20d and?

[alexf]

This is my first post so Hello everyone :t:

I purchased a 20d with the efs 17-85mm lens a few weeks ago. I have taken some good pictures which I am very happy with (see attached). The problem is (apart from being totally new to slr's) everytime I put effort into locating a bird to photograph (in this case a circling Red Kite), I find that it flies just a tad too far away for me to see any details in the picture. Even if I attempt to stalk them they are always just a little too far away. It seems that I have to be within 10 foot away lol to get a good picture.

As I am a newbie please forgive my dumbness, do I need to improve my technique to get even closer (which I doubt I could) or do I need to get a 400mm lens? I have read various forums and advice on this lens or the 100-400 and I think it could only help bring things closer to me. One thing that bugs me about this new hobby is the price of everything, especially the lens options available. I can't tell what good a bigger lens would be by trying it in a shop and don't have money to burn. I am missing too many oppertunities with the lens I have, could you guys help with my problem.

I understand the steep learning curve to the 20d and that this may be half the reason for poor, longish, missed shots......or do I actually need a bigger lens?

Just want to be double sure before saving for something that may or may not actually help. I would like to continue (or at leat start properly) photographing birds with chance of a good pic or two.

Sorry for the long first post but I will value your advice!

Many thanks

Alex F

[IanF]

Hi alexf,

On behalf of Admin and the Moderators welcome to Bird Forum :t:

I have the Canon 20D as well, having ventured into DSLRs last November though I've been involved in photography for a couple of decades or so. You'll find different people have different preferences for lenses - but generally longer the reach the better - even if you can get closer to the birds!

Personally I think a 400mm lens is the minimum needed for bird photos or at least 'more easily taken bird photos'. 300mm will do if you can get really close to them, but most often 500mm or 600mm is even better. 400mm is a compromise.

I'm using the Canon 100-400mm IS f4,5-f5,6 L which is a very nice lens to use giving pretty decent results. It has the flexibility of the zoom for different distances and reasonable close focusing - 1.8m. The zoom closed down makes for easier carrying as well. The IS I find is a boon for hand holding.

The Canon 400mm f5,6 LUS is a slightly sharper lens in the sub £1,000 lenses (c.£877) and likely can't be beat for price v quality. Minimum focus though is 3m which may be an issue sometimes and doesn't have IS which isn't everyones cup of tea anyway.

Next up I'd say are the Sigma 170-400mm APO DG and the 50-500mm - both nice lenses bulkier that the Canon lenses but giving decent results at a fraction of the price of the Canon L series lenses.

If you come across a lens you fancy then you can search the Bird Forum Gallery for that lens to look at examples of what it can do.

See you around.

[SeanKP]

Hi Alex

Welcome to Birdforum. It's a great site and you'll have lot's of fun here I'm sure.

The simple answer to your question is, yes you need a bigger lens. Well, you do if you want to consisently get decent pics of birds any smaller than a swan. Having said that, a big lens won't necessarily result in stunning pictures from day one. You will also need reasonable technique too but with a little practice and maybe some advice from the many helpful folk on this site you'll soon be taking shots which are simply not feasible with your 17-85.

As to which lens to go for, well there has been a lot of debate on here about the various merits of the longer lenses and I'd advise you to read up on some of the past threads, look at the reviews on FredMiranda.com, figure how much you can afford and then make up your own mind. However, I will say that both the Canon 400mm and the 100-400mm have produced some splendid shots and you shouldn't go far wrong with either. A cheaper alternative is the Sigma 170-500mm which I have found to be a cracking lens and has the advantage of a little extra reach but there are other lenses which have their champions too.

Good luck with the new hobby.

Sean

[pattiwhite]

welcome..im not as active here as i could be, but retiring in a few days..and will try more. i have the rebel and the 20D..i use the 75-300 lens. IS and non-IS. i have a little get up in my backyard that gets me soem great photos. look at my gallery..all taken with 75-300. i plan on the sigma 50-500. have read and looked around and its what i want.
my other site is http://www.pbase.com/Patti_and_Larry
and there are nome backyard shots there

[QuantumTiger]

Hi Alex. Welcome.

You can do bird photography with the 17-85mm, but they have to be pretty tame, or pretty big (preferably both).

Having something in the 400 range is a wholeheap better, but even that is not a magic cookie. When I first got my 400 I was very frustrated that the more interesting birds still seem to fly before I could get close enough. Finding a place that they frequent and learning to becoming inconspicuous helps a whole load.

I found the following series of articles very interest as an insight into how the pros do it!

Nigel Dennis Tips (http://www.nigeldennis.com/tips_1.htm)

[alexf]

Wow, great feedback! Thanks all.

Looks like a 100-400 or 400 prime then...and aim for the 600mm when my lucky lottery numbers come up, they will, honest lol.

Learn to aproach with more stealth and experiment more with the 20d settings. I also think some of my problems are poor UK weather at weekends and not being brave enough to turn the iso up more. The 17-85 has impressed me so far so I'll keep it and try to decide between the 400 and 100-400.

Considering the lens I already have, would the 100-400 make more sense to get over the 400?

Also, the company I work for has an office in the states and could bring back a lens purchased in the US. They could bring it back on their next visit to UK, if it is out of the box and packed with personnal stuff would that still require duty to be paid? :'D or would that be very bad of me 3:-)

Many thanks

Alex

[Tannin]

Yes, you need lots longer than 85mm for bird photography. Just about the only bird I'd use the 17-85 for would be an Emu, and even then I'd need to get close enough.

The 400mm f/5.6 prime lens is generally regarded as being just a fraction sharper than the already excellent 100-400L, and you will hardly miss the ability to zoom as most 100-400 owners use it at 400mm practically all the time.

On the other hand, the 400 f/5.6 is very old now and is well overdue for replacement with a more modern design. The optics themselves remain excellent (good glass is good glass), but it doesn't have any form of image stabalisation (IS) which makes a massive difference to the usability of a long lens. (Matters much more for a 400mm lens than the little 17-85, which is a lot easier to hand hold.)

On balance, then, I'd go for the 100-400 if I were you and I were buying today. But you might do best to wait just a short while and see what goodies Canon announces at the big trade show near the end of February. They are expected to announce one, possibly two new cameras, and a handful of new lenses. It's anyone's guess what they have up their sleeve but I would not be at all surprised to see a replacement for the elderly 400mm f5.6 or a new and improved version of the 100-400L (which is itself no spring chicken), or possibly even both. If so, you will have a choice between the spiffy new lenses and maybe some decent discounts on the outgoing models.

[SMC2002]

Hello Alex and Welcome :-)

You are correct. The advice you have recieved is excellent, as are all the lenses recommended.

You are also correct in assuming that once you have 400mms you will long for 600mms....lol If you pick up either of the aforementioned Canons, and you live where you get fairly decent weather, you can use a teleconverter to extend the range of those lenses. I have a 50-500mm Sigma and the Canon 400mm F5.6L. I use the inexpensive Tamron 1.4X teleconverter, on the 400, to get an 896mm FOV with the 20D. This $100 "poor mans super tele" will cost you a stop of aperture (F8 wide open versus F5.6) and slow the AF down a bit. But it will extend your len's reach by almost 260mms :-) Unfortunately, the Bigma doesn't work as well with a teleconverter. The AF slows wayyyyyyy down. Pretty much making it useless for capturing birds in flight unless you are a fast manual focuser...lol But, this TC should work just fine with the 100-400mm also.

I am very impressed with the 400mmL+Tamron TC combo. Last week I had no clear line of sight to a relatively rare raptor in a tree. All I could do was shoot through the twigs and branches. With this combo the AF not only worked fairly fast, but was accurate enough to pick out this (http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/gallery/348351/1/52258691/Large) Merlin from the twigs.

Steve

[alexf]

Cheers guys,

I have the "i want it now" problem but I would be gutted if I purchased a bigger lens and then found Canon released a new one a few weeks later so thanks for the warning Tannin and I think I'll wait and see what they release.

Although I use a monopod I think IS would be good on a lens that size so fingers crossed that they will release one (very soon).

I saw a Harris Hawk perched on a small tree last week and took some shots but as you know, they came out small and grainy on the pc, well, at least things like that push me to save harder :t:

Many thanks again folks

Alex

[Ragna]

Alex if buying from America prices are up to 30-40% less than here, B&H has a very good name, also bringing it back in with personnel stuff would still be liable for taxes but only if you declair it or they find it.

[paul goode]

Wow, great feedback! Thanks all.

Learn to aproach with more stealth and experiment more with the 20d settings. I also think some of my problems are poor UK weather at weekends and not being brave enough to turn the iso up more.

Alex

Hi Alex

I also recently bought a 20d and have been getting some pretty good results using it with a sigma 50-500.
Virtually all the recent shots have been taken at iso800 using Neatimage to remove the noise afterwards. This seems to work well for images displayed on the web. At iso400 noise isn't a problem unless you are looking at large printed images.
I have attached an image to give you an idea of a cleaned up iso800 picture

[Tannin]

Neat Image is great. I gather there are several other good ones around s well, but NI certainly does the trick for me.

I practically always shoot at ISO400, 200 if it is super-bright and I'm getting close to the maximum possible shutter speed at 400; 800 if it's too dark, but 400 perhaps 90% of the time. But even with ISO 400 shots, Neat Image improves them, especially if you are cropping and zooming a lot because the bird was a long way away.

(All this, remember, is relevant to the 20D. On most (but not all) other cameras, there is considerably more noise to deal with at any give ISO.)