Prime lens or Zoom Lens

[anupamgeorge]

I'm a beginner in DSLR, i got a Canon EOS 550d (rebel T2i) with 15 - 85 mm lens,

I'm interested in wildlife, so thought of telephoto , so which will be better prime lens or a zoom lens?

If I go for a 300 mm prime lens, what does that mean? Won't I be able to focus properly the near ones?
what are the advantages of a 70 - 300 mm zoom lens over a 300 mm prime lens?

[jamesev]

Generally a 300mm prime will provide a lower f that a 70-300 zoom. Primes are called "fast" lenses because having a lower available f number (wider apature) will allow a faster shutter speed.

This will allow you you to shoot in lower light conditions as you won't need to compensate for the lower light with slower shutter speeds.

However you will be paying for a 300mm @f2.8 circa $4-5k i believe

[ceremus]

I don't know that I would recommend a telephoto prime for a beginner. You can get the Canon 300mm f/4L lens, it's a very nice lens that's good for a lot of wildlife shooting, but it's a fairly good investment, nearly $1400 just for the f/4.

If you're absolutely sure that 300mm is the focal length you need, that it's long enough, and that you don't need the versatility of a zoom lens (I'm assuming you know that a prime lens means a single focal length that cannot zoom in or out), then getting the 300mm f/4 would be a fairly safe buy.

Being that you're a beginner though, I would probably recommend you get something like the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, it's a $500 lens with decent image quality (not L quality, but decent) and once you get a handle on that you'll have a better idea on what sort of equipment you need and whether you want to upgrade to one of the big boy L lenses.

[inkista]

It depends on the wildlife you want to shoot, and how much money you want to spend.

Chances are good, a $500 70-300 IS USM will do just fine for you, if you're planning on shooting larger animals, like deer or bears, or wildlife that's not particularly wary of humans (racoons, squirrels, pigeons, seagulls). Not to mention better for general purpose shooting.

But if you want to exclusively shoot birds or other small wildlife you can't get closer to, a supertele prime can be fine, because a) they're almost never going to be near enough (i.e., you're still going to be cropping to get the framing you want and you're never going to want to use the wider end of the zoom range), and b) it'll work better with a teleconverter than a zoom lens. But this kind of lens starts at around $1000.

But the supertele prime will absolutely suck at the zoo and for airshows, where you'll once again need the framing versatility of zoom. I speak from experience, here. My birding lens is the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. Great for birds on the wing:



Little too close sometimes at the airshow:



And the zoo:

[Jonbar18]

A prime would be better and faster. Unfortunately, it's also more expensive (you would have to decide how much that really means to you), and a lot less versatile. Like Inkista said, It could be good in some situations, such as birds, or even WILD wild animals, like big cats that you really should not be going close ehough to to have to zoom out. But, shooting bigger animals, or animals you can get close to safely, and without trouble could be a problem.
It also depends what environment you'll be shooting in. I'm assuming you live in civilization, at least a smaller town (right?), so you might be doing a lot of shooting in zoo or zoolike areas, where you might often be too close for 300mm, or too far. Then again, you might live in the middle of nowhere, or travel to the middle of nowhere to get wildlife shots, where 300mm might not be long enough.
If you have a bunch of money burning a whole in your pocket, I would say a good 70-300 or 70-200 + a 400 prime would be a great setup. Not a reasonable expense for most, so I would say the 70-300 for versatility. That's just me. You really have to think about what is more important to you: versatility, quality, price, or any other factor that might come into play.