Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:25 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:49 am
Posts: 56
Location: Portsmouth
Im looking at getting the canon 18-135mm lens as my first DSLR lens. How good will this be for wildlife photography. Ie Deer or birds.
Thanks.
It will be mounted on a 60d

_________________
Cameras: Canon Ixus 100is. 60D 17-85mm
Computer: 2008 Apple Macbook Aluminum (dreaming of a new retina macbook pro!!)
Phones: iPhone 1g And HTC Wildfire Apple iPad 3 wifi
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gareththomasjones/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8022
Location: UK
In short, it depends how close you get! If you can approach close (e.g. captive ones) then it can be ok.

Do consider a longer lens in addition, particularly for wild birds where you often can never get enough. On the value end there's the EF-S 55-250 IS for example and also various 70-300 class lenses.

Image
Ural Owl by Crestie Crazy, on Flickr
Example at 135mm. Note this was taken at a distance of 2.3m! I don't think I cropped this shot.

Image
Short-eared Owl by Crestie Crazy, on Flickr
This one was 400mm at 9m, so you'd need to be about 3m away for the same subject size here at 135mm. Note this shot was cropped.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:18 am
Posts: 1781
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
I think for deer it "might" be useable if you can get close enough and the birds if they are at a feeder you'll get a few.
300mm would be a wiser investment for starting out and you won't end up with a shorter lens sitting idle in the bag later on.

_________________
Pentax K-5
Pentax 18-55mm,Pentax 50-200mm,Sigma 17-70mm,Sigma 70-300mm, Sigma 50-500mm
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:02 am
Posts: 444
Location: Chennai
personally i think 135 will be pretty much short for wildlife.. for mammals it depends how close we are , but for birds its definitely short.. i have my 70-200 2.8 mk2 lens and at some cases i felt quite short when i recently visited a bird sanctuary.. yes , you can try with 55-250 or 70-300 lens .. guess you should look FROM 300mm lens and provided go for primes...

_________________
Canon EOS 5D mk III|Canon EOS 7D | 70-200 F2.8 L IS II USM | 400 F5.6 L USM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 815
Location: Boca Raton, FL, USA
As mentioned, it tends to be thought of as short for most wildlife work, definitely for birding. But it's situational - it depends on where you are using it, and the animals/birds in that area. There are lots of places you can go where the wildlife interacts much more closely with people. Or maybe shooting in an aviary or zoo it could be useful as well. But overall, most birders would agree that 300mm on a crop body is the minimum reasonable lens reach, and most want much more...wildlife usually requires at least 300mm as well and depending on the animal maybe much more.

If you travel to my state, you'll find a 135mm more than enough for most wildlife and birds...in fact, even a 50mm is plenty for some birds and mammals. Just this Saturday, I could have shot bird closeups with a 10mm ultrawide lens at the wetlands where I was shooting - and these are all wild birds. Some tropical places around the world will have similar opportunities as the birds in these places tend to live all among the people.

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 150-600mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony A6000 / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / 10-18mm F4 / 35mm F1.8 / 16mm F2.8 / via manual adapter, lots of Pentax K mount, Konica K/AR mount, and Leica M mount manual lenses

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:29 pm 
Have a look at Wolfsongs wildlife shooting post here http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtop ... t=wildlife

He explains where your lens will be up to the job and where you'll find it short


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:30 pm 
It all depends how close you want your pictures to appear, and how close you can get to your subject...
If you want a head shot of a deer at 50 yards you need a serious telephoto lens. Cannons 70-300mm is a relatively cheap nice zoom lens, the 55-250 EF-S (I think it is) is even cheaper. Steer well clear of Tamrons cheap non VC 70-300mm, I have one and its BAD, and now broken (sticky aperture).
I think their more expensive stabilised version is a LOT better.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:49 am
Posts: 56
Location: Portsmouth
Ive decided against the 18-135mm due to lack of usm. so ive decided to go for the 17-85mm instead. I am likely now to invest in canons 70-300mm non L. but that won't be for some time.

_________________
Cameras: Canon Ixus 100is. 60D 17-85mm
Computer: 2008 Apple Macbook Aluminum (dreaming of a new retina macbook pro!!)
Phones: iPhone 1g And HTC Wildfire Apple iPad 3 wifi
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gareththomasjones/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:37 pm 
A friend of mine has the Canon 70-300mm you mention and it is pretty good for the price.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:49 am
Posts: 56
Location: Portsmouth
Too be honest I consider myself a landscape photographer, mainly because my ixus has been unable to reach the wildlife. Things may change in a month or two.

_________________
Cameras: Canon Ixus 100is. 60D 17-85mm
Computer: 2008 Apple Macbook Aluminum (dreaming of a new retina macbook pro!!)
Phones: iPhone 1g And HTC Wildfire Apple iPad 3 wifi
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gareththomasjones/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:36 pm 
135mm can be a great lens for wildlife, as long as the wildlife is'nt too far away. Most 135mm lenses are small and light enough to allow them to be used handheld which can really help when you have to frame and shoot a moving animal in a hurry.
I use a Sigmatel 135mm f1.8...These were taken at either f4 or 5.6:

Image

And a 100% crop:

Image

Image

And a 100% crop:

Image

Image

And a 100% crop:

Image


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group