I have just went digital, I got a Rebel XTi. I have the lens that came with the camera and I also have a Canon ef 75-300 1:4-5.6 lens. I mostly take pictures of wildlife, deer mostly, and was wanting a good piece of glass to reach out there and touch them.

What lens would you prefer?

Is the Sigma a good piece of glass I know its cheaper than canon?

For those of you that take nature shots what lens do you use the most?

Im glad I found this sight it is loaded with information.

You failed to mention how much your budget was. However, I shoot 100% of my wildlife shots with the Canon 100-400L IS lens. There are many other members who also use the same lens. It's versatile and fast and plenty sharp. It's runs around $1300.

Of course if money is no object, buy the Canon 600 f4 for a little over $7000. That is an awesome chunk of glass, and an awesome chunk of change.

Canon 400mm f/5.6 is around $1000.

Canon 400mm f/5.6 is around $1000.

IMO, it's worth the additional $300 to get the versatlity of the zoom and also the image stabilization, which the prime lens doesn't have.

So I guess I should stay away from Sigma lenses. I know someone with a Sigma 80-400 and gets some awesome shots. Im a little shocked at some of these prices for lenses at the moment, lol. I take it Cannon is top of the line, or at least there price say so.

What about this lens?

http://cgi.ebay.com/650-1300mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-for-Canon-EOS-Mount-EF_W0QQitemZ360035209582QQihZ023QQcategoryZ4687QQs sPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Even assuming the glass in that was decent (highly unlikely), it's Manual Focus ONLY and the minimum aperture is f/8-16. Further considering I've never heard of "Opteka" brand, and for that price, I won't hesitate in saying there's a 99% chance it's pure junk.

The 75-300 should be pretty good unless you're extremely far away. You can gain some extra length for a decent price with a teleconverter (roughly $200), but you pay by losing a stop or two of light depending on whether you get the 1.4x or 2.0x. So, 300mm x 2 = 600mm, but with F/8 (I think) as a minimum aperture. That's pretty dark, but you may be able to get away with it as long as it is *bright and sunny* out and with a higher ISO.

If you want to shoot in anything other than *very bright/sunny* conditions, sorry, there's no way to avoid laying out some serious cash for a big lens.

For wildlife I have my trusty Canon 100-400 L IS lens

The only advise I have is don't scrimp on the lens. It is the most important part of the kit.

Roger R.

kyhunter, I use both my 24-105 L IS and my 100-400 L IS for wildlife. It just depends what I am shooting. I do a lot of back road touring in the summer and I find that my car acts as a good blind if I stop and turn off the motor. After a while the birds simply ignore it and me too.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

Thanks guys for all of your replies. Like I said im just getting into photography and was wanting some opinions.

Here is a couple pictures with the 75-300 lens. They arent as crisp as some that I have seen posted on this site.

http://www.jesseshunting.com/photopost/data/500/medium/winter_storm-march7-08_149_1944_x_1296_.jpg
http://www.jesseshunting.com/photopost/data/500/medium/winter_storm-march7-08_206_1944_x_1296_.jpg

You would probably get a better response with help if you posted in Nature and Wildlife and also the Critique forums. These look under exposed to me and some motion blur as well.

Yup, they look too dark to me too, and that's the problem you run into - getting enough light on a long-zoom lens. Plain and simple it costs money, a lot of it, to get fast glass that's also long enough.