I am looking for a good, quick lens of at least 300mm for my Canon Rebel XTi. I am not looking for something too big, so preferably less than 500mm....but definitely no less than 300mm. I have a 100-300mm lens right now and then zoom ability is perfect but it is far too slow for the wildlife I am going to be photographing. And, if anyone has ANY experience in Corcovado, Costa Rica I would love some tips.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 19, 2008 at 12:10 PM
There are a few choices and I suppose Canon will be the best option for you. All the Canon tele primes are considered to be excellent performers in both focus speed and sharpness. You can check prices at B&H to get a reasonable baseline. None are particularly cheap. I would suppose there are some 3rd party telephoto primes, but I doubt that they would be much cheaper. If the 100-300 is too slow, the 100-400 f5.6 L IS is also going to be too slow though it is often a good wildlife lens.
300 f4L IS
300 f2.8L IS
400 f2.8L IS
400 f4 DO IS
400 f5.6L (which probably won't work since your current f5.6 lens is too slow)
500 f4L IS
Sigma has some larger tele primes but they don't have image stabilization. I would think they are fairly good for image quality, but perhaps not as reliable for autofocus or focus speed.
300 f2.8 HSM
500 f4.5 HSM
Brandon, by "too slow," most photographers will assume you mean the max aperture is not wide enough and, like Mel, they will counsel you toward f4 and f2.8 lenses.
But given the body/lens combo you've got and the way you've described things, I'm wondering if you don't instead mean that the combo is too slow to focus.
If it's the "slow" aperture, that's going to yield different advice than the "slow" focus.
Posted by Basil Greber on March 19, 2008 at 7:59 PM
What Steve said. Also "some 100-300" lens is not very specific...
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't fully awake when I typed it haha. What I indeed meant was that the focus is too slow and the lens is a Pheonix 100-300 mm, not a Canon. I got it online last year and it served me well in Australia but when it came to quicker subjects (ie not crocodiles) focusing quick enough to get the shot before they vanished was nearly impossible with the exception of a few lucky shots.
Posted by Steve Foss on March 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Thanks, Brandon. Next question is, what's your budget? The least expensive Canon lens to get you to 400mm is about $1,100 and does not have image stabilization (that's the 400 f5.6L). The least expensive Canon option (with decent focus speed and good IQ) to 300mm is a zoom that has image stabilization and is over $600 (a non L lens). The most flexible Canon supertele that's within a lot of budgets is the 100-400L, which has IS and runs about $1,400.
The L series is Canon's best in terms of image quality, focus speed and build quality, and the two L lenses mentioned here offer excellent IQ and all-around performance for not a lot of money (at least not a lot of money relative to the other 400, 500 and 600mm options).
In terms of focus speed, the 400 f5.6L is the fastest of the three. The 100-400L is very slightly slower, with the 100-300 slightly slower than the 100-400. In terms of image quality, the 400L prime again is the best (by a nose over the 100-400 and by a length over the 70-300). Unless you're going to be photographing medium to large animals at close range, you'll almost certainly want the reach a 400 gives, particularly when it comes to birds.
I'm an all-around nature photorapher, and I prefer the instant flexibility that zooms provide, so I've been very happy with the 100-400 these last four years. The image stabilization, not available in the 400L prime, also tips the balance toward the 100-400 zoom. But lens selection is a matter of personal preference and shooting style, and many similar photographers prefer the 400L prime.
In the end, any of these three will easily outperform the lens you mentioned, not only on focus speed but on image quality.
Discussion
5 replies300 f4L IS
300 f2.8L IS
400 f2.8L IS
400 f4 DO IS
400 f5.6L (which probably won't work since your current f5.6 lens is too slow)
500 f4L IS
Sigma has some larger tele primes but they don't have image stabilization. I would think they are fairly good for image quality, but perhaps not as reliable for autofocus or focus speed.
300 f2.8 HSM
500 f4.5 HSM
But given the body/lens combo you've got and the way you've described things, I'm wondering if you don't instead mean that the combo is too slow to focus.
If it's the "slow" aperture, that's going to yield different advice than the "slow" focus.
Basil
The L series is Canon's best in terms of image quality, focus speed and build quality, and the two L lenses mentioned here offer excellent IQ and all-around performance for not a lot of money (at least not a lot of money relative to the other 400, 500 and 600mm options).
In terms of focus speed, the 400 f5.6L is the fastest of the three. The 100-400L is very slightly slower, with the 100-300 slightly slower than the 100-400. In terms of image quality, the 400L prime again is the best (by a nose over the 100-400 and by a length over the 70-300). Unless you're going to be photographing medium to large animals at close range, you'll almost certainly want the reach a 400 gives, particularly when it comes to birds.
I'm an all-around nature photorapher, and I prefer the instant flexibility that zooms provide, so I've been very happy with the 100-400 these last four years. The image stabilization, not available in the 400L prime, also tips the balance toward the 100-400 zoom. But lens selection is a matter of personal preference and shooting style, and many similar photographers prefer the 400L prime.
In the end, any of these three will easily outperform the lens you mentioned, not only on focus speed but on image quality.