Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So mostly trees, plants and bugs? Not much birds or other animals from afar? If so, I would look into a macro lens. But if you do plan on photographing a lot of animals from a distance, you'd need a different lens, a telephoto, preferably 200mm.
So mostly trees, plants and bugs? Not much birds or other animals from afar? If so, I would look into a macro lens. But if you do plan on photographing a lot of animals from a distance, you'd need a different lens, a telephoto, preferably 200mm.
200 might be enough for a zoo, but rarely long enough for animals in the wild, especially birds.
200 might be enough for a zoo, but rarely long enough for animals in the wild, especially birds.
Yes but 300mm+ can get expensive, especially if you want something with decent quality.... without knowing his budget or what kind of quality he's looking for, I erred on the side of caution in regards to budget.
Understood. But we wouldn't want somebody buying a 200 expecting to get killer wildlife shots because they'd be disappointed. To me, 200 is basically a long portrait lens.
In a few months I will be getting either a Nikon D3000 or Canon Rebel XSi and am wondering what other lenses to get with it?
I'm into taking wildlife photos from trees to plants to bugs. What lenses would be good for this?
I recently bought a Canon Rebel XS that came with a 18-55mm lens with an Image Stabilizer. If you get a kit that includes that lens and then buy the 55-250mm (also has the Image Stabilizer), you'd have a pretty good range of focal lengths covered. A lot of Canon users also swear by the 50mm f/1.8 lens -- basically because it's pretty fast and costs about a hundred bucks.
If you have unlimited funds, get any Canon lens that has "L" in the name. In fact, buy two of each and send me the other.
Understood. But we wouldn't want somebody buying a 200 expecting to get killer wildlife shots because they'd be disappointed. To me, 200 is basically a long portrait lens.
To dovetail off what kdog said..
I have a minolta beercan (70-210 F4) and that length isn't good for killer wildlife shots.
To give you an idea..
this bland boring photograph is at 210 (315 crop factor)
vs getting as really close and it turns into a portrait (.. I mean an ugly subject in this picture) lens..
think you need to go longer for the wildlife shots you are looking for..
several years ago I bought a Xti and it came with the kit lens an 18-55mm, and as I progressed and could afford them I bought a 50mm aka 'nifty fifty' and a macro 100mm. My first tele is a 70-300mm IS and you can see some of my photos in the bird thread. All my lenses are Canon. They say buy the very best "glass" you can afford.
I have some more "wants" but they are all on hold until I get a job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
