Canon 400D first birding lens (1 Viewer)

Greysands boy · Jan 9, 2008

I recently received a 400D from my fiance as a christmas present which came with the standard 18-55mm lens. I would like to shoot some photos of birds whilst i am still getting use to using my new camera and so i am looking for a budget lens (£100-£150) to get me started. I am looking at either a sigma or tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 are these any good? i understand that i will not be able to get ultra close with a 300mm but i need to start somewhere and so this is enough zoom for me to start with until i am completely able to use my new camera properly. Would this be an ok lens to start with? or is there anything you could suggest? ( unless there is someone who has a good second hand one within my budget who is wanting to sell! )
Thanks very much,
Darryl's Fiancee Liane.

mike from ebbw · Jan 9, 2008

I used to use a Canon ef 75-300mm and it was a great lens particularly for flight shots as it is so small and light.You can pick them up for about £100 used.I then bought a used Sigma 135-400mm which gave me more reach and gives great results and was also £100.My mate Alan (The Valley Walker on BF) just bought one off Ebay for £200.I have also just recently bought a Sigma f7.2 500mm prime lens brand new for also £100 and am getting some pretty decent results with that.So there we are,three lenses all within your price range to get you started.There are plenty of examples of pics taken with these lenses on my gallery.
Happy snapping!

Bob Thompson · Jan 10, 2008

I am in the same situation, looking for lenses for 400D, I was considering a EF 400mm f5.6 USM because you can use the 1.4x or 2x extender with the lens, it is light BUT is it too slow?

Bob

Jaff · Jan 10, 2008

Bob Thompson said:
I am in the same situation, looking for lenses for 400D, I was considering a EF 400mm f5.6 USM because you can use the 1.4x or 2x extender with the lens, it is light BUT is it too slow?

Bob

1.4x you can get away with but I think you're pushing it with a 2x conv on a 5.6 aperture. That is unless your quite happy manual focussing, not sure how much image degradation there would be though but it might just be on the wrong side of acceptable. If someone has tried the lens with a 2x conv. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Liane, Canon is better quality but the Sigma and Tamron have a macro function, increasing your shooting options, so it's really up to you which way you want to go but like Mike says, second-hand stuff is turning up all the time so keep your eyes peeled. :t:

Regards.
Jaff

HokkaidoStu · Jan 11, 2008

I have a 400D and my first lens was a Sigma 70-300 DG lens. Sigma make a slightly better version (the APO version) which is pretty cheap and apparently well worth the money.

The set up has its' obvious limitations (not quite enough reach, poor IQ at top of zoom range, slow AF etc) but I got some perfectly acceptable shots (well acceptable to me anyway). You can check a couple in the gallery here and here

You'll soon find yourself wishing for a better lens but as a starter lens I can definitely recommend the Sigma (APO).

After 6 months I upgraded to the Canon 70-300 (IS version) which is much better and also now have the Canon 100-400 IS (only on loan for a few months alas) but I don't regret getting the Sigma. I enjoyed using it.

Duck_Pond · Jan 11, 2008

I started with the Sigma 70-300mm APO lens (bought it with the camera, 2nd hand). It's not a bad lens at all. The pics attached were taken with it, on a 350D.

As is the norm with bird photography, I wanted extra reach, so after a few months after which I was sure I was genuinely interested in wildlife photography, battered a credit card for the 100-400mm Canon L lens.

Kevin Groocock · Jan 11, 2008

Just starting out with photography and bought a Canon 400D with standard 18m-55m lens. Obviusly wanting something longer, and taking advice from this forum, bought a Sigma 170m-500m. Just got to get the time to seriously hammer them!!

Roy C · Jan 11, 2008

Jaff said:
1.4x you can get away with but I think you're pushing it with a 2x conv on a 5.6 aperture. That is unless your quite happy manual focussing, not sure how much image degradation there would be though but it might just be on the wrong side of acceptable. If someone has tried the lens with a 2x conv. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards.
Jaff

Here is a few shots with the 400mm f5.6 and Stacked converters (1.4 + 2x). You do need good light a tripod and manual focus but at 1120 mm focal length (1792 mm FOV on 1.6 crop body) they are usable IMO.

David Smith · Jan 11, 2008

Roy C said:
Here is a few shots with the 400mm f5.6 and Stacked converters (1.4 + 2x). You do need good light a tripod and manual focus but at 1120 mm focal length (1792 mm FOV on 1.6 crop body) they are usable IMO.

Excellent results Roy-I must get a 2x and give that a try.

Jaff · Jan 11, 2008

Duck_Pond said:
.... battered a credit card for the 100-400mm Canon L lens.

Was it tasty, you can deep fry anything these days!

Roy C said:
Here is a few shots with the 400mm f5.6 and Stacked converters (1.4 + 2x). You do need good light a tripod and manual focus but at 1120 mm focal length (1792 mm FOV on 1.6 crop body) they are usable IMO.

Well Roy you've proven me wrong, the results speak for themselves. Me thinks it's only something to experiment with though, I don't think Bob should look to buy the lens and expect to be able to use anything other than 1.4x converter on a regular basis. Do you agree/disagree?

For Liane I would say it is always worth going the extra money for APO (or the equivalent) over non-APO in a lens.
Jaff

tjsimonsen · Jan 11, 2008

Hi Liane,
Back in the film days I often used an older version of the Sigma 70-300/f4-5.6 APO with fairly decent results. The following pics were all shot with that lens:

http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/88439696
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/87452350
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/87451941
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/88439687
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/87451939
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/86310113
http://www.pbase.com/tjsimonsen/image/86783574

It's not bad for the price, and you can get fine results indeed. The build quality is about as bad as you can expect, and the AF is horrible - it was bad on my EOS 50E, but it's downright terrible on my EOS Rebel XT.

You can definitly "learn the basics" with such a lens, including MF. And then later decide if you want to spend more on another.

Thomas

Canon 400D first birding lens (1 Viewer)

More options

Greysands boy

Well-known member

mike from ebbw

Well-known member

Bob Thompson

Well-known member

Jaff

Registered Member

HokkaidoStu

occasional moderator

Duck_Pond

Professional Wildlife Photographer And Guide

Attachments

Kevin Groocock

Well-known member

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

Attachments

David Smith

Warrington Lancs

Jaff

Registered Member

tjsimonsen

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread