Could you recommend a good lens for wildlife photography?

I mostly use the 400 f5.6 for my wildlife photography, and it's a fantastic lens. It's considered by some to be the best bird-in-flight lens ever designed, precisely because it's so light and handhold-able (for a telephoto at least). I carry mine around for hours at a time and it's really no problem.

Having said that, it's so light because f5.6 is a pretty small maximum aperture for a long telephoto lens. So in low light without IS and without a wider aperture, you might well struggle handholding. That's when a good tripod really comes in handy.

You could consider getting the lens secondhand, which would save you a huge amount of money, and you could use the leftover cash to invest in a good tripod, which will no doubt improve your photography loads. This is what I did, and it worked out pretty well for me :)

I've included my own wildlife photography website in the Source box, as most of my images are shot with the lens you're interested in so you can get some idea. Most have been handheld. (Some are also with a 70-200 f4, and a few with a wide-angle when I can get close enough!)

It should be OK, certainly usable, with some limitations.

Using the sunny 16 Rule, and the 1/focal length rule of thumb to avoid camera shake, you'd need to use 1/500th of a second to hand hold a shot. Here's an example of the practicalities/limitations of shooting with such a lens.

Sunny day: f/8, 1/500th, ISO 100.

Slightly overcast: f/5.6, 1/500th, ISO 100

Overcast f/5.6, 1/500th, ISO 200

Heavy Overcast f/5.6, 1/500th, ISO 400

Open shade/sunset f/5.6, 1/500th, ISO 800

If it were me, I'd get a tripod. If the wildlife isn't moving fast you will get at least an additional stop of light. 1/250th would become usable perhaps. For fast moving subjects, you'll need 1/500th at least anyway. Also the weight of the lens is not inconsiderable - it weights 1.25kg. How strong is your arm?? And more importantly how strong is your arm over prolonged periods of time?

Image stabilized lenses can give you more help when shooting hand held (often 3 or so stops), but it won't do you any good with fast moving subjects, since you need to use a fast shutter speed to capture them anyway. With that lens, and the use you intend to put it to (wildlife), image stabilization is not going to be very helpful, only a bit, and a tripod would be a better solution, or even a monopod if carrying a tripod is an issue.

There are much lighter EF lenses with IS that are considerably cheaper, like the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - it's still going to get you 300mm (480mm full frame equiv, if you use an APS-c camera), plus the added convenience of having a zoom. But even so, the IS won't solve the problem of fast moving subjects. Obviously it also has no weather sealing, unlike the L.

Well, if you go with the 1/fl rule, you would need to be shooting at a minimum of 1/400 of a second with a 400mm lens. As those lenses are large and heavy, you will probably have to actually raise that to 1/500 or even more. If you shoot in daylight, you might be able to get away without a tripod if your handholding technique is good.

You could consider a monopod as a compromise; more maneuverability than a tripod, but also more support than handheld.

If you use a crop sensor camera, a lens which reaches 300mm on full frame will give you something close to or over 400mm equivalent (if I remember, Canon crop sensor bodies are either 1.6x or 1.3x). Odds are that this will be cheaper, but you'll probably take a hit on optical quality. Depends on what's more important: overall image quality or convenience. I haven't shot Canon for a long time, so you might want to have a look at their lens lineup to see which lenses feature IS.

I'm a beginner, too. Used was the way to go for me. Getting into a new hobby like photography is expensive. I got a Nikon D70 with a nikkor 70-300mm 1:4- 5:6 lens, 18-50 kit lens and several batteries & flash cards for $475 from my husband's coworker who was upgrading. Check out your local craigslist or photography club (the newsletter for the one in my area has a section for selling equipment) to find one. I was searching for a link for you and found several of the same telephoto lens I have on craigslist or ebay (though I wouldn't buy it on ebay unless you could use it first) for $200 and under. Both of the lens you posted are macro lens. I haven't had the chance to use one, so I don't have any comments. I guess it depends on what kind of wildlife you are photographing.

The first 4 linked photos were taken with a 70-300LIS @300mm on a 600D/T3i. The 4th one shows the whole photo resized for a bird about 15ft away which shows you do need to get close if the animal is small. Going from a 300mm to a 400mm wouldn't have made that much difference in this case. The bird would have been about 30% or 40% bigger but still relatively small in the photo. Last couple are with the same lens on a 6D. The woodpecker was photographed through a window so it's a bit blurry.

Depending on what you want to do with the photos you should be able to crop them if you can't get close enough. If you're planning large prints then you'll need a longer lens. Many wildlife photographers have 500mm lenses (and up) with 1.4x converters on them, but that'll be rather more than your budget.

What sorts of animals are you thinking of photographing?

Edit

Another option would be to get the 300mm f4IS and 1.4x converter.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129188-USA/C...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=10732113

Agree with Larry. I've to change my camera gears to Olympus because of the overall weight (camera + lens + tripod) and -that- 1/FL "rule".

You'd try to compare the olympus E-M1 + 50-200mm f/4 to the Canon setup. Its Image Stabilization may let you shoot 200mm (equivalent to 400mm on FF) at 1/30s without tripod!

Think of light condition in the wildlife, you may see what it means for 1/30s speed.

Reconsider your objection to using a tripod. It's very difficult to get a high keeper rate hand-holding a 400mm lens.