[AQ]

I have just got a Canon 40d and the 17-85 zoomas a pre-retirement present for myself.

I now want a lens suitable for photographs of butterflies and dragonflies mainly and also some birds from hides. The choice seems to come down to the 70 - 300 range or perhaps 70-200 but for the birds that may be too short.

I quite like the canon lenses or possibly sigma. So far my feelings are

Sigma 70-200 2.8 - too short at 200 and too heavy to carry for the day in the field.

Sigma 70-300 4.5-5.6 possible but no IS

Canon 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS USM - may be OK but I do not like the extension length and rotating front end

Canon 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO version. Expensive but not a major problem but are the out of focus highlights the reviews talk about that much of a problem in real life. Is the DO version worth the premium.

A very kind lady let me play with her canon 100-400 L lens. Nice pictures but I would need a second wife to carry it for me and wife No. 1 will object to that !!!!

Has anyone any advice to offer based on their experience of these lenses for insect / bird photography in the field. I was told by a dealer that you cannot use extenders with this type of zoom lenses ?? How important is IS in practice as most of the time i expect the light to be good and I should be able to use reasonable shutter speeds.

Have I missed any good alternatives ?

Anthraquinone

I should say I intend to get a monopod as well.

[silkstone]

There are two routes here - one is to use a telephoto or tele-zoom as you've mentioned, and the other is to get a dedicated macro lens which will be fixed focal length.

The Canon 70-300 IS is a great lens. In practice the extension and rotation are not a problem, and the image quality is excellent. IS makes a big difference but, of course, doesn't help if the subject is moving. The only drawback is that the macro capabilities are not all that great - max 1:4 so it would have to be quite a large insect to fill the frame.

Using a macro lens will give you the potential for much greater magnification, but no IS and you need to be closer. I use the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 which is very good although a little large and heavy.

Given the resolution of the 40D (which allows cropping if necessary) and your need for a general-purpose insect and wildlife lens, for me it would be no contest - the 70-300 IS is an easy winner, and is preferable to the DO version which costs a lot more.

HTH.

P.S. You can use extenders - a 1.4x Kenko or similar, but it slows down AF and I wouldn't really recommend it except in good light.

[KULASHEKARA C S]

I am using Canon 30D with Sigma 170-500 DG for bird photography & 18-200 for macro photography.

I have chosen these lenses for the convenience in carrying & all my photographs are hand held. Another advantage is that, the lens is least expensive & certainly value for money.

for results you can see the images @ http://www.fsquares.com/BIS/Photographer.aspx?q=205
India Nature Watch

With regards

Kulashekara C S

[Dabhand16]

FWIW - I'm sure the Sigma 70-300 is now available with image stabilization.

[silkstone]

If it is, it may be worth a look. The APO version of the Sigma 70-300 has better close-focusing capability than the Canon, so could be more useful for small beasties.

[AQ]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

FWIW - I'm sure the Sigma 70-300 is now available with image stabilization.

Thanks for the idea but I have just looked at the sigma web page and the only zoom they show with OS - optical stabilisation is the 80-400 at 1.7 Kg and £1000 and I thought that the 70-200 2.8 at 1.4 kg was too heavy for what I wanted.

[Rob Barron]

I don't know if you have actually tried holding the 70-200 f 2.8 Anthra but it is a very manageable lens and doesn't feel as heavy as you might think.

As this lens is an L series lens, it also has the advantage that you CAN use the Canon 1.4x extender with it. This would mean you have the equivalent of 280mm at f4 which should be ample for getting the butterflies and dragonflies large in your frame.

I wouldn't bother with the Sigma 80-400 as you can buy the Canon 100-400mm cheaper than that but as you said, it is a bit big and bulky so would not be ideal for you anyway.

I really do think you need to take a trip to a good camera shop and feel some of these lenses actually on camera. A lens that sounds quite heavy but which is well balanced can be more comfortable to hold than a lighter lens that feels front-heavy or whatever.

Good luck with your search. I definitely recommend finding an opportunity to try before you buy with the lens mounted on your own camera or at the very least the same model camera as your own.

Cheers,
Rob

[AQ]

Thanks Rob. I have tried all the lenses I listed except the canon 70-300 DO version. It was after trying the sigma 2.8 that I decided that it was a bit to heavy. I will go back and try that again though. I have not looked at the Canon version though. I will put that on the list as well.

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Anthraquinone

Thanks for the idea but I have just looked at the sigma web page and the only zoom they show with OS - optical stabilisation is the 80-400 at 1.7 Kg and £1000 and I thought that the 70-200 2.8 at 1.4 kg was too heavy for what I wanted.

You could be right. I might have got mixed up with the Nikkor 70-300VR.

Probably an age thing.........loosing my marbles..........

[brian wright22]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

You could be right. I might have got mixed up with the Nikkor 70-300VR.

Probably an age thing.........loosing my marbles..........

You might have a look at the new Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-f6.3.XR Di VC.(what a mouthfull!!)
This lens has VC,Vibration compensation,Diameter of 3.06inches/78mm length 3.9inches/99mm.
Weight 19.4 ounces/555grms
Macro is1:3 @300mm
Min Focus is 19.3 inches over the whole of the zoom range.
And it is available in Canon mount. from Clifton Cameras @ £479. I expect costs less elsewhere.
I hope this helps
Brian

[AQ]

Thanks. When I read 19.4 lbs I began to wonder but the 555 grams sounds better. I will look for a review

[brian wright22]

Originally Posted by Anthraquinone

Thanks. When I read 19.4 lbs I began to wonder but the 555 grams sounds better. I will look for a review

A Senior moment on my part should have written ounces!!.
Brian