Lens advice

[alberto_bocca]

<p>Hi all!<br>

The next summer I'll be in South Africa and, for some days, in Kruger Park (game drives, wildlife photo ecc.).<br>

My two bodies are Canon 6d and 7d (model I). <br>

As far as wideangle/normal/medium telephoto I'm O.K. (17-40 f 4 L - 24-105 f 4 L Is - 70-200 f 4 L Is - 200 f 2.8 L II and x1.4 multiplier, all Canon brand).<br>

I'm looking for advices about something on the longer side, that I should find useful for wildlife and also considering that I like to take pictures at car races (as you may see if you visit my small portfolio here in photo.net).<br>

Actually, I'm in doubt between Tamron 150-600 f 5/6.3 Di VC USD (1.100 euros new) and Canon 100-400 f 4.5/5.6 L Is (the old one, about 900-1.100 euros used). The new Canon 100-400 L Is II, by now, seems too expensive (euros 2.200 new).<br>

I'm less tempted by the idea of a fixed Canon focal like 300 f 4 L Is (to use wit Canon x1.4 multiplier) or 400 f 5.6 L (800-1000 euros used each).<br>

I would like to read opinions about ease of use and image quality from friends who have used some of these lenses or, even better, comparisons between them (particularly the two zooms). Also advices on different solutions (in this spending-range) will be welcome.<br>

As far as Tamron 150-600, I have some doubts as I've never used non Canon lenses; additionally, I'm also wondering if auto focus and stabilisation will work properly, with my two bodies, even if max aperture is 6,3.<br>

Thank you all for your help!<br>

Alberto</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>With a 2X extender many years ago I did pretty well with a Vivitar Series I 70-210mm on 35mm film. I actually didn't use the extender much since they got the minibus pretty close to the subject matter most of the time.<br /> Today, I'd take my EF 100-400mm L lens (the old one).<br /> It is widely said that the zoom action sucks in dust, but I've had mine for a a couple of years now and had none of that problem. I personally find the push/pull action both intuitive and easier to use than twisting the lens forever. It is heavy, however; in fact I recommend a Black Rapid strap for any of these.</p>

<p>Something like the 24-105 on the 6D and the 100-400 or other long lens on the 7D makes a nice range for shooting.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>If you only need the lens for the vacation, you might rent one. A couple weeks rental on these lenses is much cheaper than buying.</p>

[alberto_bocca]

<p>Alan, I think of buying the lens and using it also for car race pictures and nature photography here in Italy, so I shouldn't consider rental.<br>

Thank you however.<br>

Alberto </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I'd go for the Tamron 150-600.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/reviews/tamron-150-600/">http://www.photo.net/reviews/tamron-150-600/</a>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Tamron. You could also consider the new Sigma 150-600mm, just out at about the same price as the Tamron.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>Greetings,<br>

First off... I've never been to Africa to shoot wildlife... but I've considered it and done some reading. <br>

I've used and own some of the lenses you ask about. I currently own a 100-400L and a 400 5.6L and I've owned a 300 2.8 and a 300 f4. Of those lenses the 100-400 would be my first choice for the task. Does it produce the sharpest images of the bunch? No.. but very close. Does it do things the other lenses can not? Yes it does! Would I rather have the version II of the 100-400L? Yes... If I were going to buy one new I'd spend the extra money of on the newer version. Do I think I'd be able to see the difference in my final product? Probably not in the majority of them but since I mostly shoot hand held I think I'd increase my keepers at the fringes of light as it has better IS. <br>

The fixed focal length at 300 and 400 are great when subjects cooperate but from what <em>I've read</em> about game parks in Africa a zoom is much preferred. I really miss IS on the 400 5.6. It takes getting used to the image shaking around.<br>

I've read good things about the Tamron 150-600.<br>

Here is something just out on the new 100-400L worth reading.<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever<br>

I tend to be rough on gear. I push weather conditions a bit far. I bump into things. I'm embarrassed to say I've had cameras and lenses roll out of the truck when a back door is opened (I can think of 3 times.. I get in a hurry sometimes). I'm constantly around salt water. I like things that are stout and sturdy and the new 100-400 is looking like it might be just that.<br>

Of the Canon lenses the used 100-400L is likely the best value. If I had to choose between that and the Tamron 150-600 I'd spend 100 dollars and rent it for a handful of days to see how it is.<br>

It sounds like you have plenty of time. Get a lens now! Find out now if you love it or hate it. Buy used... sell it if it isn't for you.. move on. Spend a lot of time with your gear before the trip so you are at ease with the equipment. <br>

Regards,<br>

Richard</p>

<p> </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Let me throw in another possibility. In a month or so the new Sigma 150-600 will be available. No, I'm not saying that it's a super performer, but from what I've read the Sigma is better than the Tamron. The "Sport" Sigma doesn't seem to offer much better image....but that remains to be seen in reviews and cross comparisons. What is known, however, (at least so far) that the new Canon 100-400 is better.</p>

<p>By the way, if you add 1.4 extender to 100-400 you'd be at F7.84....so you'd need to crank the ISO's to compensate for that = reducing the quality of the image.</p>

<p>As Richard indicated, I'd rent the two lenses that offer the most to you...and cross compare them. </p>

<p>Les</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Since you can't afford the Series II 100-400mm, then I'd say go with the Tamron 150-600mm. It really gives the old 100-400mm, but isn't quite up to the considerably more expensive Series II. I have shooting friends using both and all are happy. On thing to consider is resale value. A used Series I 100-400mm is going to retain its value well.</p>

[lmwalker]

<p>I rented the 100-400 for a trip to Kruger in 2010.</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/travel_south_africa_kruger_national_park_2010</p>

<p>The 100-400 is a great lens and I got excellent results. I thought about buying one, but figured a Mark II would be released fairly soon and so I rented the Mark I for that trip. When the Mark II was announced with the huge price increase, I decided to buy the Tamron 150-600 instead. I have not used the Tamron a lot yet, but I would say it is pretty comparable to the 100-400 Mark I, but with 50% more reach. I have not used a 100-400 Mark II, so I can't make a comparison to the Mark II.</p>

<p>No problems with AF at f/6.3 on a 5DII with the Tamron. The Tamron is a bit heavy though. So is the 100-400 Mark I fully extended. Your arm will be tired by the end of the day with either lens. </p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Been to Africa a few times. A 100-400 is about right for the Kruger area, a 70-300 would also suffice on a 7D. I used the 100-400L and there is nothing wrong with its sharpness or IQ. The IS is only about 2 stops, against 4 stops for the VII. The original 100-400L needs a bit of care in its use, don't zoom with the zoom ring tightened and don't allow the zoom to hit the stop, it works best with the hood on and no filter on the front. I haven't used either the Tamron or Sigma 150-600s. User reports suggest these are equal to the 100-400 VI in IQ and the additional zoom length would be useful. On the 6D they would be equivalent to the 7D + 100-400L in field of view, but with better IQ, especially in low light. I think I would go 6D + the Tamron. Be aware that there will be times when the animals are too close for these lenses, other times 1000mm is too short, all a compromise. Of equal importance is how the safari is conducted. The private reserves bordering Kruger have several advantages in that they can go off track and there are fewer passengers allowing for better photography. Since the fences were removed around Kruger the animals have been free to migrate to areas that suit them better. So Cheetah might be more difficult to spot, leopards less so. Some research is recommended to be sure of seeing the animals that you want to see.</p>

[mecarter]

<p>In fairness I have not tried the Tamron, but recently purchased the Canon 100-400L IS II. It isn't cheap, but produces great images. The lens is very well built and weather sealed. Image Stabilization is excellent, and the lens is very sharp. On a 6D you'd get a very useable focal range. On the 7D the "multiplier" would give you a 160-640 focal range with IS.</p>

[joel_p]

<p>Alberto, i went a few years ago and was fine with my 70-2002.8 and 1.4 extender for most shots, although for the more shy animal (e.g. leopards) i would have preferred something longer. The 100-400 should give you enough reach and similar quality but with the extender you are looking at max aperture of 6.3 at the long end? That may be a little limiting in my opinion. I can't comments on the Tamron but it has similar limitations.<br>

Personally I would strongly consider renting the lens you would really like to have on this trip. After all, how often do you think you will be back to this very special place. Both the new 200-400mm and 300/2.8 would be pretty spectacular to take on this trip. just my 2 cts.<br>

p.s. dont' check in your camera equipment at JBurg airport....notorious for inside baggage handler thefts (at least a few yrs ago when I went).<br>

Cheers,<br>

Joel</p>