Lens for Canon DSLR

[hollie1586]

What would be the next lens up from a 70-300mm? Today i was taking pics of Red Kites and nearly all of them were blurred. The camera body is a Canon EOS 400D and the lens is a Tamron.

[Fitzer]

If the pictures were blurred then a different lens isn't going to help much, could you post a picture on Flickr (or anywhere) for us to see. You're probably not using a high enough shutter speed to either freeze the bird's movement or overcome camera shake. If you do post a picture please specify what settings (ISO, aperture, shutter, auto focus mode) you were using in case they can't be read from the picture.

[Slapshot]

...and the Tamron lens is a bit of a dog, adequate for most things but not brilliant.

If you want to spend on long focal length lenses, carry on, in wildlife photography long focal lengths are an asset however your main purchase should be a tripod or at very least a monopod, as others have said. Going down the long focal lengths make sure you buy a lens with a collar that you can attach the tripod to rather than the body of the camera, I would always do this shooting wildlife. A good monopod is a little more portable than a tripod but it comes down to personal choice.

Good long lenses, there's dozens of choices there for Canon cameras, this is pretty good and fairly good value
http://www.sigma-imag...elezoom/150-500mm.htm

I use one of these when I don't have scope to use my fixed Canon Lenses ie
http://www.canon.co.u..._500mm_f4L_IS_II_USM/

Teleconverters are good at extending focal length but buy Canon originals the others just don't work as well.

[hollie1586]

https://picasaweb.goo...BuzzardSOverHarewood#

Have a look at these. They just aren't crisp enough images.

[Slapshot]

Hi Hollie
Looking at the pics and EXIF data you have two issues really, one you are too far away and secondly the blur is a mix of the distance and camera shake minimal as it might be. in this case a tripod would have eliminated shake but really the subject is too small to be worrying about sharpness. You can alter sharpness using things like photoshop but not by that much.

I'll post a couple of birdy pics on when I get home, they too were taken with a old tamron 70-300 but i was using either a tripod or a monopod

[Fitzer]

You don't need to be at f10 for those pictures, you can open the aperture at least a couple of stops and gain a lot of shutter speed, on a crop sensor camera such as the 400D a good estimation is a shutter speed of at least 1.6 times focal length, so a minimum of 1/500, I see that a couple of yours are slower than that. I have to say that on a couple it looks as if you've just missed focus ie. the focus point wasn't on the bird, if you use Canon's DPP software it will show you where your focus point was. But as per Slapshot's comments with wildlife and especially birds in flight there's no substitute for reach and good long lenses cost a lot :-(

[Slapshot]

I shot the attached a few years ago using a Tamron lens as you have the main changes were the distance to the subject and a monopod. I got as close as I could even standing in freezing cold water for ages to get the money shot (thats the close up) the 500mm lenses I've bought since. Get in close, narrow depth of field and as quick a shutter speed as you can....good luck!

Birds on the wing are desperately difficult unless you have the right lens and the right location, I've a few not particularly good efforts but my wildlife photography is a work in progress.

http://www.flickr.com...ts/72157628077869748/

[Answerprancer]

AFAIK the only way you will be guaranteed good pictures of airborne birds is with a tripod and fast zoom and unfortunately they cost a freakin fortune. Tracking flying birds is tricky, the way I do it is by choosing as large an aperture as will allow shutter speeds of 1/1000th or faster.