What size lens?

I am starting to get more into wildlife & birding photography and was wondering what a good size lens to get. I have the Canon 60D and people are going to say get the 7D but I don't see that happening in the near future anyway. The lens I have been using is the 55-250 IS but would like to get something better. What I have considered are the 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS, 100-400 F4/5.6L IS, and the 70-200 F/2.8L IS and getting the 2X TC. If I go with the 70-300 I may eventually get the 400 F/4 IS. Do any of these sound like a good fit for wildlife & birding?

Thanks for your help.

Dave

Dave, It appears that every few weeks or months someone asks these questions. I was asking these same questions just a few months ago. I tried to find the links to some of these discussions to share with you, but could not readily find them. However, I can tell you that for the most part, people like you and I tend to have three choices in the Canon line of lenses: the 400mm f5.6, the 100-400mm zoom, and the 300mm f4 combined with the 1.4 TC. If you search and google these three lenses, you will learn that these are all good choices with advocates for each of these lenses. It all depends on your priorities as a photographer. Any selection you make involves a trade-off. Check out Arthur Morris' discussion of these lenses as well.:S3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David N Smith

I am starting to get more into wildlife & birding photography and was wondering what a good size lens to get.
Dave

---

David,

Ronald is correct. This question is asked often, though it seems much more frequent than monthly. So look through the gear and general photography forums and you will find many debates.

The simple answer is buy the biggest lens you can afford and carry. But without spending a lot I think you can make significant improvements in image quality.

You are currently using consumer zoom lenses, which are not real sharp, especially wide open and not particularly fast at AF. Although I love zoom lenses and own the 100-400, I find the fixed focal length telephoto lenses much sharper (and Canon's MTF charts say the same thing) than zooms at the same focal length and also generally have faster AF. So what are you hoping to achieve? If bird in flight and wildlife action, then fast AF and wide open high image quality are keys. (Unfortunately both those drive cost up fast.) If you only want web images then zooms are fine, but if you want to make big enlargements (like 16x24 inches or larger) that a fixed focal length quality lens will be important. Note some photographers here post stunning images with the 100-400. I'm just not a fan of it (but again I do own one). The 70-200 lenses, both f/4 and f/2.8, are exceptions to the zoom rule as they are plenty sharp. But in longer focal lengths, it is difficult to design a zoom telephoto and keep the cost down.

To consider: the 60D has very small pixels (4.3 microns) so you need a quality lens to take advantage of all the sensor can deliver. Also note that the 60D with a 300 f/4 lens gets more pixels on a subject with almost similar signal-to-noise per pixel as a 1D Mark II (or IIN) with a 500 mm f/4, which was a top of a line pro set up of just 6 or so years ago.

In other threads on this subject you'll see people recommending the 400 f/5.6 (no IS, but very fas AF) and the 300 f/4 (plus a 1.4x TC). I like IS as it helps in low light situations, so I went the 300 f/4 route. If you can afford it, a 300 f/2.8 L IS is another step up in image quality, AF speed and overall reach (the 60D will AF with a 2x TC). Another advantage of upgrading to a 7D (or 1D) series body is microadjustment of the AF system, which can improve image quality.

Another key thing with telephotos: do not put a UV/clear protective filter over the front, even a top quality one as it will almost certainly reduce image quality (this is not so in shorter focal lengths).

Roger

Roger, are you stating that even a "super multi-coated" UV filter should not be put on the 300mm f4 lens? (I thought you had recommended one for lens protection in a recent post).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronald Zigler

Roger, are you stating that even a "super multi-coated" UV filter should not be put on the 300mm f4 lens? (I thought you had recommended one for lens protection in a recent post).

---

Hi Ronald,

No, I do not recommend any front filter for telephoto lenses. This page shows the degradation and describes why such a filter will not work well on a telephoto lens but will with a shorter focal length lens. I do use UV lenses as protection on all my lenses shorter than or equal to 200mm (at least 200 f/4, but would question filters for 200 f/2.8 due to the large aperture diameter).
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ilter_quality/
See, in particular figures 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b.

Roger

@ Ronald & Roger,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am thinking of getting the Tamron 70-300F/4-5.6 SP DI VC USD for now and expanding from there later on. I have seen good reviews on this lens, in fact I think James Shadle said in another post that he uses this lens on occasion. I know it is not an "L" lens but it appears to be better than what I have.

Dave

Roger, Ouch. The thought of leaving my new 300mm f4 bare without front element protection makes me a bit nervous. I will eventually add the 1.4 TC and maybe the 2x, but for a mere hobbyist like myself, that is likely to be the extent of my investment into photographic lenes; so I really want to take care of what I have. I suppose I will experiment and see what images look like with and without the filter. Although I am now second guessing (just a bit) my decision to move up to a "super-multicoated" Hoya filter. I followed a discussion on filters from 2009, and made the upgrade on the basis of that older discussion.

Ronald, why dont you just keep the hood on? That is what I do on all my lenses all the time. I can understand for a big lenses like 500+, hood might not be a wise decision when shooting handheld in windy conditions.....but for small lenses, I dont see any downside. I even keep it on with my 17-40...Since I use a crop camera and dont need to worry about the hood creeping in in the frame at the corners.

Kaustubh, I thought of that too. The hood will offer protection. I'll think about it, and perhaps experiment with the filter on and off. I just wish to apply my brother's recommendation when it comes to high quality lenses: it is better to keep them clean, than to keep cleaning them.

Thanks again for the responses. I've enjoyed and appreciated all the suggestions from BPN.:S3:

Quote:

---

Roger, Ouch. The thought of leaving my new 300mm f4 bare without front element protection makes me a bit nervous.

---

I have been shooting with my 300 for close to ten years now and have never had a filter on it for protection the front element looks as good as the first day i bought it and I do not baby my equipment and for comparison my 6000.00 dollar 500f/4 does not even have the option for a front filter nor do any of the other super telephotos and that includes the 12,000.00 800mm and the 60,000.00 1200mm:bg3:

Ron,

Here's a strong endorsement for the position Roger stated above: Any filter between your subject and your telephoto lens glass is going to change and likely degrade the image. There's no way around it.

If image quality, especially sharpness and color rendition are at the top of your priority list, there can be no filter on the front of your telephoto glass.

Don't mean it to sound harsh; it's just true.

Anything but open glass at the end of your lens results in a compromise of the image.

- Bill

Ronald, If you look at the design diagram for the 300 f/4 IS you see that Canon has already built in a protective filter as the front element is a non curved straight element that does not effect the optical performance of the lens this is the same design for all the telephotos.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...s_usm.html?p=2
For comparison here is the diagram for the 24 f/1.4 II which has a curved UD for a front element.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...s_usm.html?p=2