Telephoto Lens - how much is enough ?

[dibbly dobbler]

Your advice would be appreciated please chaps. I'm after a telephoto lens - now clearly there are quite a few options but as a broad guide how much reach should I be looking for if I'm going to try a bit of wildlife shooting and maybe the odd moon shot ?

The Canon 70-200 F4L gets great reviews but is 200 enough ? Or maybe something like a Sigma 50-500 ? I'm marginally leaning towards the 70-200 but if I end up needing an extender then obviously that's more cash and faffing when I need to use it...

Hmm...

(Budget up to £500ish btw)

[Toyless]

Depends on what you need.....

Personally, I think something like the Bigma is too much a jack of all trades, allthough I know its rated quite well.

Currently for 70-300 is just about enough, but Id like a Nikon AFS -400 thats F4 ideally.

The nature boys seem to need/want 500 +.

[mikees]

I have a Canon 55-250, good basic cheap-ish tele. Its good but if you can aford more then go for it.

[Zaxxon]

I'm planning on getting a Canon 100-400 soon, they have gone for £750 on ebay
It has excellent reviews and the amount that you see at events etc tells me that they must be pretty good

Wish I could afford the 2.8 version though

[JSS 911]

I have a 70-300mm and over the last year have been try to capture some wildlife shots manly deer and birds.I do find it lacking in length. For wildlife shots you usually need to keep the speed up,so the 200 with a -X converter you will be shutting down a stop or two so on dull days you might struggle

[Toyless]

Yeah, forgot you were a Canon man Mike, good tele has to be the 100-400L.

I almost converted on the strength of that lens.

[cheadle hulme]

JSS 911 said:

I have a 70-300mm and over the last year have been try to capture some wildlife shots manly deer and birds.I do find it lacking in length. For wildlife shots you usually need to keep the speed up,so the 200 with a -X converter you will be shutting down a stop or two so on dull days you might struggle

Please forgive a newbie here. I'm looking to buy a new lens 300+ for my new Nikon d3100. What does speed have to do with it? Genuine question sorry..

[Toyless]

cheadle hulme said:

JSS 911 said:

I have a 70-300mm and over the last year have been try to capture some wildlife shots manly deer and birds.I do find it lacking in length. For wildlife shots you usually need to keep the speed up,so the 200 with a -X converter you will be shutting down a stop or two so on dull days you might struggle

Please forgive a newbie here. I'm looking to buy a new lens 300+ for my new Nikon d3100. What does speed have to do with it? Genuine question sorry..

Larger aperture allows you to keep the shutter high enough to freeze the frame.

[dibbly dobbler]

Thanks all

Seems like the 70-200 might not be enough then, bummer as it reviews very well and is reasonably affordable

I may need to save for a 100-400 or go for the 'Bigma' !

[cheadle hulme]

Toyless said:

cheadle hulme said:

JSS 911 said:

I have a 70-300mm and over the last year have been try to capture some wildlife shots manly deer and birds.I do find it lacking in length. For wildlife shots you usually need to keep the speed up,so the 200 with a -X converter you will be shutting down a stop or two so on dull days you might struggle

Please forgive a newbie here. I'm looking to buy a new lens 300+ for my new Nikon d3100. What does speed have to do with it? Genuine question sorry..

Larger aperture allows you to keep the shutter high enough to freeze the frame.

Cheers. Smaller aperture = lower light = slower shutter required. I'll get there eventually.

[cheadle hulme]

dibbly dobbler said:

Thanks all

Seems like the 70-200 might not be enough then, bummer as it reviews very well and is reasonably affordable

I may need to save for a 100-400 or go for the 'Bigma' !

Hi, have you got a link to the Sigma "Bigma"?

I'm never sure I'm looking at the right thing? Cheers

[dibbly dobbler]

cheadle hulme said:

dibbly dobbler said:

Thanks all

Seems like the 70-200 might not be enough then, bummer as it reviews very well and is reasonably affordable

I may need to save for a 100-400 or go for the 'Bigma' !

Hi, have you got a link to the Sigma "Bigma"?

I'm never sure I'm looking at the right thing? Cheers

Just google Sigma 50-500

[flat-planedCrank]

dibbly dobbler said:

Thanks all

Seems like the 70-200 might not be enough then, bummer as it reviews very well and is reasonably affordable

I may need to save for a 100-400 or go for the 'Bigma' !

Yep, fraid 200mm isn't really enough for walk around taking full-frame shots of birds in trees.
Think 400mm is about right - many wildlife photographers seem to like the 400mm f5.6 L - hopefully RobDickinson will appear and corroborate this

Edited by flat-planedCrank on Saturday 8th January 23:25

[_dobbo_]

I spent a long time thinking I needed a big zoom. Went from a 70-300 at £130 to a second hand 80-400 at about £600 to a 150-500 at about £800.

Used each of them about twice, don't like any of them. Can I have my money back?

[-Pete-]

Yeah Rob knows everything. 400mm f4 is the minimum for birds IMO.

[flat-planedCrank]

cheadle hulme said:

dibbly dobbler said:

Thanks all

Seems like the 70-200 might not be enough then, bummer as it reviews very well and is reasonably affordable

I may need to save for a 100-400 or go for the 'Bigma' !

Hi, have you got a link to the Sigma "Bigma"?

I'm never sure I'm looking at the right thing? Cheers

Sigma lenses seem to attract nicknames Their 10-20 is sometimes referred to as the 'Wigma'

[cheadle hulme]

_dobbo_ said:

I spent a long time thinking I needed a big zoom. Went from a 70-300 at £130 to a second hand 80-400 at about £600 to a 150-500 at about £800.

Used each of them about twice, don't like any of them. Can I have my money back?

I'm sorry to quote you but;

Is this meant to be helpful, sarcastic, funny, true to life?

I know a lot of newbie questions are very much of the nature "how long is a piece of string" but please, I won't patronise you if you need accountancy advice.

[_dobbo_]

cheadle hulme said:

Is this meant to be helpful, sarcastic, funny, true to life?

Bit of all three?

Seems to me having been hanging around this forum for far too long that there is a path we all seem to follow.

Which DSLR?
Which tripod?
My lens isn't good enough, what next? 50mm?
Is the f/1.4 worth the extra over the f/1.8?
What filters do I need?
Cokin or Lee?
Which macro lens?
Which telephoto?


And so on.

Having been through this process and wasted more money than I usually care to think about I wanted to throw in a comment to that effect. Sarcastic? Yes. Helpful? Probably not. True to life? Definitely.

I'm sat here looking at several grands worth of kit I don't want or need, when PH starts a time travel forum I'll be all over it so I can go back and stop myself!

[tinman0]

_dobbo_ said:

Having been through this process and wasted more money than I usually care to think about I wanted to throw in a comment to that effect. Sarcastic? Yes. Helpful? Probably not. True to life? Definitely.

What interests you in photography may not interest other people, and vice versa. So if the OP wants a long zoom, then let him follow that path.

The world is made of many greys, your grey is different to the OP's grey.

[Yellabelly]

dobbo, care to be a bit more specific about the issues you had with the BigmOS, what were you shooting - Wildlife - Motorsport - Aircraft? and what didnt' it do that you thought it should.

I have one and have used it for all three areas albeit too infrequently and other than my failings such as wrong speed/aperture/ISO or not holding it steady it has performed OK. I can get all of the above problems with any of my other lenses

Nikkor 17-55 f2.8
Tamron Di 90 f2.8 Macro
Nikkor 70-300 f4 - 5.6

but it is not the lens that is at fault!

The Sig 150 - 500 is good for the money but should not be compared on performance with OEM long primes or fast telephotos that cost twice as much.

YB