I currently have an older EOS 350d that I have the following lenses for;
Canon 50mm 1.4 prime
Sigma 10-20 4/5.6
Canon kit lens
Sigma 70/300 zoom
I probably use the 70/300 more than any other but it is getting on a bit and doesn't give the results it once did. So I have a bit of money for an upgrade, probably about £500. What should I go for? It's mostly used for wild life shots.
I will be upgrading the body soon but it will still be with a 1.6 crop sensor if that matters.
BB
Canon 70-200L either F2,8 or F4 depending on price. Or if 28-300L if you can find a second hand example at that price.
I'm in the same situation and I've been tempted by the 70-200 f/4L but wonder whether an image stabilized lens might be a better option.
but wonder whether an image stabilized lens might be a better option.
Why? If I remember correctly the IS only helps if you're away from terra firma, that is if the photographer is moving.
Not once have I felt the need for IS in all my time taking cycling photos either on the ground or the back of motorcycles. Some people will tell you it's absolutely necessary and it's impossible to take photos without IS, I don't see the point.
Very happy 70-200 F4 user.
That is why I was wondering. But you have now probably made me about £500 lighter. Cheers 😉
IS helps if you're using slow-ish shutter speeds (which for a long lens isn't that slow) and are not using a tripod - i.e. stuff that isn't moving.
If you just want it for sport then it won't make any odds. For most other stuff it does. I wouldn't get an unstabilised lens personally as only a small % of my shots are sporting and I don't carry a tripod.
[i]If I remember correctly the IS only helps if you're away from terra firma, that is if the photographer is moving.[/i]
Then you remember incorrectly 🙂
It basically allows you to take your 1/f guideline for slowest shutter speed that gets a sharp shot, and drop that speed by a few stops. Only works with static subjects generally, though some systems also support planning. In certain situations, eg if you can't avoid trouble with mirror slap it can even be of use on a tripod.
It's not essential for most things but it can be very useful for wildlife.
If you like shooting wildlife, how about a macro lens?
Then you remember incorrectly
Not the first time and definitely won't be the last. 😆
[i]If you like shooting wildlife, how about a macro lens?[/i]
If your idea of wildlife is slow-moving insects that's a great idea 🙂
I've got this month's Canon PhotoPlus here which has a 'budget telephoto lens' group test. The winner was the "Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD" at £350, with the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM" coming a close second (joint with a £200 EF-S lens) at £500.
Interesting replies, thank you.
"Wildlife" for me means animals or birds shot at distance rather than magnifying bugs! ;0)
I shall take myself off to Warehouse Express and take a look at the suggested lenses. I must admit I am quite tempted by the Canon 70-200 but I'm slightly concerned I will miss not having a 300 in my bag.
BB
On my camera you can have IS on sideways or up and down only. So you can say pan sideways on a moving cyclist and still have some IS benefits.
But yes it allows me to use much slower shutter speeds, so much so that movement in the subject becomes more of an issue. I have sat in an armchair and taken shots with an effective 600mm focal length at 1/15 that came out sharp. Not a practical benefit but it demonstrates how good it can be. Although mine is in-body sensor shift.
[img] 
[/img]
Rightplacerighttime- that's a great shot!
I must admit I am quite tempted by the Canon 70-200 but I'm slightly concerned I will miss not having a 300 in my bag.
You've got legs, haven't you? Move closer!
The EF70-200L f2.8IS USM is the best lens Canon have ever made and is razor sharp even wide open. I'd recommend one to anyone who can afford one and it is better than the f4L versions. It's basically my "standard" lens as it's rarely off the camera. The IS facilty allows you to use slower shutter speeds whether subjects are static or moving and I can go very slow with very low ISO with my EF400mmL f2.8 when using it's IS option.
Can you not get hold of the 80-200 lens, the black one with the conical hood. 2.8 sharp optics and not silly money. If your not ming your living from them it's a very expensive hobby.
[i]You've got legs, haven't you? Move closer![/i]
You don't shoot much wildlife, I'm guessing? 🙂
You've got legs, haven't you? Move closer!
Closer and zoomed out does not give you the same picture as further away and zoomed in, does it?
You don't shoot much wildlife, I'm guessing?
He tries but it keeps running away 🙂
Rightplacerighttime- that's a great shot!
Yeah - you can see he's used a wide aperture and fast shutter speed to capture the fly mid-jump. Good work.