Quack wrote:Wandering slightly off topic . . .
Bill . . . Do you have any thoughts on an "affordable" lense for waterfowl photography? I'm shooting a Canon Rebel body, which I realize isn't the greatest, but it's what I have. I started out with a 70-300 kit lens and I snagged some decent pics with it, but it's toast now.
Don't know if saving up for a Canon L is the right choice or if there are other good options for less money.
"Affordable" is relative to the size of your wallet
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
I spoke with Furtman a few years back and at that time his "go to" lens was a 100-400L. You can pick that lens up new for around 1200 bucks...800 used if you have some patience. The Sigma 100-500 is only a couple hundred bucks cheaper...and not near the lens. When I got serious about taking pictures I bought a new 70-200f4L ...there are a pile of pictures on my website that were taken with that lens. It lacks the reach of the 400mm that I have now....but it was a lot user friendly and you can pick one up for under 500 bucks used.
Al...in my limited experience I would say that most of the folks I know who are taking photos of "real" wildlife are shooting a 400mm as there go to lens...so I would say that 400mm would be close the "average". The great big glass is super cool....but it takes equipment to hold it steady and all that stuff is heavy and hard to hide!
lt
ps. here's the link to my pics.
http://www.bsteinphoto.smugmug.com/