A good lens for AK

[puddleduck]

I am looking at getting a Rebel XTi. I want to take a lot of animal shots at AK and I am looking for a good lens. $1000 plus lenses need not apply. It won't do me any good to have a great lens if I can't afford to get into the park. Please help.

 

[jann1033]

i'm hoping on board here although i would guess most would think the canon 70-300 IS at around $600. ( well that's what i was planning on anyway so hope i'm right if not i want to know )

 

[boBQuincy]

Canon's 70-200 f/4 L is a very sharp lens and is around $600 (IS version is a lot more). By adding Canon's $280 1.4x converter you have a 100-300 f/5.6 that is still sharper than most anything in that price range.

Here's one taken at 280mm:

 

[handicap18]

In my experience, I think the 70-300 with IS (Image Stabilization) is going to be your best bet. I shoot Nikon and have a 70-300 without VR (Vibration Reduction; aka IS) and I found many times (and not just on the safari) that at 300mm I got a lot of camera shake even when using ISO 1600. If your trying to get good closeups of the animals on either of the walking tours or even the monkey's in Asia between Everest and Kali River Rapids it is going to be difficult to hold a lens extended out to 300mm without a tripod. I consider myself to have pretty steady hands, but still had a hard time getting clean shots.

Amazon has the bigger version of the Canon 70-300 with IS for a little under $560. You might be able to find a better price at B&H or another on-line retailer. Nikon now has a 70-300mm lens with VR (aka IS) that should be out soon. I've already put my pre-order in for it and its about the same price. After my experienced with the non VR version around Disney I figured it was time to upgrade. I got very frustrated with that non-VR lens.

 

[jann1033]

so bob, is this lens one you would use your tripod ( or treepod, if handy ) for these types of shots? would a monopod be enough? ( drooling over L glass for $600... the "status" of it is getting to me )

 

[DebºoºS]

Bob,I'm drooling over that shot!awesome!!

 

[jann1033]

am i right that the apeture on the 70-300 would be 5.6 at 300? so would that be enough to be limit your shutter speed in lower light to not be able to stop action? ( the 100-300 i have now is 6.3 and know if would be worthless for that in lowish light) if so what iso would you have to use to do so?( or do i have that backwards?)( thinking xt) would the one bob mentioned be better for that due to the f4 or the same? (not sure why that doesn't have a range of f stops like the my others do.)

hope op doesn't mind me asking all this sorry to be a thread hog

"Bob,I'm drooling over that shot!awesome!!" ( by deb)

hehe yeah that too. i got fixated on the lens

( sorry can not figure out how to copy something into an open reply and have the quote come up)

 

[Steve's Girl]

Just got back from AK and can definitely say IS or VR would be a huge plus. With a limited budget, maybe you will want to look at a camera with built in IS. Hey, where is Groucho? I'm sure he will have a preference on this!

 

[Master Mason]

am i right that the apeture on the 70-300 would be 5.6 at 300? so would that be enough to be limit your shutter speed in lower light to not be able to stop action? ( the 100-300 i have now is 6.3 and know if would be worthless for that in lowish light) if so what iso would you have to use to do so?( or do i have that backwards?)( thinking xt) would the one bob mentioned be better for that due to the f4 or the same? (not sure why that doesn't have a range of f stops like the my others do.)

hope op doesn't mind me asking all this sorry to be a thread hog

"Bob,I'm drooling over that shot!awesome!!" ( by deb)

hehe yeah that too. i got fixated on the lens

( sorry can not figure out how to copy something into an open reply and have the quote come up)

Jan,

The 70-200's, both the f/4 and f/2.8 have a constant range of fstop thoughout the range. That is one of the reasons they are so expensive I believe. Which also is a contributing factor to the weight and size. At least that is my understanding.

 

[ukcatfan]

With a limited budget, maybe you will want to look at a camera with built in IS. Hey, where is Groucho? I'm sure he will have a preference on this!

Hey, I resemble that remark! Seriously, if you have a limited budget and want IS, the Pentax offers a real $$$ advantage. If you are considering the XTi, also look at the K10D and a lens with your needed focal length. It will be cheaper than the XTi and a Canon IS lens with the same focal length. I am a believer that the Canon system is a little bit better at long focal lengths, but not for the price difference. I read an analysis on why a sensor based system works beter on wide angle and how a lens based system works better at long focal lengths and it made sense to me. I wish I could remember where I read it.

Kevin

 

[boBQuincy]

so bob, is this lens one you would use your tripod ( or treepod, if handy ) for these types of shots? would a monopod be enough? ( drooling over L glass for $600... the "status" of it is getting to me )

True, all the poseurs stand back when you whip out that big off-white L glass! Get the biggest hood that fits for extra effect.

I am getting lazy in my old age and rarely carry a tripod (shameful) but I always have my monopod since it is so light. The monopod is good enough but this shot however, was taken using a post-pod, one of the wooden poles around the bachelor gorilla area. It was at ISO 400, 1/100 shutter and f/5.6 (wide open) on a 30D.

The f/4 L and 1.4x combo is that sharp wide open, stop it down 1 or 2 stops and it gets *really* good. To me it is well worth the $$$ over the lesser lenses, even if it were painted black.

 

[ndelaware]

Jan here is a comparison for you. Same or sibling of the gorilla shot with the 70-300IS @ f/5.6, ISO 100, shutter speed was 1/25, handheld @ 300mm with the IS on.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Canon's 70-200 f/4 L is a very sharp lens and is around $600 (IS version is a lot more). By adding Canon's $280 1.4x converter you have a 100-300 f/5.6 that is still sharper than most anything in that price range.

Can the canon 1.4x teleconverter be used on the 70-300 IS?
MIkeeee

 

[Jeanne B]

Just got back from AK and can definitely say IS or VR would be a huge plus. With a limited budget, maybe you will want to look at a camera with built in IS. Hey, where is Groucho? I'm sure he will have a preference on this!

I'm not Groucho but this is what led me to the K100D, built in IS, love it!!

 

[jann1033]

Can the canon 1.4x teleconverter be used on the 70-300 IS?
MIkeeee

i think you'd lose a stop so it would make it like 6.3? ( if you can i mean)

the teleconverters actually have glass in them don't they( not like extension tubes)...so probably the sigma or cheaper ones would defeat the purpose?

 

[boBQuincy]

Can the canon 1.4x teleconverter be used on the 70-300 IS?
MIkeeee

Canon's compatibility chart for the 1.4x extender does not list the 70-300.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&is=USA&O=productlist&sku=220456

It still may fit but the 1.4x requires a lens with a recessed rear element, if the 70-300 does not have this then the 1.4x will not physically fit. The other problem is the loss of one stop and 70-300 aperture of f/5.6. This means the autofocus is not expected to work properly (it may still work, and there is a workaround that involves placing a piece of tape on one of the contacts, ymmv).

I already had the 70-200 and wanted just a bit more so the 1.4x was the smallest, least expensive way to get there.

 

[scoolover]

This picture was taken with the 70-300 IS. I love that lens. It is heavy and takes a while to learn to control though. Good Luck
Scott

 

[jann1033]

Jan here is a comparison for you. Same or sibling of the gorilla shot with the 70-300IS @ f/5.6, ISO 100, shutter speed was 1/25, handheld @ 300mm with the IS on.

argg, i could see the photo earlier now i can't


edited 2 sec later and it's back

 

[PoohJen]

I have a Sigma DG APO 70-300 f/4-5.6 for my Rebel xt from Amazon for around $200, which I used at AK. WARNING, carrying a zoom at AK is great for the animal shots, but not helpful in trying to get family/people shots, closer shots. I didn't carry another lens with me to AK, and what a pain trying to get a pic of my Mom at Mt. Everest!

 

[mabas9395]

One thing to keep in mind with the 70-300 IS is that while you can take amazing photos at 300mm with only a 1/25 shutter speed, that shutter speed will only be useful if your subject is not moving. If the animal in AK, or maybe your kids on the soccer field, is moving then your pictures will turn out blurry no matter how good your IS is because IS only minimizes camera shake, not subject shake.

So while the 70-300 IS does what it does very well, there are many situations where it won't help. So if you are thinking of using the lens for other things, like I plan on using mine for my kids sports, then you might want to consider a faster lens.