Affordable wildlife lens?

[Limbwalker]

Okay, I've been saving my pennies and "think" I can justify paying up to $1K for a long lens.

Going on a Canon 50D

This ain't my first rodeo, so I've considered all of the obvious ones I can think of but was wanting to hear if any of you have discovered something that works well for you.

I've owned, in the past, Nikon 300 4.5 ED and 400 5.6 ED (liked both of those very much), Canon 300 L f4 AF, and a Tokina 400 5.6 SD AF

Of all those, I really enjoyed using the Tokina 400 5.6 because of it's small size and light weight, and the 400 5.6 ED Nikon manual focus because of the image quality.

What I'm considering now is something like the Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 OS. They get good reviews, are pretty affordable, and have Optical Stabilization, which I've discovered I really like.

Other lenses I'm considering are a Nikon 400 3.5 (with an adapter) or an old Tamron 300 2.8 with the adaptall mount. Of course, neither of those would have image stabilization OR autofocus, but I learned that autofocus with a long lens is not something I just have to have, as I learned photography before auto focus anyway.

Thoughts?

Am I missing anything obvious?

[Limbwalker]

Nobody? Surely someone else has this same dilemma?

Thought about the venerable 100-400L Canon IS too, but I can't find one for under $1200, and since I'll most likely be using it at 400 most of the time, I've heard they are a touch soft on the long end.

[Shane]

If you're going to get a 400mm, especially f/4 or f/5.6, for wildlife then you would probably do better with a tripod than IS. Lots of your shot opportunities will be in low light situations. Even with IS, it would be hard to get sharp pics hand held. Tripods are cheaper than the extra $ for IS too. That'll help you get more lens for the $. Just one more thing to consider.

[Limbwalker]

Shane, have you used a good IS lens?

I have a heavy tripod and shot my 400 5.6's in the past off it. But the IS they have these days is nothing short of amazing, and a LOT of my photos are taken hand-held, even with the longer lenses, or at least, resting on the window of my car or truck. After having IS on my 55-250 for a while, I don't know if I can live without it now.

I mean, sharp pictures handheld at 1/30 sec. at 250mm !?!

Still leaning toward the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 OS at the moment. Found one for $750.

[Shane]

Yes, I've used it. It helps a lot, but it's not as good as a tripod for tack sharpness at long focal lengths and slow shutters for me. Maybe my hand isn't as steady as yours.

[Texun1]

Most of the makers recommend turning off the IS/VR function when using a tripod. Nothing like a good tripod when using some long glass.

Another lesson I learned... I rented a 400 USM 2.8L lens to take on a Colorado trip. I had no problem with my tripod however, your ballhead or pistol grip has to be able to handle the lens also. I have some pretty heavy duty equipment in my bag but it wasn't ready for the 400 MM weight of 10 lbs plus the camera.

http://digital-photography-school.com/image-stabilization-on-tripods

[Limbwalker]

Shane, I learned on a tripod too. Shot medium format SLR's with slower shutter speeds on a heavy Bogen and big ballhead for years. Still have that tripod and head, but honestly I don't want to carry them in the field anymore. I want a hand-holdable 300-500mm range lens I can carry with me. I'll put it on a tripod in a blind if I have the right setup, but otherwise, It's going to be in the truck seat next to me, or hanging over my shoulder.

I do have a pretty steady hand still, but I do know the value of a good tripod.

Texun, my ballhead can handle up to 25 lbs. so I think I'm okay. I learned that lesson a couple decades ago with lesser heads. They just aren't worth it.

What about something like an old Tamron 300 2.8 with the Adaptall mount? Anyone shot one of those? A 300 2.8 has always appealed to me, esp. if it works well with a 1.4 and 2x converter, as I think that lens does.

[Texun1]

The new carbon fiber tripods are the bomb. Work just as well as the old ones without the weight. Costco has one for a steal of a price http://www.costco.com/Dolica-Proline....11746472.html.

It will not replace my Gitzo but will do any day as a backup.

[Limbwalker]

Alright, I may just have to buy that tripod! LOL! Wow, what a price on a carbon pod with a head! Hard to believe really.

My 3221 Bogen is very heavy and super stable, but it has a crack in one of the leg bases that I cannot find a replacement part for to save my life (it is 20+ years old though). A carbon fiber would be much, much better of course.

Looks like my budget will allow an older, manual focus 300 2.8 or 400 3.5 (nikon) - which are both very appealing to me as I really like Nikon AIS ED glass... But then I'd give up the image stabilizer. Again, not having autofocus doesn't bother me in the least. Esp. for birds - as it often gets in the way and focuses on the wrong part of the critter.

With the 400 3.5, I wouldn't be doing too much hand-holding though.

[Texun1]

Good thing about Costco is they will take it back no questions asked if you don't like it.

You won't be doing much hand holding with my Canon 300 2.8 either. Minimum of a monopod required. 6 lbs plus camera body doesn't sound like much until you have to hold it out in front of you and try to stabilize for the split second.

[swanjts]

I recently purchased a new Tamaron 70-200 2.8 lens for my Nikon and absolutely love it. Exceptional quality and fast auto focus. This is the new one that just came out in March. All if the reviews I read rated it above the actual Nikon or Cannon lenses.

[Limbwalker]

Texun, a monopod was in my plan.

Swanjts, glad you love your lens. However, even with a 2x tele, I'm still just at 400 5.6, which in the past I've found limiting.

Looking for at least 500mm with decent quality. Either by adding a good TC or on it's own.

Thinking a 300 2.8 with a 1.4 and 2x TC would be a very good combo. Of course, a smaller lens might get used more...

That seems to be the point of frustration for wildlife lenses. Either get a BIG lens and get the performance you want, but not carry it around much, or get a smaller lens and have it with you, but be limited by the performance. No great answer I can see yet.

John

[Shane]

The hard part of your equation is the word in your title here: "Affordable". There are lenses that will do what you want, but they ain't cheap.