Canon lens

[nikhilkgomes]

Hey all, I have a canon EOS 1300D. So far I have just been using the 18-55mm kit lens. I am now in the market for a new lens. I am looking at doing quite a lot of wildlife photography and was wondering if you guys could point me in the direction of a cheapish, good beginners lens? TIA 🙂

[TCampbell]

There is also a Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II ... an outstanding lens.  

Among people who frequently shoot birds .... the 150-600mm seems to be the favorite.  Canon does not make one but both Sigma and Tamron do (actually I think they both make two apiece.)

[Tronhard]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

 There is also a Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II ... an outstanding lens.  

Among people who frequently shoot birds .... the 150-600mm seems to be the favorite.  Canon does not make one but both Sigma and Tamron do (actually I think they both make two apiece.)

---

Thank you for your excellent suggestion.  I have one actually, but again I have a different purpose!

[Waddizzle]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

There is also a Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II ... an outstanding lens.  

Among people who frequently shoot birds .... the 150-600mm seems to be the favorite.  Canon does not make one but both Sigma and Tamron do (actually I think they both make two apiece.)

---

Yes, that is an outstanding lens.  Expensive, but it can capture razor sharp images.

A lens with a 100-400mm focal range used on an APS-C sensor body would have an “equivalent” focal range of 160-640mm.  This is very close to using 150-600mm on a full frame sensor body.

[Tronhard]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Yes, that is an outstanding lens.  Expensive, but it can capture razor sharp images.

A lens with a 100-400mm focal range used on an APS-C sensor body would have an “equivalent” focal range of 160-640mm.  This is very close to using 150-600mm on a full frame sensor body.

---

Asbolutely agree.  I love the 100-400 L MkII combined with the 1.4MkIII adaptor it has an amazing reach with high quality imges.  See...

THis was taken hand-held on the 7DII+100-400MKII+1.4xMkIII giving an EFL of around 900mm.

I am looking for a much shorter range (hence the 70-200) of really good quality but lighter than my 70-200 2.8MkII.  I am carrying an injury right now so weight is a bit of a factor "the best camera (lens) is the one you are prepared to carry!

[kvbarkley]

What, no love for the 70-300 DO?

[Tronhard]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

What, no love for the 70-300 DO?

---

Not so much...   the reviews I saw indicated that it wasn't that good a lens.

[ebiggs1]

"No the black one. Non-L, note the II"

The white one, yes.  The black ones, no.  IMHO, as always.

[Tronhard]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"No the black one. Non-L, note the II"

The white one, yes.  The black ones, no.  IMHO, as always.

---

Oh, absolutely agree the L lenses are generally better than the black ones - although I would defend the 15-85 because of its place as a speciality APS-C lens and it produces some great results - that extra 3 degrees at the wide end can make a big difference.  A lot of those choices are pegged to the available budget - that's why I always ask someone who wants to know what lens to buy that question amongst all those others.  Otherwise the inquirer gets a list of what works for other people.

[ebiggs1]

"...that extra 3 degrees at the wide end can make a big difference."

Yes it does.  Good point.