worth buying a good super telephoto for a T3?

CmazzJK

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Messages
287
Reaction score
90
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I'm having an internal battle right now on whether its worth spending alot of money(to me anyway) on a nice wide angle lens and a nice telephoto lens (my local camera store has the sigma APO 150-500 lens on sale for 900) or buying a newer body (canon 60D/70D) with the better kit lens and using the 55-250 I already have which isn't really long enough to be satisfactory. What sucks is I cannot find a single review of someone using that big of a telephoto on a canon T3 online anywhere to try and gauge it. I've looked everywhere I know to for help with my questions. Either way I drop probably $1500. I have been told better glass make better pictures over newer body, but its hard to imagine my T3 even with a 1000 dollar lens on it creating images as sharp as I have seen from the models I mentioned above. I'm just an amateur though, I only know what little I've obtained from reading a couple photography books
 
Last edited:
The newly released Tamron 200-600 seems like it is the new "king" of affordable telephoto zooms. I dunno...I think you could make some very nice photos with a Canon 300mm f/4 IS prime lens...a GOOD 300mm prime is a very sharp, useful lens, no matter what the camera body happens to be.
 
The newly released Tamron 200-600 seems like it is the new "king" of affordable telephoto zooms. I dunno...I think you could make some very nice photos with a Canon 300mm f/4 IS prime lens...a GOOD 300mm prime is a very sharp, useful lens, no matter what the camera body happens to be.

Yeah I am leaning more towards the lens now just because my main wants are to be able to take photos of the diverse wildlife by a close river front. Since money is limited for meand my main focus is landscapes and wildlife, the longer lens is priority 1 for me. I just don't want to spend a grand for a lens if its not going to be able to perform well with my camera. I am going to talk to the store tonight and see what they think too. I have been in there several times and they are friendly hopefully they will work with me
 
Good lenses are always a good buy. I think the tamron mentioned (which is I think 150-600mm)is affordable and well received considering it's range. Even if down the road you upgrade as long as you stay Canon you still have a great lens.
 
Good lenses are always a good buy. I think the tamron mentioned (which is I think 150-600mm)is affordable and well received considering it's range. Even if down the road you upgrade as long as you stay Canon you still have a great lens.

I have decided I'm going to rent the sigma 150-500 or the tamron 150-600 and try it out for a day. That way I can see some tangible evidence of image quality. Then I'll make my decision. I know they have both models. Plus if you buy it after you rent it they take the rental fee off the price.
 
The newly released Tamron 200-600 seems like it is the new "king" of affordable telephoto zooms.
Ehh...

Most of the reviews I read seemed to conclude that it was a fine lens, but that the 600mm was just soft enough that a similarly priced 400mm or 500mm lens could in most cases achieve equally good image quality by just cropping the 600mm portion of their images (in addition to extra image on the sides to work with if needed, thus overall superior utility). So basically, an option to consider yes but not any sort of "king." Maybe I'm just reading the wrong reviews.
 
The newly released Tamron 200-600 seems like it is the new "king" of affordable telephoto zooms.
Ehh...

Most of the reviews I read seemed to conclude that it was a fine lens, but that the 600mm was just soft enough that a similarly priced 400mm or 500mm lens could in most cases achieve equally good image quality by just cropping the 600mm portion of their images (in addition to extra image on the sides to work with if needed, thus overall superior utility). So basically, an option to consider yes but not any sort of "king." Maybe I'm just reading the wrong reviews.

I have seen some pretty amazing photos with the 150-500 on these forums. Plus its on sale. However, they haven't been shooting on a 12.2 megapixel bottom level camera. I know the images will be better than any I could take with my current lenses but I'm not sure that justifies spending a thousand bucks on one. That's my concern. Ending up feeling like I screwed up, so hopefully renting first will answer my questions.
 
The newly released Tamron 200-600 seems like it is the new "king" of affordable telephoto zooms.
Ehh...

Most of the reviews I read seemed to conclude that it was a fine lens, but that the 600mm was just soft enough that a similarly priced 400mm or 500mm lens could in most cases achieve equally good image quality by just cropping the 600mm portion of their images (in addition to extra image on the sides to work with if needed, thus overall superior utility). So basically, an option to consider yes but not any sort of "king." Maybe I'm just reading the wrong reviews.

It gets better reviews though than the sigma 150-600mm at a similar price with nothing else on the market that matches range for said price, so its at least a prince ;)

Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens Review
 
It gets better reviews though than the sigma 150-600mm at a similar price with nothing else on the market that matches range for said price, so its at least a prince ;)

Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens Review

But that's what I'm saying. It DOESN'T offer more range. Just because the number is higher doesn't mean you have effectively more range. If a 400mm lens can resolve 50% better than a 600mm lens can, then they both have equal range, because you can just take a photo at 400mm, crop out the middle of it, and end up with precisely the same show as you'd have with the fuzzier 600mm.

The review you link is the best I've seen, although quantitatively not terribly useful since that company hasn't reviewed the majority of the other lenses that would compete with it for apples to apples comparison of their metrics.




The lensrentals review, for instance, had numbers that suggested the tamron lens could outcompete ITSELF at 500 vs. 600, dropping over 20% resolution for a 20% zoom increase. As in, you'd get better images by shooting at 500 and cropping than by turning the zoom ring, making the last 100 just extra weight and cost, if true. And not any real advantage over various existing lenses other than hype. Again IF true. More notable reviewers have yet to weigh in.

It's pointless for any lens to increase zoom at or below the rate at which its resolution drops. If you count that as "reach" then you should also count digital zoom (I.e. cropping arbitrarily small portions and blowing them up) as "reach" because digital zoom would in fact perform better, at any size. My kit lens can shoot at "90,000mm" if I crop it to 3 pixels!! :roll:
 
Last edited:
It gets better reviews though than the sigma 150-600mm at a similar price with nothing else on the market that matches range for said price, so its at least a prince ;)

Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens Review

But that's what I'm saying. It DOESN'T offer more range. Just because the number is higher doesn't mean you have effectively more range. If a 400mm lens can resolve 50% better than a 600mm lens can, then they both have equal range, because you can just take a photo at 400mm, crop out the middle of it, and end up with precisely the same show as you'd have with the fuzzier 600mm.

The review you link is the best I've seen, although quantitatively not terribly useful since that company hasn't reviewed the majority of the other lenses that would compete with it for apples to apples comparison of their metrics.


The lensrentals review, for instance, had numbers that suggested the tamron lens could outcompete ITSELF at 500 vs. 600, dropping over 20% resolution for a 20% zoom increase. As in, you'd get better images by shooting at 500 and cropping than by turning the zoom ring, making the last 100 just extra weight and cost, if true.

I am not arguing with you, do your maths thing, maybe you are even right. There is no 400mm though that outresolves the lens for the price new
 
Everything I've seen definitely suggests that up to 500, it's fine and competitive and everything. I'm not suggesting it is worse than the other alternatives up to the focal lengths they share.
The question is only the last 100mm, where it seems to drop sharply.

But the last 100mm is of course crucial, because without that, you just have yourself a sigma 150-500 or whatever, which are already available and are just as affordable, etc. So if the 600mm doesn't deliver, then it's just another option amongst many clones (a decent one no doubt, but nothing to get your knickers in a bunch over).
 
Everything I've seen definitely suggests that up to 500, it's fine and competitive and everything. I'm not suggesting it is worse than the other alternatives up to the focal lengths they share.
The question is only the last 100mm, where it seems to drop sharply.

But the last 100mm is of course crucial, because without that, you just have yourself a sigma 150-500 or whatever, which are already available and are just as affordable, etc. So if the 600mm doesn't deliver, then it's just another option amongst many clones (a decent one no doubt, but nothing to get your knickers in a bunch over).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't worry too much about your camera not able to perform too much. Trust me, your camera is fine. Take a look at here

Anatre e Oche di Racconigi by Juza [JuzaPhoto]



Those shots were taken with Canon 20D or 350D (Which is a Digital Rebel XT) they are at least 9 years old technology. Once they are paired with a nice lens and a knowledgeable / experienced photographers, it can produce wonderful images.

Yes, renting is a good way to check out a lens. Besides optical quality, you can also test the AF speed and find out how heavy the lens is.
 
When shooting wildlife having a camera that shoots more frames per second is nice but not an absolute must- you can still get plenty of usable shots even at 3 fps. The other thing to consider is that you can always get the lens now and look at upgrading the body at some future date.
 
However, they haven't been shooting on a 12.2 megapixel bottom level camera.
Made with "a 12.2 megapixel bottom level camera" (Nikon D90) and the Sigma 150-500 mm lens set to 500 mm and f/6.3 -

PreeningGoose.jpg
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top