Telephoto lens

[fjord24]

What lens is recommended for wildlife shots?  I currently have a 250mm but would like something that can get closer.  I am looking at the 400 but have never used one so I do not know if that will be enough.  My shots are usually 100-200 yards away.

[Skirball]

How much are you willing to spend?  Things start to get expensive.

The 400mm f5.6 is reasonable if you need reach.  Fast and reach gets really pricey.

[Portlandjim]

Depends on how much money you want to spend. The new 200-400 f/4 looks to be the ideal wildlife lens, but is pricey. On my dream list. I have a 300 f/2.8 and use the 1.4X or 2x extender to make a great hand held 420 or 600mm. I can stalk with this and follow flying birds. 2X does reduce the lens quality but is better than cropping. 400 f/2.8 II is good for the same strategy, but is getting a little too heavy. I shoot with 1D X, focus speed is great. I also have a 800 f/4 IS L, great lens but  one must have tripod and the use very best technique. Not easy to get this setup into remote sites, and like I said best technique is required. You can never get enough focal length for birds. Have to learn how to get closer. Long shots in warm zones and you have the air causing the image quality to go south.

[Bill-Emmett]

You are in the area of expensive.  I shoot a lot of shore birds, and the tweety kind in the backyard, and never had to use a lens greater than 500mm at 100 yards.  (I own a Tamron 200-500mm )  Shooting birds in flight (BIF) is another story.  Overhead I use a EF 70-200mm f4L USM hand held at ISO 800-1000.  For BIF you need a lighter outfit, with fast lens, and faster focus.  Buying a super tele unless I'm shooting dangerous animals, or in Africa is really over the top.  For a once in a lifetime trip to Africa, I would rent lenses, and even going to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and Alaska to shoot Grizzlys I would rent lenses depending on the suggestions of the guides.  Birds of prey are a bit more difficult but don't require such a lens.  A Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM will do nicely, and cost less than a EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM.  Or, look at Tamron, and Sigma for a good long lens.  If you want to shoot sports, you may want to get into some really expensive lenses, like the new Canon EF 200-400 L with the built in 1.6 extender, for over $11,000 per copy.  Good luck, my .02 cents

[bobakman]

I love my Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. I use it for small animals, Squirrels and birds and am quite happy with it's performance/price.

Bob

[hcbph]

A couple of lens that aren't 'out of this world' in price that 'might' fill your needs are both Sigma's.  the 50-500mm is spoken of highly, another some like is the 120-400mm.  I think the 2d one once had some problems but I believe they've been corrected.  I have taken a couple of test shots with the 120-400 and they look good, though it has not been sufficiently tested IMO.  I like to do landscapes and some wild life shooting and I've going to be testing it further later when the weather improves.

If nothing else, see about renting a lens and then evaluate your results.

[ebiggs1]

fjord24,

" My shots are usually 100-200 yards away."

Unless you are shooting a flying dinosaur 100-200 yards is going to be a real challenge and very expensive.