• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Lenses!! (1 Viewer)

LozSanders

Well-known member
Right I've finally made a step forward and purchased a canon20D. Now the hard bit!
What does the 'IS' stand for on lenses
I've not a clue!! I've been told that for bird photography I'd need at least a 300mm lens but I really don't know where to start, I'm gonna buy second hand so the I can't compare prices cause I could pick up a real bargain if I knew what I was looking for. So if you have a good reasonable priced lens to suit this camera and birding please let me know the spec.
With Thanks :stuck:
Lauren
 
LozSanders said:
Right I've finally made a step forward and purchased a canon20D. Now the hard bit!
What does the 'IS' stand for on lenses
I've not a clue!! I've been told that for bird photography I'd need at least a 300mm lens but I really don't know where to start, I'm gonna buy second hand so the I can't compare prices cause I could pick up a real bargain if I knew what I was looking for. So if you have a good reasonable priced lens to suit this camera and birding please let me know the spec.
With Thanks :stuck:
Lauren

I'm pretty sure IS stands for Image Stabilised. In other words the lens has a mechanism that compensates for the vibrations of hand held shots. It also means spending more money.
 
IS does indeed work, very well though you have to be aware which mode you are in, especially when photographing birds in flight as mode 1 stabilizes in both horizontal and vertical plane which is good for static shots but when panning you need mode 2 which only works in one plane, it can create bizarre effects when you may actually be wanting to show a level of blur if left in mode 1 it can actually blur the bird you are trying to photograph
 
500mm very expensive,why not try for a 100-400 IS lens.They can be purchased as used items from dealers.A good basic lens,not too heavy.A large lens you may may find that you have to use a tripod.Having made the comment re the 500,I do know that many members use the Sigma 500 and do have very good results,and I do not think it is over priced.
 
I use the Canon 100-400 IS and Sigma 50-500 lenses on my 20D's. I think the 50-500 is better for bird photography due to the extra reach of the lens. The IS is not really of much use with moving subjects.

My gallery has many images taken with both lenses.
 
Kevin is right: you can't stabilize the bird (or the branch, it's sitting on)!

And you will not get a cheap used lens with IS, because this technique is quite new.
But its good to have a fast lens (fast AF) - and newer lenses are faster (sometimes :).
Zooms are optically more worse than than lenses with a fix length. And a converter multiplies not only length and aparture...
And above an aparture of 5.6 AF wont work anymore...

So you have to look on your bank account and make a compromises...
 
Call me biased but I use a 20D and 100-400mm IS lens for all my birding photography - I know it's a bit of a compromise against say a 500mm fixed focal lens but the 100-400 is flexible enough to meet most of the "in the field" situations, not too heavy or bulky and I find the IS is excellent once you get the hang of the mode settings.

Only drawback: get a lens cover for that white lens - stands out rather when you're trying to stalk that elusive subject through the undergrowth !

As previously posted, you'll probably struggle to find an IS lens as a "used" bargin but shop around there's so good deals to be had from UK dealers and on the net.
 
degen said:
Kevin is right: you can't stabilize the bird (or the branch, it's sitting on)!


And above an aparture of 5.6 AF wont work anymore...

Not true - maybe true with Canon bodies - but my Nikon will - maybe this is just a Canon thing.

Very, very happy with my Nikon D70 / Tamron 200-500 combination.
 
For bird photography it is always best to get the longest possible focal length that your money can afford. That being said, all the lenses mentioned here are fine lenses and are more than capable to get you the shot with excellent image quality. More importantly, which lens you choose depends on your budget, and your shooting syle/technique. A 500mm prime lens has the reach, but is very expensive and heavy, and you need a tripod to get the best results from it. A 100-400 IS or 300mm f4 IS is a better compromise, light, handholdable and small enough to stow in your backpack for easy carrying, and not forgetting they have IS too.

Hope this helps... |=)|
 
I would go slightly further than you guys and say that in my opinion a decent tripod is essential to get the best out of your equipment and consideration of its purchase must go hand-in-hand with the purchase of a long lens.
Many people buy expensive lenses and are then dissapointed with the results because they don't want the hassle of carrying a tripod around and think they can hand-hold the lens.
A tripod will always improve the quality of the image to some extent.
 
I have a tripod which i took out once, with my Tamron 200-500. I never take it anymore! It was a disaster.

Firstly, it's too heavy and cumbersome - i now use a cheap 20 quid monopod which i leave attached to the camera (it makes it easier to carry the camera like this).

Secondly, using a tripod lulled me into the idea of being able to use slow shutter speeds - which has turned out not to be effective. The birds tend to move quite a lot, and using a tripod only stops camera shake - not bird movement. You think you can get away with slower shutter speeds only to find you have sharp backgrounds and blurred birds!

Thirdly - they are a pain is the ars to keep setting up. I carry my monopod and just drop the leg when required.
 
rezMole said:
I have a tripod which i took out once, with my Tamron 200-500. I never take it anymore! It was a disaster.

Firstly, it's too heavy and cumbersome - i now use a cheap 20 quid monopod which i leave attached to the camera (it makes it easier to carry the camera like this).

Secondly, using a tripod lulled me into the idea of being able to use slow shutter speeds - which has turned out not to be effective. The birds tend to move quite a lot, and using a tripod only stops camera shake - not bird movement. You think you can get away with slower shutter speeds only to find you have sharp backgrounds and blurred birds!

Thirdly - they are a pain is the ars to keep setting up. I carry my monopod and just drop the leg when required.

I agree with this and have expressed the virtues of a monopod on another thread. I have been out this morning on the windy local estuary and all pictures are sharp. If you cannot hold a monopod steady in normal conditions your technique needs correcting.
While I was there a chap asked could he try the set up and he was very
impressed.

Chris.
 
I accept most of the above points are valid. At the end of the day most of cannot either afford or carry all the equipment we may wish to have, so we have to make comprises. The first consideration should be what type of bird photography, ie what birds, how and where will I be doing the bulk of my photograhy. For example if you are walking long distances stalking birds in the field it will be impractical to lug around a 500mm lens and tripod and expect to photo quickly moving passerines. However that set up could be ideal if you are reasonably static, for example in a hide, where birds "come" to you. Worthwhile looking at gallery pictures and the equipment used and even contacting the exhibitors to see how they got the shot. I assure you there are some very interesting tales behind the captures, results can appear very natural but took a lot of homework to tempt the bird to where the photographer could get the picture. Birds are cunning but so are photographers.
 
johnmoonie said:
Worthwhile looking at gallery pictures and the equipment used and even contacting the exhibitors to see how they got the shot. I assure you there are some very interesting tales behind the captures, results can appear very natural but took a lot of homework to tempt the bird to where the photographer could get the picture. Birds are cunning but so are photographers.

I agree with this statement John we can all say mine is better than yours, the proof is in the photo's, look at peoples galleries and judge for yourself. Ask questions about how the shot was taken and if possible look at EXIF information.
 
LozSanders,
I have got the 300/4L IS and find it is ok. added some time later the 1.4x EF II converter as well.
remember: you will have to be patient, end some "field work" does help a lot!

succes
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top