Is this ok to get started ??
im a newby and am very very interested in outdoor wildlife photography, A friend of mine just gave me a new in box Canon Rebel XT that he has never used, Everything is brand new, It dosent have a lens with it though and im wonderingg which lens i should get for wildlife photos i want to take , i was looking at the Canon 70-200m f4 IS L lens would this be a descent starting spot for me to go with ?? any help would be greatly appreciated folks, thanks in advance as well
The things we take for granted today.Might be the Things we miss the most tomorrow
0
Comments
The 70-200 is great and excellent for outdoor photography. But since you don't have another other lens, you may consider to have a wider zoom lens 17-85 EF IS from Canon, or Sigma 18-200 DC with optical stablizer. Both lens can give you wider choice of focal lenght in the field. The first effective focal lenghth is 27 to 136, it covers the landscape to portrait, and the second one with effective 30 to 320, it may be very useful for all purpose including the outdoor and nature photography -birds.
These are humble start, the price is around $500. The 70-300 F4.5-5.6 IS is also the same price, althought it is a bit slower, the IS and extra 100 mm may be good to consider.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Having a target to take wildlive and nature is geat but I would like suggest to start with some basic and common subject to gain more experience before move into speciality. You may find it more fun with other subjects such as candid shoots
Starting with a basic walkabout lens, such as the medium wide (35 mm) to a tele (100 or 200 mm) will give you more flexibility to cover different subjects. 70-200 is good range but you may miss some of the standard landscape or close up protrait.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
First, you have a very good camera in the Canon XT. It provides excellent imagery.
Second, the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is one of the best (if not the best) telephoto zoom in that focal range. It has instant dead-on focus, great build (after-all; it is an "L" lens) and produces awesome imagery and has a really slick IS system. It also matches very well with a mid-range zoom such as the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens or the Tomron 17-50mm f/2.8. This duo of lenses will cover most photo opportunities.
However, IMO 200mm is a mite short for much wildlife work. Even adding a 1.4x TC brings this lens up only to 280mm which I still consider a bit too short.
There are three Canon lenses and lens combinations which are great for wildlife:
100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS zoom
300mm f/4L IS prime with 1.4x TC
400mm f/5.6L prime
Any of the above three are super for wildlife with the 100-400mm being, perhaps, the most versatile. Unfortunately, any of the above three choices are pretty expensive and even used copies may be priced somewhere around the $800-$1,100 dollars or so hee in the USA.
If you want/need a very-good 400mm lens at an exceptional price, consider the Tokina 400mm f/5.6 ATX SP lens (not the older non-ATX version).
The Tokina will give you very good imagery, especially if stopped down to f/8 or 11. It is lighter than any of the Canon lenses or lens combinations I mentioned above and focuses closer than the 400mm f/5.6L lens. The Tokina has a great sliding lens hood, just like the 400mm f/5.6L or 300mm f/4L IS lenses.
Is the Tokina as good as the Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens? Not quite. It does produce very good imagery but the focus speed is noticeably slower than the f/5.6L. This kind of rules it out as a birds-in-flight lens. However, it is excellent for many other wildlife uses.
The 400mm f/5.6 ATX lens was produced for only a short time between the 400mm f/5.6 SP (non-ATX) and 80-400mm ATX lenses. It is often overlooked since there were so few produces and since it is often mistaken for the previous non-ATX lens which did not produce decent imagery.
However, if you are lucky enough to find one - it can usually be had at a very low price. I got mine for right about $100 and I paid $850 for a used mint 400mm f/5.6L. Do I like the f/5.6L better than the Tokina? Yes, primarily due to faster autofocus. Is the f/5.6L 8.5 times better than the Tokina? I seriously doubt it!
http://www.pbase.com/rpcrowe/tokina_400mm_f56_atx
I would not ne hesitant to recommend the 400mm f/5.6 SP ATX Tokina to anyone who needs/wants a very usable 400mm prime at a really inexpensive price. If you find one, you can always use it for a year or two and then resell it at no loss if you want the 400mm f/5.6L or either other of the above two Canon choices. It could be a nice interim lens or it could suit your purposes indefinitely.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=18246
Also see "I Love Shorebirds" on the Moose Peterson web site
http://www.moosepeterson.com/POM/1998.html
To summarize the above:
Your best image quality and focus accuracy and speed would be with one of the three lenses or lens combinations that I listed above with the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L winning the prize for versatility and the 400mm f/5.6L winning the prize for image quality and autofocus speed at the cost of no IS capability. The 300mm f/4L IS with and without the 1.4x TC comes right in the middle of these two lensess. (By the way, in favor of either the 300mm f/4L or the 400mm f/5.6L is that each has a retractable lens hood - which is something lacking in the 100-400mm L zoom). I doubt whether you would be disappointed in any of these three lenses but, you will pay the price for this quality.
If you cannot afford an "L" lens or cannot justify the cost of one of these lenses and if you want a lens which will provide decent quality and be either an interim long lens or even "the" long lens of choice - look at a used Tokina 400mm f/5.6L ATX.
Link to my Smugmug site
Thanks again