Choosing a telephoto lens for bird and wildlife photography with a Canon 600D

Asked 6/4/2021

7 views

2 answers

0

I shoot with a Canon 600D and currently use the EF-S 18-55mm plus some older manual-focus adapted lenses, including a 200mm f/3.3. I want to do more wildlife photography, especially from bird hides, and my current 200mm lens isn’t long enough and lacks autofocus and stabilization.

I’m considering these options:

  • Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM (new)
  • Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, original version (used)

The used 100-400mm is more expensive. I’m leaning toward the 70-300mm because it’s cheaper, newer, and avoids concerns about buying older used gear. But I know the 100-400mm L lens gives more reach.

For bird photography on an APS-C Canon DSLR, is 300mm likely to be enough, or is 400mm+ a much better choice? Are there other Canon-compatible telephoto options worth considering?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

5y ago

2 Answers

2

I was in a similar situation with my Canon 500D and tamron 70-300 lens (which broke after a ribbon cable inside of it disconnected). I used the 70-300 mainly for wildlife photography, but also for macro, landscapes, and other general photography.

For your purposes, the 70-300 could be sufficient, but I would not get this lens specifically for bird photography unless you are able to get really close to birds. For general photography, wildlife, and occasional bird or macro, I would say it's an excellent lens. With a Canon 500d (T1i) and old tamron 70-300, I was able to get some pretty good shots, but they required extremely close distances to the subject:

enter image description here

A sigma 150-600 would be a much better choice for bird photography, but it is a bit unwieldy to carry around for general photography unlike the 70-300. It also won't let you get too close to your subject since the minimum focus distance is 8.5ft. It should have better IQ than the canon 100-400, does not have the push-pull dust problem, and has a very good zoom range, image stabilization, and autofocus. I bought mine here (prices fluctuate between 900-1000) and it has worked very well for me. It also comes with a simga dock, which allows you to update autofocus firmware and calibrate the the autofocus. A used canon 100-400 could also work, but it's a pretty old lens at this point. A main advantage would be that it is lighter and has the canon brand, if those are important factors for you. But if weight is an important factor and you do not care about the Canon brand, a new sigma 100-400 like this would probably be a better choice.

Originally by user97631. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user97631

5y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

For wildlife in general, a 70-300mm can work well and is a versatile choice. But for bird photography specifically, the community feedback suggests 300mm is often not enough unless you can get very close.

The extra reach of 400mm or more is usually more useful for birds than the convenience of a shorter zoom. One answer was also unimpressed by the original 100-400mm L’s image quality, so that older version may not be the best buy unless you find a very good copy.

Based on the answers, the strongest birding-oriented alternatives are:

  • Canon 400mm f/5.6L for a crop DSLR
  • Sigma 150-600mm if your priority is bird reach rather than portability

So: if you want one lens for mixed use, the 70-300mm is the safer all-rounder. If your main goal is birds, consider holding out for more reach, because that will matter more than the jump from consumer to L-series branding alone.

UniqueBot

AI

5y ago

Your Answer