Wildlife Lens Options?

[weepete]

I'm looking for some advice as I will be going on a photography trip in May and it might present the oppertuntity to do some widlife shooting, so I was looking at possibly upgrading my old canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 (not happy with sharpness, CA, non IS and would like something better)

I was originally just looking at getting a Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS but I'm kinda tempted to have a look and see if I could pop for a second hand widlife lens.

That leaves me with a bit of a dilemma as there are a few options in this category. I could go for a 70-200 f4L and a 2x televonverter and just handle the manual focus, opt for the more expensive option of a 70-200mm f2.8 and 2x TC which would also give me a bit of sports coverage, look at the sigma 150-500mm or possibly the canon 100-400mm L but that would then leave me with a gap between 70-150mm with the sigma or 70-100 with the canon.

Confused.....

 

[jaomul]

I'd say forget anything that makes you lose af, I'd actually say forget teleconveters altogether, but I do know some people manually focus fine and it is possible to get good results with teleconverters.

What camera do you have and what's your budget?

 

[goooner]

Are you on full frame or crop? What kind of wildlife? Looking at the birding shots posted here I think most of the really good ones were taken with the siggy 500, or the new tammy 150-600. I think the tammy is the best lens for the price out there. I guess you will need good light though, or a sensor that can handle high ISO. It will also really depend on your budget, but the lenses you listed are quite expensive. I think for the price of the 70-200 2.8, you could get both the 150-600, and 70-200 from Tamron.

 

[weepete]

I've got a Canon 7D so crop sensor. Budget wise I was thinking second hand around £600-800 ish (I know the 70-200mm f2.8 and 2x TC will be much more than that but I could be tempted though it really is outside my budget).

Widlife will be just Scottish stuff, so probably seals, dolphins, deer, puffins birds of prey, herons, ducks and the usual birds mostly.

 

[goooner]

If that was my budget I would go for the Tammy 150-600. I think Jaca might be shooting with one on his 7dii, maybe check out his flicker page. He has some nice bird shots there. Most of my wildlife shots have been in the 150-300 range. I struggle getting close enough for birding, so the 600 on the crop sensor would be great for the puffins, unless they let you come in close. Would love to get some of them in front of my lens.

 

[DarkShadow]

Sigma 150-500mm or tamron 150-600 excellent bang for the buck.Good deals can be had on the sigma 150-500mm. Both do require good lighting to be at there best.I Love my sigma glass,its sharp and colors are nice.IMO 300mm is hardly ever enough and would recommend go with the most reach you can afford. If budget allows,Canon 18-135 for walk about & 150-500 for wildlife.That should cover most if not all.

 

[weepete]

I've already got a sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 for a walk around/ landcape lens that I'm pretty happy with. I've also got my eye on a 10-22mm for my landscapes but I think I can make do with the siggy atm.

Second hand prices for a canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6, canon 70-200mm F4 L IS, tamaron 150-600mm and the sigma 150-500mm pretty much all overlap and there are a fair few lenses in this range so its not quite as clear cut as other focal lengths.

 

[goooner]

I've already got a sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 for a walk around/ landcape lens that I'm pretty happy with. I've also got my eye on a 10-22mm for my landscapes but I think I can make do with the siggy atm.

Second hand prices for a canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6, canon 70-200mm F4 L IS, tamaron 150-600mm and the sigma 150-500mm pretty much all overlap and there are a fair few lenses in this range so its not quite as clear cut as other focal lengths.

Weight might also be a determining factor. I think the Tamron would be one of the lighter lenses in this range.

 

[sm4him]

Given your situation, I would hands-down go for the Sigma 150-500 or the Tamron 150-600. I *have* the Sigma, but I bought it before the Tamron was a glint in their developer's eye. If I had had both to choose between, I would likely have gone with the Tamron.

The Sigma (and, I'd guess, the Tammy) aren't great in low light, but I'd MUCH rather use my Sigma at 500 in low light, than to use my 70-200 f/2.8 with a TC and still have to crop heavily.

Gooner mentions the weight consideration, but I've carried the Sigma around on my gripped D7000 all day long, walking for miles, and shooting handheld, and never really had too much problem with the weight, especially after I finally broke down and got a Black Rapid strap.

 

[weepete]

Thanks all. Looks like a lot of love for both the tamaron and the sigma with the extra 100mm on the tammy just giving it the edge.

 

[DarkShadow]

Agree with sm4him on cropping.MY canon 70 200 f/4 IS all day long is consistently sharp and better low light performance but cropping half the pix away is just not an option for me.My Sigma gives me the reach most of the time with minimum cropping.If I can't reach with 500mm, I am not reaching with 600mm either. Love me a Canon 800mm but $$$$$$$$$ cha ching.

 

[weepete]

It looks like the tamron is the more popular choice and though I'll keep an eye on my favorite retailer for a second hand copy the prices seem to remain quite high. I've seen a few of the sigmas going for £550 which seems like a great deal, the tamrons I've seen seem to stay about £800 with a new lens priced at £900.

So I guess I need to decide whither that extra 100mm and extra sharpness at 500mm is worth the extra cash and increase in weight.

 

[AKUK]

When I was in Canada in 2013, the longest lens I had with me was a 210mm. I bought a 300mm f/4 AF whilst I was out there. It was fine for deer and larger critters but, for birds like Red Cardinals, I could never get close enough due to their skittish nature and 300mm just wasn't long enough. I've since added a 1.4x t/c which gives me 420mm f/5.6, which certainly helps a bit more.

Extra focal length is always worthwhile having in a lens and if it comes with additional sharpness, then that's always a bonus. You can see the difference between the 500 and 600mm lengths by using the Nikon Simulator. It is quite substantial, especially if your subject matter is quite small to begin with and flees if you get within 50ft of it.

 

[weepete]

Damn it. It's gonna have to be the tamron. After scouting about for a few days it just seems like the one to buy. I'll just need to console myself that few seem to be getting rid of theirs and the residual value will likley be high. Though at £900 it will be a last minute purchace if I can raise the cash in time. If not I might just plump for a UWA and concentrate on my landscape shots.

Thanks for the advice all

 

[astroNikon]

Good info here.
I've been looking at the Tamron 150-600 myself. But then I noticed that the used Sigma 150-500 (not the 600s) prices have been dropping nicely. Some to just under $600USD. Considering the Tamrons are $1069 that is a large price difference. I might opt for the Sigma 150 500 just due to cost affordability. I can sell my 300/4 AF to help pay for it which just doesn't have the reach for high flying birds