I've managed to resist most mods to the car, and hence retain a normal(ish) bank balance, but since getting a DSLR this week, I'm already looking at £1000 lenses :eek:

What have I got myself into?

If I get the Canon 100-400mm IS lens, will that serve me well for wildlife pics, or will I crave more?

Does the IS in the lens really allow for handheld shots, or just removes the absolute need for a tripod when taking shots? I have IS in my Canon S2 IS, and that's great - but it's a semi-compact camera, and easier to hold steady!

I've got a Sigma 100-300mm lens at the mo, which from initial shots needs a tripod and bright conditions. Also seems to be advisable to keep this under 200mm for the best results - anyone care to comment on this lens?

Will the 100-400mm allow for use with TCs too?

Christ, more expense :mad: All for the quest of a clear photo of a fecking bird. :lol1:

Lol :D You're going through exactly what I did when I got my D30!

The 100-400L IS is a cracking lens and an absolute must-have IMHO.

If you're shooting birds in flight then you'll need a fast shutter to freeze the subject more than you'll need it to reduce camera shake, so a tripod really isn't needed. If there's not enough light then you're stuck, and I've only really found such pics to be satisfyingly sharp in bright sunlight anyway.

A wider aperture will help, of course, but then you're looking at some *seriously* expensive glass - probably worthwhile if you're shooting for National Geographic, not so worthwhile if you just want to frame a few pics on the wall in the loo.

You can use the 100-400 with a TC, but you'll lose autofocus on the 350D.

When I got my D30, one of my first purchases was actually the (now discontinued) 100-300 f/5.6 L, which was an amazingly sharp lens that I really regret selling. It was slow and noisy to focus, and the push-pull zoom mechanism tended to droop, but the results were exceptional. There aren't too many around, though, and beware of the inferior but externally identical non-'L' version. The only visible difference is the red ring.

You were supposed to tell me not to buy it! :D

Pah!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CANON-L-ZOOM-100-300-CONSTANT-F5-6-PLUS-CASE-AND-HOOD_W0QQitemZ250032461264QQihZ015QQcategoryZ4687Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Yep same boat here im afraid, but i went one step further, rented a unit and built a studio-hehehe:lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

Paul:)

It was slow and noisy to focus, and the push-pull zoom mechanism tended to droop...

Is this the Photography Forum or Dr Ruth's agony column? :):):)

Duck Pond, you are only scratching the surface...you'll need a 500 or 600mm lens to get those hard-to-reach shots or at least the bird/wildlife images I see in Outdoor Photography seem to be always taken with something with the sort of reach. Then you'll need a hide, some specialist fieldwear, full camping equipment and a Land Rover to get to those remote spots where you wouldn't want to take the scoob :)

Do keep at it and showing us your pics!

Could have told ya that mate!!!!!

Infact my camera gera is worth more than my car!!!!!

STi-F, I've bought some wellies - might stop me getting so muddy on that slippery slope to poverty :D

If you get the 100-400 IS you might need some weight training, especially if you intend to hand hold it for any length of time ;) Your welcome to try mine if you like?

I reckon a Monopod might be useful, as it takes less setting up for your 'quick shots' of unco-operative birds. A tripod would only really be useful when you are in a hide.

On the lens front there is the 70-300 IS as another option, but it's not quite up to the same quality as the L glass. I do have the older 75-300 IS going on eBay soon if you were interested.

Are the monopods for sale at circa £10 on 7DayShop worth getting, or do I need to get something better? Is fixed head better than erm, wobbly? :D

I've already had too many near-misses of amputating digits when the legs of the tripod decide to close when they feel like it. :mad:

CW - I think I'm going to wait until the New Year, when I'm more familar with the camera, before stumping up for a new lens. This forum is very useful to bounce thoughts and ideas off though, as you've all got the know-how on these things!

My manfrotto decent 1 (will hold about 6kg) only cost 30 quid from Digital depot.

Are the monopods for sale at circa £10 on 7DayShop worth getting, or do I need to get something better? Is fixed head better than erm, wobbly? :D

I've already had too many near-misses of amputating digits when the legs of the tripod decide to close when they feel like it. :mad:

CW - I think I'm going to wait until the New Year, when I'm more familar with the camera, before stumping up for a new lens. This forum is very useful to bounce thoughts and ideas off though, as you've all got the know-how on these things!

I'd get a decent one if I were you, Manfrotto are excellent:thumb: A simple ball head should suffice, just so you can flip it to portrait mode if you need to.

Yes this is a very good forum:thumb: and also seems to be the new muppets ;):D

I'm just spreading my wings ;)

Manfrotto - I'll get one of those then. Thanks! :)

Your right, this game is stupidly addcitive.

I'm even looking at studio flashes now. grrrrrrrrrrrr

For the birdies you need as long and fast a lens as poss. I just found telezooms frustrating though I'm sure optically the Canon 100-400 is very good, a prime telephoto will always be better. If you have around £6k handy:( most of the wildlife photographers seem to be using Canon 500mm and 600mm lenses with a 1.4 teleconverter too. Even then mobile hides and patience seem to be the key. Two very good sites are:

http://stevenround-birdphotography.com/British%20Rarities.htm

http://www.richardbedford.co.uk/

I have the Nikon 300mm f4 which is as far as my budget would stretch and is optically far superior to an equivalent 300mm zoom. Intend to get the 1.4 converter, which I have tried, for a very sharp 420mm f5.6. Expensive business photographing birdies.

One of my favourite sites is www.dlcphotography.net - Don uses the 100-400L extensively and his pictures are amazing. (He does have one of the big primes too, though!)

I would also make an exception for the Nikon 200mm-400mm f4. Just need to sell a kidney first!!

To be fair, if I had a spare 6k, I'd be driving a decent STi and not a 97 UK Turbo ;)

You'll be driving a Rover if you get bitten by the L bug ;)

Been there, done that... driving a Skoda now ;) Besides, the Sigma isn't bad from what I've achieved so far. Just need to remember to set the bl**dy ISO back down when the sun (ever) comes out.

First real attempts...

Robin
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/MiltonMallard/Robin_01.jpg

Coal Tit
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/MiltonMallard/Coaltit_01.jpg

Great Tit
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/MiltonMallard/Greattit_01.jpg

It's nice to have a camera that will actually focus on a robin, instead of everything else around it!

Oh, and I recently bought a window bird-feeder, in the hope of getting some close ups of some of the prettier visitors to the garden. So far it's attracted slugs (up the glass) and this!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/MiltonMallard/Finch_01.jpg
What a delightful finch!

I've got no complaints about Sigma 100-300mm f4. If you use it with a 1.4TC you retain autofocus on Nikon (not with 2x though)

Better make sure it's on a Nikon though :norty:

http://www.gizmo.szhosting.net/images/motogp/DSC_2865r.jpg


http://www.gizmo.szhosting.net/images/motogp/DSC_2892r.jpg

http://www.gizmo.szhosting.net/images/motogp/DSC_2894r.jpg

http://www.gizmo.szhosting.net/images/motogp/DSC_2942r.jpg

http://www.gizmo.szhosting.net/images/motogp/DSC_2951r.jpg

http://www.gizmo555.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/f1testing/DSC_1855er.JPG

http://www.gizmo555.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/f1testing/DSC_1880er.JPG

http://www.gizmo555.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/f1testing/DSC_1884er.JPG

http://www.gizmo555.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/f1testing/DSC_1909er.JPG

http://www.gizmo555.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/f1testing/DSC_2070er.JPG

Buying photography should carry a health warning & a warning to your bank manager. 2 years ago i started of with a Canon EOS350D & kit lens, now i own a Canon EOS1DMK11N and various "L" lenses the last purchase been a canon EF 300 2.8 IS L lens. Once you start there's no stopping.

PS don't tell the missus how much the 300 2.8 costs

Tell me about it WRX.

I bought myself a Fuji S7000, and within the month it gone back as faulty and I bought a D70s after playing with my mates D1x.

Now I'm compiling the insurance docs for the renual, thank fook I'm single!!!!! Daft thing is the amount of cash I've spent would make a very nice deposit on a house!!!!

Love those pictures of Rossi, top stuff :thumb:

Great pics Gizmo - do you have the settings for them? Mine's a Canon, so I guess it won't work with the converter. Hey ho. Beggars can't be choosers! :)

WRX: Is the 300 f/2.8 worth it? What sort of work do you use it for?

WRX: Is the 300 f/2.8 worth it? What sort of work do you use it for?

Hi Andy,

This is a question that gets asked alot, is the 300 2.8 worth purchasing over the 300 f4 especially when the price gap is huge. I've had the 300 f4 and the sigma 120-300 but the 300 2.8 is different gravy in my eyes. Its an awesome piece of kit and coupled up with a 1.4 x tc you can't tell the difference. But back to the original question is it worth the extra money over the 300 f4 only the individual can answer that :)

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of, is it worth it when the 100-400L is so much cheaper, more versatile and has IS?

I've done a few test shots with my 100-400L, and although it's pretty good, I do think I can see its limitations now that I have a 1DmkII. However, that's with the camera firmly supported, using MLU and pointed at a brick wall; most of the shots I take with that lens are hand-held and many of them are panned too, so ultimate lens sharpness isn't really being tested.

Hence my second question, I suppose. I don't think I'd have much use for such a lens myself even if it were more affordable, but I'm interested to know what you shoot that requires a long focal length and can really benefit from the quality.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of, is it worth it when the 100-400L is so much cheaper, more versatile and has IS?

I've done a few test shots with my 100-400L, and although it's pretty good, I do think I can see its limitations now that I have a 1DmkII. However, that's with the camera firmly supported, using MLU and pointed at a brick wall; most of the shots I take with that lens are hand-held and many of them are panned too, so ultimate lens sharpness isn't really being tested.

Hence my second question, I suppose. I don't think I'd have much use for such a lens myself even if it were more affordable, but I'm interested to know what you shoot that requires a long focal length and can really benefit from the quality.

Hi Andy,

Firstly i shoot quite alot of different things with my EF 300 2.8 IS L. I sometimes use it for rallying if i cannot get too close but normally use the 70-200 for that. I also shoot Wildlife/birds although a 500/600 would be better it still good with a 1.4 x TC & also aircraft in which i normally use the TC with it. Mine is the version with IS like the 100-400 which is very useful on this lens & personally i don't find it difficult to handhold but trips to the Gym certainly help

Great pics Gizmo - do you have the settings for them? Mine's a Canon, so I guess it won't work with the converter. Hey ho. Beggars can't be choosers! :)

Hi

Cheers. Lens has been fantastic since day one. Most of these are cropped though, the bike ones (not on pit straight) quite heavily but detail still good.

Download IExif viewer from here http://www.opanda.com/en/ and you can right mouse click on images in browser to get Exif data.

Not sure about TC's and Canon. Nikon D70 would loose autofocus capability with 2x TC as the f4 lens effectively became f8 i.e. lose 2 stops so not enough light getting in. With 1.4x you only lose 1 stop so end up with f5.6.

This is Sigma TC on Sigma 100-300 f4 lens.

Cheers

Mark