNP ... and to photography if I am honest
Anyway, to get to the point, I have a canon 350D dSLR which I havent used much as I want a fast long lens to go with it
The problem is knowing which .... especially on a tight budget
I am wondering if anyone has any recommendations for me for a budget fast long lens ...
I have seen some marvellous ones for sale ..in the thousands of pounds bracket but I just do not have that money .... I guess I am looking in the hundreds really but would appreciate some advice/recommendations as if I make the wrong choice, its not like I can afford to buy another
I use the Sigma 500mm f/4.5. You might be able to find a secondhand non-DG one for under a £1000, if you are lucky.
Another option would be the Canon 400 f/5.6. Not as long or as fast (aperture-wise), but smaller, lighter, cheaper, and easier to handhold.
Both lenses are very sharp and focus quickly.
I`m sure others will chime in with other suggestions.
Welcome to the forum!
Posted by eric weight on January 7, 2008 at 1:43 AM
I have only just started in the last year as well and have a 100-400 zoom which I have been very pleased with. I use it on a 400D. I have seen them on e-bay for around £7-800. Max aperture at 400 is 5.6 and I admit to always wanting more but I can't afford it. If you intend to start off in the garden with robins and the like, they are useful because I find that 400 can be too long sometimes. I have read that they can be soft, but at the level at which I operate it hasn't turned out to be a problem. It's got IS as well which I rate as essential. I do use it with a canon x1.4 converter which gives even more reach. Using the converter is manual focus only. It is possible to make a quick cheap mod with sellotape that restores autofocus, and it iis useable, but not perfect. Hope this helps. Eric
Posted by Andy Astbury on January 7, 2008 at 3:58 AM
Hi Sharon - welcome to the forum
There's only 3 lenses that spring to mind really, and they've already been mentioned.
If I were to stick my neck out here I think I'd be suggesting you actually look at the 400mm f5.6 prime Canon.
It's famous for it's sharpness, is extremely light and easy to handle, very fast in the AF department and the cheapest of the three.
There's a couple of drawbacks with it, no image stabalization, and that's it's rather long in the minimum focus distance department at just about 12 feet.
You won't be taking many frame-busting shots of Goldcrests with it.
The 100-400mm Canon is another cracking lens, but sharpness can vary wildly between examples - you need to try a few.
It's much better in the close focus department than its prime cousin - around 6 feet. And it's got IS, though admittedly it's the bog standard version and in theory at least doesn't do well mounted on a tripod.
All round it's a good lens, quite a few guys 'n gals on the forum use one as do I, but then again I have a 400mm f5.6 aswell.
The Sig 500mm f4.5 is an awesome lens, tack sharp, good contrast, great 'bokeh' and as fast as you can get without spending a lot more.
BUT, it's a proper super-tele lens requiring flawless technique and a damn good tripod and head to back it up - yes it can be used hand-held - see http://www.wildlifeinpixels.com/img/lb1/_AAA8887.jpg but it takes a lot of practice as it's a lot heavier than either of the other two lenses mentioned and it too has no form of image stabilization.
All 3 lenses are superb Sharon - your choice is down to budget and what you actually want to photograph.
Another suggestion for tight budget would be Sigma 400 5.6 APO macro (newer version with 77 mm filter thread). It'll not work on newer Canon bodies since Canon is constantly making life tough for third party lenses, but on your 350 it might be great. I own one and it's very sharp even wide open, have decently fast HSM focusing motor and have great minimum focusing distance of just 0.9 m and you should be able to find it even cheaper than Canon's version.
Cheers,
Marko
Posted by Mike Smith on January 7, 2008 at 6:03 AM
Big fast lens with autofocus and cheap are mutually opposites, even the Sigmas are going to be expensive.
Depends upon what you intend to photograph and whether you can cope with manual focus. Fit a 3rd party "katz-eyes screen" and then the older Pentax 500mm F4.5 lens becomes a realistically cheap alternative. they come in either M42 or K bayonet mounts - and the mount system can be relatively easily changes between the two. An older M42 and simple M42:EOS adapter is dirt cheap.
Both AB and I have used these much under rated long lenses in the past. Apart from the manual focus shortcomings you also need a decent set of extension tubes as the minimal focus distance is not good by todays standards, but the lens can produce wonderfully sharp images on a really small budget. It will get you into long lens photography cheaply to see if you can hack the weight and bulk of this type of lens.
Posted by Elliott Neep on January 7, 2008 at 6:24 AM
Hi Sharon. Too many people dive in with the big glass before knowing exactly what they want and hoping it solves all there problems - it doesn't. If I were you I would look for second-hand glass. A Canon 300mm F4 IS is nice and light and really sharp. You can use a 1.4x teleconverter to give you 420mm at f/5.6. With the crop factor of your camera it will be like a 600mm. Another good option is the 100-400mm IS L. It is a good lens, heavier, but the zoom option is a nice bonus. Grey imports or second hand units are around £700-800. Don't forget the Sigma lenses. Their new lenses are excellent - maybe someone else here can advise you more on that. Start cheap and work out whether wildlife is for you before investing in the big glass.
I would echo Elliots advice, until you are sure that you wnat to do wildlife don't buy into dear "wildlife" glass, i.e. the 300mm/F4's and 400mm/F5.6's are still £700+, definately don't buy into "big glass" as not only is it expensive, the required accessories are also expensive and it is a niche market on resell.
Canon do a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens which I think is below £400, yes it is not optically as pure as a "L" lens and may be not just as wide an aperature at the 300mm end, but it has a 2 stop image stabiliser (IS) and is reasonable light. It is capiable of producing good results for personal use.
T
Posted by Alan Bryant on January 7, 2008 at 6:49 AM
I'd second the 300 with a 1.4TC.
A mate of mine uses them for his motorsport photography(yes i know not nature ).And he takes some awesome shots with that combination.
And also the 100-400 IS L, cuz thats the lens i started out on (well it was the 70-200f4, but that did'nt have the reach ).
Blimey folks .... thank you so much for the awesome response. There is much to think about.
I do know I need AF as I cant rely on my eyes through a viewfinder ...
I was thinking os the canon 75 - 300 IS USM or the canon 100 - 400 IS L and this seems to back that up as a reasonable choice at the level that I am at ....
Ebay here I come :)
Thanks again guys
Sharon
Posted by Elliott Neep on January 7, 2008 at 7:21 AM
Not the 75-300 IS. It is slow focussing, fragile, and not very sharp... sorry!
Which leaves the Canon 100-400mm (which I can also recommend highly).
New price is around £925 at the moment.
Posted by Dave Sewell on January 7, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Hi Sharon,
Welcome to the forum.
I noticed you say you can't trust your eyes through the viewfinder? Might be worth digging out the manual and checking 'dioptric adjustment' which is basically a way of adjusting the camera to make what you're viewing clear.
I have the 300/4 lens and use it with a 1.4x teleconverter and it's a really lovely lens - accepted as one of Canon's best. That's what I started with and it's often available secondhand. This Oystercatcher was taken with it (proving that you CAN get close to even timid wildlife if you're patient and don't necessarily need that 600mm lens!).
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=24253&b=um&st=0&la=13&ph=4&sid=27659&u=27659
Keep an eye on the EOS-classifieds as well as Ebay http://www.eos-classifieds.com/ If you buy new from warehouse express http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/ you'll have the option of interest free credit over a year (I think - never done it myself!)
And please do start posting your work. Most of the work on here is so good there's not a lot to say about it apart from 'another cracking shot'! Watching the experts on here guiding a beginner would be a refreshing and informative change from the norm.
All best wishes and be warned....this is an addictive hobby you've chosen!!
Dave
Discussion
12 repliesI am totally new to UKNP ... and to photography if I am honest
Anyway, to get to the point, I have a canon 350D dSLR which I havent used much as I want a fast long lens to go with it
The problem is knowing which .... especially on a tight budget
I am wondering if anyone has any recommendations for me for a budget fast long lens ...
I have seen some marvellous ones for sale ..in the thousands of pounds bracket but I just do not have that money .... I guess I am looking in the hundreds really but would appreciate some advice/recommendations as if I make the wrong choice, its not like I can afford to buy another
Thanks for your help
Sharon
Another option would be the Canon 400 f/5.6. Not as long or as fast (aperture-wise), but smaller, lighter, cheaper, and easier to handhold.
Both lenses are very sharp and focus quickly.
I`m sure others will chime in with other suggestions.
Welcome to the forum!
There's only 3 lenses that spring to mind really, and they've already been mentioned.
If I were to stick my neck out here I think I'd be suggesting you actually look at the 400mm f5.6 prime Canon.
It's famous for it's sharpness, is extremely light and easy to handle, very fast in the AF department and the cheapest of the three.
There's a couple of drawbacks with it, no image stabalization, and that's it's rather long in the minimum focus distance department at just about 12 feet.
You won't be taking many frame-busting shots of Goldcrests with it.
The 100-400mm Canon is another cracking lens, but sharpness can vary wildly between examples - you need to try a few.
It's much better in the close focus department than its prime cousin - around 6 feet. And it's got IS, though admittedly it's the bog standard version and in theory at least doesn't do well mounted on a tripod.
All round it's a good lens, quite a few guys 'n gals on the forum use one as do I, but then again I have a 400mm f5.6 aswell.
The Sig 500mm f4.5 is an awesome lens, tack sharp, good contrast, great 'bokeh' and as fast as you can get without spending a lot more.
BUT, it's a proper super-tele lens requiring flawless technique and a damn good tripod and head to back it up - yes it can be used hand-held - see http://www.wildlifeinpixels.com/img/lb1/_AAA8887.jpg but it takes a lot of practice as it's a lot heavier than either of the other two lenses mentioned and it too has no form of image stabilization.
All 3 lenses are superb Sharon - your choice is down to budget and what you actually want to photograph.
Cheers,
Marko
Depends upon what you intend to photograph and whether you can cope with manual focus. Fit a 3rd party "katz-eyes screen" and then the older Pentax 500mm F4.5 lens becomes a realistically cheap alternative. they come in either M42 or K bayonet mounts - and the mount system can be relatively easily changes between the two. An older M42 and simple M42:EOS adapter is dirt cheap.
Both AB and I have used these much under rated long lenses in the past. Apart from the manual focus shortcomings you also need a decent set of extension tubes as the minimal focus distance is not good by todays standards, but the lens can produce wonderfully sharp images on a really small budget. It will get you into long lens photography cheaply to see if you can hack the weight and bulk of this type of lens.
Canon do a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens which I think is below £400, yes it is not optically as pure as a "L" lens and may be not just as wide an aperature at the 300mm end, but it has a 2 stop image stabiliser (IS) and is reasonable light. It is capiable of producing good results for personal use.
T
A mate of mine uses them for his motorsport photography(yes i know not nature
And also the 100-400 IS L, cuz thats the lens i started out on
I do know I need AF as I cant rely on my eyes through a viewfinder ...
I was thinking os the canon 75 - 300 IS USM or the canon 100 - 400 IS L and this seems to back that up as a reasonable choice at the level that I am at ....
Ebay here I come :)
Thanks again guys
Sharon
New price is around £925 at the moment.
Welcome to the forum.
I noticed you say you can't trust your eyes through the viewfinder? Might be worth digging out the manual and checking 'dioptric adjustment' which is basically a way of adjusting the camera to make what you're viewing clear.
I have the 300/4 lens and use it with a 1.4x teleconverter and it's a really lovely lens - accepted as one of Canon's best. That's what I started with and it's often available secondhand. This Oystercatcher was taken with it (proving that you CAN get close to even timid wildlife if you're patient and don't necessarily need that 600mm lens!).
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=24253&b=um&st=0&la=13&ph=4&sid=27659&u=27659
Keep an eye on the EOS-classifieds as well as Ebay http://www.eos-classifieds.com/ If you buy new from warehouse express http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/ you'll have the option of interest free credit over a year (I think - never done it myself!)
And please do start posting your work. Most of the work on here is so good there's not a lot to say about it apart from 'another cracking shot'! Watching the experts on here guiding a beginner would be a refreshing and informative change from the norm.
All best wishes and be warned....this is an addictive hobby you've chosen!!
Dave