Lens...Lost in a Maze!

All things winged.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
candycornsnake
Posts: 1
Joined: January 8th, 2013, 10:13 am

Lens...Lost in a Maze!

Post by candycornsnake »

So I have been a nature lover forever...but recently became single and decided to spend time herping and birding.
I have a fairly good digital camera. Nothing amazing...but a Canon Rebel and I am in search for a good lens.
I want something I can use for wildlife that isnt god awful expensive. But I don't even have a clue what size to look for! Any advice for what to look for in a good all around birding lens for my camera?
Do I have to use canon products? Is the actual connnection universal? What sizes do I need to look for?
I am complete noob with this.
I did just get some 8x42 binoculars thanks to advice I saw on this forum. It was great to have a idea of what type/size worked best for an average.

Thanks so much!
Tara
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Lens...Lost in a Maze!

Post by chrish »

Tara,

Bird lenses are long lenses. Birds generally don't allow close approach the way herps do and most birds are fairly small. In general, I would consider a 300mm lens to the minimum length for a bird lens. 400mm is better, but heavier and more expensive.

One other issue with bird photography is that birds have feathers which show fine detail, or its absence. Therefore, a shot of a bird where you can't see much feather detail doesn't look sharp. This requires good (sharp) lenses. So not every 300mm or 400mm lens will give you the results you want.

Then there is the zoom issue. Zooms are generally cheaper and more flexible in regard to what you can shoot, but they generally aren't as sharp. There are some good zooms that will produce excellent results, but there is a lot of junk out there.

Finally, there is the expense. I don't know what you mean by "god awful expensive". Good lenses generally cost more.

Canon's L series lenses are generally good. The 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L would all be excellent choices, but they all cost over $1K new. I don't know what a used one would cost.
Sigma make some good long zooms (50-500, 150-500) but again they are in the $1K range new.

Again, used lenses are an option, but good used lenses tend to hold value and they often cost as nearly much as new ones. If you are creative and patient you can find some excellent deals, but to know an excellent deal you have to learn which are the good lenses. That takes some research. Fortunately, there are a lot of good online resources for finding that stuff out.

If $1K is way out the budget range, there are some less expensive 70-300 type lenses. However, you need to do some careful research on these lenses. Some are pretty good, some are awful. Don't assume just because a lens is made by Canon that it will be better than a similar one made by Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc.. All brands make some excellent lenses, and all brands make some pretty average lenses.

One other angle you might consider is getting an adapter (I think they exist?) to use manual focus lenses on your Rebel. Older manual focus long lenses are much cheaper and some of them are optically excellent.

I can tell you from experience that buying a crappy lens that produces crappy pictures is not going to satisfy your desire to get wildlife photos. I have a lot of old photos frustrate me because I wished I had bought (could have afforded) better lenses. Some wildlife shots are a chance in a million, you don't want to miss it because you bought a cheap lens. I went to Africa with my family in 2000. Before I left I got cheap and spent $199 on a cheap 100-400mm lens because I couldn't afford more (in spite of the fact that I was spending thousands of dollars on airplane tickets, vehicle rental, food, drinks, lodging). One morning I came across my first Lion. Here's the best picture I could get. Why? My cheap lens just wasn't sharp enough.

Image

I'll never get another chance to photograph my first big cat. And for $600 instead of $199, I could have had a sharp photo.....and I would still have that $600 lens. I got rid of the crappy one.

Chris
Post Reply