SANParks.org Forums

I am looking at the new Canon Rebel XSi any opinions on it??

also,what is a good canon lens to take lots of wildlife photos in and around the park? I was looking at a few different ones but not sure what will work best?? what are your opininons?? does having the IS in a lens make much of a difference with a good camera considering it is a DSLR?

EF 70-200 f/4.0 L USM
EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM
EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM
EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
_________________

IS is of benefit whatever the camera. Its becoming universal now, either in lens or in camera. If you can afford the extra, go for IS especially with longer lenses.

As for the lenses you mention; L are definitely better. Most are sealed better against dust and rain. More robustly built as well. And if you want to print A4 and bigger, you will get better pictures too.

Which one though?! With the increasing problems of carrying bags on planes, last trip I took a 70-200 F4 L IS and a 500. The 70-200 is a stunning lens, producing photos just as sharp as the 135 and 300 I did not take. And gives the flexibility of a zoom. After all, you cannot always position yourself for that perfect shot in the Kruger!

Richard

Hi and welcome Willowmoon!

Have a look through the topics here, you'll find that all these lenses have been talked about a lot!

We have one of the lenses you mention, the 70-300DO IS, and it's a very good lens.
Many of the critics fail to realise that image quality isn't everything, although there is
nothing wrong with it's IQ. Where the lens shines is it's combination of fast autofocus,
excellent stabilization, low weight, good balance and handling. We use it as a general
travel and walk-around lens, when we don't want to lug around the heavy metal.
The problem with all the lenses you mention is that they are all too short for birds,
and even most animals. The 70-300 is perfect for Elephants, Giraffes, and big
birds if you can get really close. We also got good photos of Lions and Leopard, but
undoubtably the longer lenses are better. Heres one of my wifes Leopard photos with
the 70-300DO:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2067/217 ... 0a16_m.jpg


and this one is also using the 70-300DO (but its not from South Africa so only look at
it for research purposes!). It does show that even birds in flight are possible.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22594688@N08/2407266357/
/Neil

Neil, how far away was the leopard? I'm also looking into lenses and not sure what focal length is a 'minimum' to get pretty good wildlife shots. I'm probably getting a 70-200 f2.8 plus 2x converter. I hear the 2x is not as good as 1.4x quality wise but it is being sold together with the lens second hand.

Hi, Sorry for the late reply, we've been having computer trouble. How far away was the Leopard? Difficult to say, we were on one side of the road in a big truck/bus thing, the Leopard was in a tree on the other side 20 metres perhaps?
Sort of typical Kruger park distance, you don't often get closer.
My pictures with the big lens (400+1.4TC) were mostly better, but this one was nice because the Leopard was (looked like) it was roaring, so I cropped it as much as I dared, and we are happy with the result. If it had been our only lens, it would have saved the day. The 70-200 2.8 is said to be a very good lens, and will probably work well with a 2X converter, you'll lose two stops, but in South Africa there is plenty of light, and you'll have a 400, which is still too short, but much better than a 300.
/Neil