I've also asked a similar question on the Canon Lens Forum, but mayget more responses here.I'd like your opinions of a good lens ensemble for nature/wildlifeshooting for UNDER $1000..
Any combination of lenses under $1000 will honestly be insufficient to do good nature/wildlife. You can get inexepensive lenses for that budget, but I wouldn't consider them 'good' for what you want to do...
I certainly understand that anything like a "600mm f1.8" lens is not within the budget. But how about starting with something like a Canon 70-300IS USM OR Canon 70-200 f4? Both are around $550. These may not be top-of-the-line PRO lenses, but they're sure capable enough...and a cut above average consumer-grade.I'm looking for the BEST I can get for the amount that I have to spend...
The first lense I bought was the 70-200 L USM F/4 for my XT... my first digital camera. I was interested in shooting all types of subject but I knew that I wasvery interested in wildlife and cityscape..
I did a lot of research and decided that I would only buy high quality lenses ( L quality lenses) because of the sharpness and good build quality and only EF lenses that supported cropped and full frame cameras..
I looked at the 70200 L lenses and picked the F/4 without IS because it was half the price of the IS version and felt that I would using a tripod for most of my shots. I also bought good filters (B&W UV and a polarizer)My experience has been that this lense was a good choise..
The pros for this lense are: very sharp, llight weight and good build quality. a "good budget wildlife lens".
The cons for this lense are: F/4 requires good light , the IS version would result in more keepers that are taken at slower speeds..
I certainly understand that anything like a "600mm f1.8" lens is notwithin the budget. But how about starting with something like aCanon 70-300IS USM OR Canon 70-200 f4? Both are around $550. Thesemay not be top-of-the-line PRO lenses, but they're sure capableenough...and a cut above average consumer-grade.I'm looking for the BEST I can get for the amount that I have to spend..
The 70-200 Lens is great.... but it's too short for most wildlife applications (unless you can get REALLY close to the subject). The 70-300 is a great bang for buck lens, but will leave you wanting in low light or where fast autofocus is needed. If you plan to do birds in flight - both lenses will be woefully insufficient. Don't get me wrong - you'll get some great shots with both lenses - I've used both and know what they are capable of and your assessment that they are a cut above average consumer grade is spot on. But those great shots will come under ideal conditions and/or when your really close to your subject and/or your subject is VERY still.
Ie, the 17-85 - which is not a great lens - is also about $550 and puts you over budget..
If you go Sigma or Tamron that will open your options, but as someone who has gone that route and decided to stick to Canon lenses, I'll leave that discussion for others.Some cool cats that can use your helphttp://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org.
Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word...
I need to get the best that I can, to do the job(probably not bird shots, though) I need to do, BUT within the limited budget. I know there's lots of great lenses out there. But not within my budgetary limitations..
So maybe: Canon 70-300IS, Canon 18-55 IS and maybe a 50 1.8? That would come close to my $1000. Actually, under $1000..