Capturing Wildlife with a 60D

Hello all, hope you're having a good day!

As a Wildlife Photographer I made my first Canon lens purchase the new 55-250 STM which is an incredible lens. I've recently been comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 on my 60D and have found them to have very similar IQ so as much as I would love a 70-200L lens, I don't think it'll be necessary with my current kit. I also now have a 50mm STM (for filmmaking) and 10-18, both lenses that cover very creative focal lengths.

Last year I took the 55-250 to a Nature Reserve and spent a lot of time in hides photographing birds, squirrels and deer.

My query is that after some time I felt I wasn't able to easily isolate my subjects and would imagine this may be because of the aperture on the lens. I also felt I needed just that bit extra reach to get close enough to the action and unfortunately an extender is not an option for the 55-250.

I would love to know what you think, should I consider upgrading to a lens with further reach and better aperture? Or keep practising with what I have?

CameraCompanion 

inevitablyissie wrote:

Hello all, hope you're having a good day!

As a Wildlife Photographer I made my first Canon lens purchase the new 55-250 STM which is an incredible lens. I've recently been comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 on my 60D and have found them to have very similar IQ so as much as I would love a 70-200L lens, I don't think it'll be necessary with my current kit. I also now have a 50mm STM (for filmmaking) and 10-18, both lenses that cover very creative focal lengths.

Last year I took the 55-250 to a Nature Reserve and spent a lot of time in hides photographing birds, squirrels and deer.

My query is that after some time I felt I wasn't able to easily isolate my subjects and would imagine this may be because of the aperture on the lens. I also felt I needed just that bit extra reach to get close enough to the action and unfortunately an extender is not an option for the 55-250.

I would love to know what you think, should I consider upgrading to a lens with further reach and better aperture? Or keep practising with what I have?

CameraCompanion

Well, either a larger aperture or a longer focal length will provide more subject isolation.  Do you find that you are cropping often?  If you are, then go for a longer focal length, if not, go for larger aperture.  For wildlife, I would expect you will likely want more reach, like a 100-400 or something.

diness wrote:

Well, either a larger aperture or a longer focal length will provide more subject isolation. Do you find that you are cropping often? If you are, then go for a longer focal length, if not, go for larger aperture. For wildlife, I would expect you will likely want more reach, like a 100-400 or something.

I don't crop my images very often, I think it might be because I'm not keen on the loss of IQ by the time I've cropped it how I'd like but that could be a matter of cropping too far.

I love the look of the 100-400 but it is rather expensive. I've considered renting/hiring but I'm not sure. I wonder is it not more cost effective to just buy it in the first place but then if you end up not using it or changing your mind, it might be challenging to get your money back.

(Thanks for the advice btw!)

inevitablyissie wrote:

diness wrote:

Well, either a larger aperture or a longer focal length will provide more subject isolation. Do you find that you are cropping often? If you are, then go for a longer focal length, if not, go for larger aperture. For wildlife, I would expect you will likely want more reach, like a 100-400 or something.

I don't crop my images very often, I think it might be because I'm not keen on the loss of IQ by the time I've cropped it how I'd like but that could be a matter of cropping too far.

I love the look of the 100-400 but it is rather expensive. I've considered renting/hiring but I'm not sure. I wonder is it not more cost effective to just buy it in the first place but then if you end up not using it or changing your mind, it might be challenging to get your money back.

(Thanks for the advice btw!)

well, larger aperture would also be expensive, e.g. 300mm f4

tamron 150-600 or sigma 150-600 c are the cheapest long reach teles with good quality.

tele converters/extenders you will loose f-stops 1.4x = 1 stop,  2x 2 stops.

then AF on rebels is not supported anymore (limited to f5.6). it may work erratically with the 1.4x. Contrast detect AF may work.

But for a 55-250 you probably will not gain much IQ anyway with a 1.4x converter, 2x usually too much compromise.

inevitablyissie wrote:

Hello all, hope you're having a good day!

As a Wildlife Photographer I made my first Canon lens purchase the new 55-250 STM which is an incredible lens. I've recently been comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 on my 60D and have found them to have very similar IQ so as much as I would love a 70-200L lens, I don't think it'll be necessary with my current kit. I also now have a 50mm STM (for filmmaking) and 10-18, both lenses that cover very creative focal lengths.

Last year I took the 55-250 to a Nature Reserve and spent a lot of time in hides photographing birds, squirrels and deer.

My query is that after some time I felt I wasn't able to easily isolate my subjects and would imagine this may be because of the aperture on the lens. I also felt I needed just that bit extra reach to get close enough to the action and unfortunately an extender is not an option for the 55-250.

I would love to know what you think, should I consider upgrading to a lens with further reach and better aperture? Or keep practising with what I have?

CameraCompanion

The nice thing about the 70-200 F2.8 is that it takes extenders well and you can get to 400mm (640mm crop) with a Canon 2X and still be at F5.6 with all your focus points. But all that glass gets expensive.

You can also pick up a mint used 400 F5.6 prime (very sharp) in the $750-800 range... a much less expensive option. I still have an 400 F5.6, although I don't use it as much as I used to, but won't sell it because it is so good.

Check the fredmiranda forum Buy/Sell site. They have great buys every once in a while.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10

You will want more reach than 250mm for wildlife.

beagle1 wrote:

yes, to get that nice subject isolation be prepared to spend more $$ !

a Canon 100-400 is good for wildlife as well as Sigma 150-600

Lovely picture! Yes I've heard of the 150-600 third party lenses, they look to be quite effective.

After using the 70-200 f2.8 for a few days I found what I think I was looking for was a better, stable aperture than f4-5.6. In your picture it seems that lens has captured the subject very well, do you ever find in some photos you can't isolate your subject with the f5-6.3 aperture?

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Kenko does make 2.0X and 1.4X teleconverters for the EF-S mount. They should work with the EF-S 55-250mm lens. I have never used one but they might be satisfactory to you. This would extend your effective reach on the 55-250mm to 560mm (1.4X + 1.6 camera crop) or 800mm (2.0X + 1.6 camera crop). Here are links to both:

http://www.kenkoglobal.com/photo/lens_accessories/teleplus/teleplus_hd_dgx_20x_canon.html

http://www.kenkoglobal.com/photo/lens_accessories/teleplus/teleplus_hd_dgx_14x_canon.html

Just keep in mind that teleconverters raise your effective aperture and can affect auto focus speed/accuracy.

Edit: Just found another brand

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Pro-Autofocus-2x-Teleconverter/dp/B00QB5JKD6

Interesting, I didn't realise they had actually been made for EF-S lenses.

It does seriously increase the length of my lens which would be great but I think the effect it has on the aperture and focus systems could make shooting quite difficult, even though I love trying manual focus now and then 

Thank you for the links and suggestions though!

photonius wrote:

well, larger aperture would also be expensive, e.g. 300mm f4

tamron 150-600 or sigma 150-600 c are the cheapest long reach teles with good quality.

tele converters/extenders you will loose f-stops 1.4x = 1 stop, 2x 2 stops.

then AF on rebels is not supported anymore (limited to f5.6). it may work erratically with the 1.4x. Contrast detect AF may work.

But for a 55-250 you probably will not gain much IQ anyway with a 1.4x converter, 2x usually too much compromise.

Ok, thank you for the explanations!

While on my trip last year I took this photo of a Muntjac deer:

https://500px.com/photo/116337877/munch-jac-by-issie-c

I'm really proud of it and am impressed by the quality of the 55-250mm, however I wasn't able to get much closer with the lens and I personally feel like the deer kind of blends in with the background, making it less...intense.

I'd love to know what anyone thinks of the image, any tips for better angles etc. are welcome!

dgumshu wrote:

The nice thing about the 70-200 F2.8 is that it takes extenders well and you can get to 400mm (640mm crop) with a Canon 2X and still be at F5.6 with all your focus points. But all that glass gets expensive.

You can also pick up a mint used 400 F5.6 prime (very sharp) in the $750-800 range... a much less expensive option. I still have an 400 F5.6, although I don't use it as much as I used to, but won't sell it because it is so good.

Check the fredmiranda forum Buy/Sell site. They have great buys every once in a while.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10

You will want more reach than 250mm for wildlife.

Yes I agree for most wildlife it takes more than 250mm, a 70-200 with a 2X will probably look very nice and you could get some sharp images with it, possibly sharper than the 250 extended. But it can amount to a lot of money and a lot of weight. While I had the 70-200 I found myself lugging it around and when I switched to the 55-250, I was astounded by the difference in weight!

Digirame wrote:

For almost three years I used a Canon 55-250mm (non-STM) lens for wildlife with my Canon T2i (550D) camera. With a relatively short maximum focal length it forced me to get creative to get closer to the wildlife. Now, I'm using a Canon T3i (600D) camera with a Tamron 150-600mm lens. It gets me pictures like this.

You could consider a Sigma 150-600mm lens also.

Those images are lovely, very impressive for a 150-600 from Tamron, how do you find the image stabilisation?

That's very interesting too that you chose that gear, I generally come to these forums when I'm feeling stuck about my gear or if I need some advice. At the moment it's just whether I should upgrade or switch up my settings to develop my photos.

On a different note, for anyone who owns a Canon DSLR that offers these 'Picture Style' options, is there a particular style I should stick to or should I keep switching them depending on the type of photos I'm taking?

inevitablyissie wrote:

beagle1 wrote:

yes, to get that nice subject isolation be prepared to spend more $$ !

a Canon 100-400 is good for wildlife as well as Sigma 150-600

Lovely picture! Yes I've heard of the 150-600 third party lenses, they look to be quite effective.

After using the 70-200 f2.8 for a few days I found what I think I was looking for was a better, stable aperture than f4-5.6. In your picture it seems that lens has captured the subject very well, do you ever find in some photos you can't isolate your subject with the f5-6.3 aperture?

Amazing shot. I'm in the same boat with a 55-250 STM that I'm feeling is a bit short. Just playing with the 55-250 STM I noticed even at speeds like 1/400 with IS on - there was still some motion blur @ 100%. For a 150-600 - how does that stand up to motion blur? Is a hand-held shot like this even an option - or is a tripod a must?

Digirame wrote:

Thanks. The IS allows me to take photos at less than a 1/100th of a second hand-held, especially if I have a chance to brace the camera and lens.

I was a little surprised that the Canon T3i (600D) camera did that well with that telephoto lens. I thought about getting a Canon 70D if that combination did not work out.

With JPEGs I stay with one picture style. This is a hobby for me, so I don't get too particular for different types of pictures. I put the sharpness on the high side, but sometimes I think some of my photos are too sharp particularly on sunny days. So I can understand how someone would want to adjust the Picture Styles each time.

Here's one at 1/80th of a second at full focal length (braced).

Lovely, thanks for the advice!

Mark B. wrote:

There will be no AF. Manual focusing will be very difficult, the effective aperture at the long end will be f/11. There will also be a very noticeable effect on the IQ.

Bare min if you want to isolate wildlife is 400mm. Maybe look at picking up a used Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 L - there should be plenty of first versions on the market with the II version selling well. Even the original will be much better than the 55-250 with an extender.

Mark

Thank you for your input, I have heard some raving reviews about the 100-400, in some cases people have said the Mark 2 is miles better but it's out of my price range.

Has the Mark 1 been discontinued by Canon?

beagle1 wrote:

you should be shooting in RAW mode !!

Lovely picture, I do shoot in raw and love the freedom it gives me in Photoshop