 Helen N. McHugh |
Best lens for wildlife photography (full frame) I need to purchase a good quality lens for wildlife shots with the Canon 5D.I have been looking at the 100mm-400mm but have heard that it is not sharp @ 400mm! Now the 300mmF4+ 1.4 teleconverter might be a better choice...or would the Canon400mmF5.6 prime lens be a better option? I would love to hear from anyone who has used these lens! Help please!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Hi Helen, the optical quality of prime lenses (lenses with a fixed focal length) – and consequently the image quality – is clearly superior to that of zoom lenses, which, by their nature, have to be a compromise, a trade-off: you get great versatility, you lose max image quality. Converters are even worse: they introduce focal softness, chromatic abberation (purple fringeing), and flare into the equation! Considerably degrading the image quality that the prime or zoom lens is capable of. Whichever lens (combo) you may get, though, you will need good support (tripod, beanbag, or Gorillapod [http://www.joby.com/]) with those long focal lengths if you want to avoid camera shake. All that being said, I've seen plenty of photos shot with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, as good-sized prints, that looked excellent! Maybe not National Geographic quality, but close! Have fun!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
Hi Helen - I own the 5D and have a Sigma 100-500mm lens that is fine for much of my work. I do use a converter at times and have not noticed the major problems that W speaks about. Of-course, I use a tripod and use manual focus when using the converter. If you do a search on converters on Google you will read a great deal of contradictory info. Some pros swear by them in the right circumstances and others take W’s POV that they should not be used. My bottom line is that right now I cannot afford the $6000 + for a prime Canon 500mm lens. So, I use what I have and, as I said, for the most part it works. I am looking at the Canon 400mm lens, but is also rather pricey (no doubt worth the investment). It is a terrific lens and would certainly deliver what you want. However, keep in mind that even with a great lens, if you don’t have the proper support, it is a waste of your time. Also, according to some of the pros whose work I admire, even a 400mm lens may need an extender/converter to get as close as you might wish. If you Google Arthur Morris – one of the finest bird photographers – and bring up his info page you will see that he uses extenders/converters at times. Bottom line: it can be a matter of opinion and experience. There are trade offs for every decision you make in this biz.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Teleconverters...in conjunction with a high-quality prime telephoto, will perform well and will be worth the compromised of the reduced cost. I experimented recently with stacking teleconverters for even greater reach. This photo: (http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.php?photoID=3459959&catID=3889&contestCatID=&rowNumber=22&camID=2154) was taken with a 300 mm 2.8 Nikkor and two 2X teleconverters. A stablizing platform was constructed from scrap wood and attaches to my tripod head via quick-release plate. The lens collar and camera body are bolted down to the board for added stability. You can also check out my article entitled "Stretching the Limits", where I outline techniques for extremes in telephoto and macro. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
Helen N. McHugh |
W,Irene & Bob, thank you all for your great replies! I really do appreciate your expertise! It looks like the prime 400mm lens will give the best picture..I may also add the 1.4 converter to get some extra length! Would love to have the 500mm also...LOL!!!...only Pros can justify the price!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||