Good Canon Lens
- Thread starter SNAPG
- Start date
- Status
hey mpenza
To get that shot of the eagle like you did, roughly how far away were you standing from the eagle when using the 70-300?
http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/alaskawild_1/sIMG_0865_bald_head_eagle
Thats a really great shot.
Sigma 50-500mm F4-5.6 EX HSM (non-DG) + 20D + monopod @ the zoo:
Both are at 500mm F8. Quite a lot of the nature shots on my gallery were taken using this lens. New is about S$1800 last i checked. 2nd hand can get for about $1-1.2k+ depending on the age and condition. Good value but quite hard to use.
Both are at 500mm F8. Quite a lot of the nature shots on my gallery were taken using this lens. New is about S$1800 last i checked. 2nd hand can get for about $1-1.2k+ depending on the age and condition. Good value but quite hard to use.
really depends on your budget. as others have said, canon have a few very excellent long range primes at 400,500 and 600mm. but these are pricey.
the other option would be a zoom with teleconverter. the 70-200 and 300mm's work quite well for this.
finally, there are a couple of aftermarket products from sigma and tamron that can give quite decent wildlife pics..
the other option would be a zoom with teleconverter. the 70-200 and 300mm's work quite well for this.
finally, there are a couple of aftermarket products from sigma and tamron that can give quite decent wildlife pics..
Wah lau...friend...u dunno how to use internet ah? Never heard b4 of Google? :sweat:
Anyway, cut and paste for ur convenience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconverter
You'll need a supertelephoto lens of 400mm and above to have closeup shots of animals with reasonable quality, and these don't usually come cheap. As one of the bros above suggested, only the 400mm f5.6L can give reasonable quality and reach and at a price point which won't hurt your wallet. You'll need good support for it though. 100-400 IS is also decent but it is not as sharp as the prime 400mm.
If you're talking about the following kind of image quality and reach, you'll need to fork out > SGD $10,000 for a supertele lens like the 400mm f2.8L IS, 500mm or 600mm f4L IS.
Following are sample zoo shots using a friend's 500mm f4L IS lens and a 10D body.
now i know who to go zoo with. i didn't know a cannon was that sharp... 10k!
Hi all clubsnapies ...
good len but cannot zoom to a range where I can get a good head shot of animals.
and I dun want to get too close and become the lion's dinner ... keke :sweat:
:devil:
Then you need a AWP sniper rifle, good for headshot, confirm the lion won't have his dinner :bsmilie:
Haha!
Anyway, to the TS, you can consider the bigma. It's a pretty decent superzoom for it's price (OP is selling it at $1.55k). It's a lens that needs lots of light though (and a 'pod would help too.
),Haha!
Anyway, to the TS, you can consider the bigma. It's a pretty decent superzoom for it's price (OP is selling it at $1.55k). It's a lens that needs lots of light though (and a 'pod would help too.
A pity it weighs 1.8kg!!!!
What makes the Bigma hard to handle is not so much the weight but the length of the lens at full zoom, especially since it's front heavy. The 70-200 F2.8L IS might be heavy but it's much easier to handle. Handholdable for hours on end (and of course IS helps with this). Handhold the Bigma for a bit and it starts to getting really difficult to avoid handshake, especially considering how much shutterspeed you need. You pretty much have to have a monopod attached to the Bigma all the time.
hey guys ...
side tracks a bit from the main topic.
Canon have this EF-S lens ... which only digital SLR can use.
From what I know, "S" lens have some difference when compare to the 36mm format.
[1] Does this means "EF-S" lens is design for digital SLR only?
[2] Does this means that If I am using a non-"EF-S" lenses fo my digital SLR,
the output result is not like "wat I see,wat I get" ??
[3] I raise this question because my frd, who is using Nikon and a zoom-lens.
what he saw in the viewfinder is not exactly the same as what he saw in the result
pictures, (it appeare to be smaller when compare to the view-finder"
ArH ... thx btw, I now know what the extender for.
:think:
side tracks a bit from the main topic.
Canon have this EF-S lens ... which only digital SLR can use.
From what I know, "S" lens have some difference when compare to the 36mm format.
[1] Does this means "EF-S" lens is design for digital SLR only?
[2] Does this means that If I am using a non-"EF-S" lenses fo my digital SLR,
the output result is not like "wat I see,wat I get" ??
[3] I raise this question because my frd, who is using Nikon and a zoom-lens.
what he saw in the viewfinder is not exactly the same as what he saw in the result
pictures, (it appeare to be smaller when compare to the view-finder"
ArH ... thx btw, I now know what the extender for.
:think:
unseenshadows
New Member
In a nutshell, EF-S lenses are those that cannot be used on a 1.3x or FF camera body.
so in that case, what the actual reason. EF-S lens is better than normal EF lens?:think:
unseenshadows
New Member
do a wiki search on whats the difference between EF and EF-S lenses.
i wouldn't say one gives better image quality than the other. EF-S is simply a classification that Canon gives for the lenses it designs specially for 1.6x crop bodies. like EF lens you pay for what you get (eg 18-55 versus 17-55)
i wouldn't say one gives better image quality than the other. EF-S is simply a classification that Canon gives for the lenses it designs specially for 1.6x crop bodies. like EF lens you pay for what you get (eg 18-55 versus 17-55)
- Status
Similar threads
