Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one

[2n10]

Yet another vote for the Tamron.

 

[Too_Many_Hobbies]

Given the 2 choices, I would also vote for the 150-600 for the zoo. Last time I went I used a 6D with the 70-200 F4 IS lens plus the 1.4 tele and I thought it was a good range + weight for walking around and carrying my daughter from time to time. Even with that I got a question asking if I were a pro photographer (when I said it’s just a hobby one kid said he’s just a cool guy with a cool camera. I figure I’ll take it and put that on my resume should I ever try to do something with this hobby Who can argue with ‘some kid said I was a cool guy with a cool camera?’)

I haven’t used the 150-600 so I cannot speak to it from experience, but in one web review I saw it seemed that at the 600 end it is on the soft and slow side. Price/range/weight seems really interesting to me, though, and if I didn't have the 100-400 I would seriously consider it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk

I do have the Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports lens and I actually love it. I couldn't afford/get spouse approval for the canon 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 or 600 f4 (still can’t decide if the 400 or 600 is my dream retirement lens) so that’s what I went with and have no real complaints. I feel it is very sharp and is easily sharper than my 100-400 canon even with the 1.4 tele. If you use the 2x converter, though, I would say you need to stop it down at least to F7.1 as that makes a big difference in my experience. You then have about a 240-600 F8 tank which is pretty heavy and awkward to balance in my experience. I would not want to be lugging that around a zoo for fear of taking some kid's head off with it.


A couple of shots with the 120-300. They are all cropped quite a bit and at ISO 1250 or higher. Even though I feel I need to stop down the lens with teleconverters the high-ISO performance of the 6D has me very pleased with what I have been getting.
1.4 tele F5.6 ISO 4000
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjwalsh/10896699563/in/set-72157637747329304
1.4 tele F8 ISO 1250:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjwalsh/14100832307/in/set-72157637746696576
1.4 tele F8 ISO 5000:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjwalsh/10970337156/in/set-72157637747329304
2x tele F8 ISO 1250:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjwalsh/10856646866/in/set-72157637746696576
2x tele F8 ISO 4000:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjwalsh/10896437546/in/set-72157637747329304

 

[Scott_McPhee]

Northrup's review of the Tamron 150-600mm is terrible - I don't know what he was doing with that lens but almost everyone else I have spoken to that has one comments on how excellent it is.

The shot I posted above was taken at full 600mm - like any long lens it will always perform better stopped down but I am really delighted with this lens and would recommend it to anyone.

Have a look at my Flickr account - all the newer aviation pics were taken with the Tamron 150-600mm.

Try one and make your own mind up but for me there is nothing to touch it anywhere near the price.

http://www.flickr.com/scott_mcphee

 

[Too_Many_Hobbies]

Northrup's review of the Tamron 150-600mm is terrible - I don't know what he was doing with that lens but almost everyone else I have spoken to that has one comments on how excellent it is.

Good to know. When I first heard about it I was really considering selling my 100-400 and getting this instead as the extra reach would be very nice. Sounds like maybe I should consider doing that...

 

[mackguyver]

Northrup's review of the Tamron 150-600mm is terrible - I don't know what he was doing with that lens but almost everyone else I have spoken to that has one comments on how excellent it is.

I've never heard of the guy, but I have heard of AlanF and many of the guys on this forum who have posted extensive samples and opinions on this lens. They all seem to think that the lens is one helluva good value and I would trust their opinion. Use the search feature, there are several threads with many posts about this lens.

 

[Scott_McPhee]

This was shot at 600mm too....


Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

 

[GMCPhotographics]

If you are going to get one white super-tele (and trust me there is no substitute) then either the newer 300mm f2.8 LIS II or an older 400mm f2.8 LIS would be top of my list. The 300 is great for it's size, portability and relative lightness. it takes tele converters every well (1.4x and 2x) and will get you to 600mm f5.6 with ample IQ and can be shot wide open with great sharpness.
The 400L (my personal choice) is very big and very very heavy, but optically, it's one of the finest lenses ever made. It's pretty much untouched optically by a teleconverter. Pop a 1.4x on it and it's a 560mm f4, which is just a bit focal shy of the 600mm f4. Pop a 2x on it and it's a very capable 800mm f5.6.
Anything else is a compromise in my opinion.

I used 24-70 II and 400 f2.8 IS II combo yesterday. I carried this combo on dual BR strap. The weight is not that bad. I have the hood removed to keep it compact, plus I constanly checking the BR connection to make everything remaining nice and tight.

Like you said "it's one of the finest lenses ever made"

I'm using the mkI 400L and that's a LOT heavier. It's a lot cheaper on the S/H market too. Optically, there is nothing between them except for copy variation. I'd love a mkII but at the moment it is way out of my purchasing power. Maybe next year....

 

[3kramd5]

600mm for Zoo?? IMHO, 600mm is too long and minimum focusing distance is too long for Zoo unless the animals in your Zoo is kept very far away...

I agree that it's probably too long for a "animals in cages directly adjacent to walkways" style zoo. For the zoo I frequent, 600mm would be very beneficial (hence being on the backorder list for the Tamron, which is the best option in the price range I can justify)

 

[Pieces Of E]

If possible, rent the Canon 600 f4 L IS II. That way, it's affordable, you can get your zoo pics with it, spoil yourself and be the envy of all that encounter you.

 

[Dylan777]

If you are going to get one white super-tele (and trust me there is no substitute) then either the newer 300mm f2.8 LIS II or an older 400mm f2.8 LIS would be top of my list. The 300 is great for it's size, portability and relative lightness. it takes tele converters every well (1.4x and 2x) and will get you to 600mm f5.6 with ample IQ and can be shot wide open with great sharpness.
The 400L (my personal choice) is very big and very very heavy, but optically, it's one of the finest lenses ever made. It's pretty much untouched optically by a teleconverter. Pop a 1.4x on it and it's a 560mm f4, which is just a bit focal shy of the 600mm f4. Pop a 2x on it and it's a very capable 800mm f5.6.
Anything else is a compromise in my opinion.

I used 24-70 II and 400 f2.8 IS II combo yesterday. I carried this combo on dual BR strap. The weight is not that bad. I have the hood removed to keep it compact, plus I constanly checking the BR connection to make everything remaining nice and tight.

Like you said "it's one of the finest lenses ever made"

I'm using the mkI 400L and that's a LOT heavier. It's a lot cheaper on the S/H market too. Optically, there is nothing between them except for copy variation. I'd love a mkII but at the moment it is way out of my purchasing power. Maybe next year....

Many reviews claimed the weight reduction is the key to upgrade from mrkI to II.

Hope you be able to get one soon. This is my 1st BIG WHITE and I'm loving it.

If Canon SOME HOW : can reduce the current 400mm f2.8 IS II weight down to 300mm f2.8 IS II - that would be AWESOME.

 

[3kramd5]

If Canon SOME HOW : can reduce the current 400mm f2.8 IS II weight down to 300mm f2.8 IS II - that would be AWESOME.

They could, and yes, it would be AWE$OME.

 

[mackguyver]

If Canon SOME HOW : can reduce the current 400mm f2.8 IS II weight down to 300mm f2.8 IS II - that would be AWESOME.

Not quite, but close: 300mm f/2.8 IS II + 1.4x III & +1 stop ISO

Beyond that, Canon will need more titanium & carbon fiber...and we'll need a LOT MORE CA$$$H

 

[ctaylor42]

The consensus seems to be for the Tamron.

I mentioned this earlier, but the main drawback to the Tamron is that you'll have to wait 5 months to get it after you order it. In another thread (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21178.0) someone mentioned that they're ramping up production, but still it will be a few months before you receive it.

 

[3kramd5]

Canon will need more titanium

What is this, the 1980s?

Beryllium! Two-and-a-half times as stiff, 40% as heavy.

Just don't drop it, but it's a lens, so you already knew that

 

[mackguyver]

Canon will need more titanium

Beryllium!

I'm sorry for my lapse in affordability, err, I mean times, but beryllium??? What is this the 1990s? Graphene is what we all want .

 

[3kramd5]

Canon will need more titanium

Beryllium!

I'm sorry for my lapse in affordability, err, I mean times, but beryllium??? What is this the 1990s? Graphene is what we all want .

haha, at least now we have flat lenses from a decade ago.

I'm not sure they've really figured out how to make solid geometry from graphene yet, but if they have then yah, bring it on! 600mm lens with a barrel a few atoms thick )

 

[Scott_McPhee]

The consensus seems to be for the Tamron.

I mentioned this earlier, but the main drawback to the Tamron is that you'll have to wait 5 months to get it after you order it. In another thread (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21178.0) someone mentioned that they're ramping up production, but still it will be a few months before you receive it.

I got one in the UK 3 weeks after I ordered it with Jessops.

 

[westr70]

Hmm... I'm really interested in this lens now that I have read all these replies. I want to thank the op and everyone else for their comments. Much to consider. If anyone else has a 5dIII with this lens and can lead me to their shots I'd appreciate it. Particularly for bif.

Thanks.

 

[alexturton]

Thanks everyone for the comments. I think ill errr on the side of the tamron. I really want 600mm so think it would be better (and cheaper) to go with that. And just suffer any slow af at the long end or any softness wide open.

 

[Scott_McPhee]

Hmm... I'm really interested in this lens now that I have read all these replies. I want to thank the op and everyone else for their comments. Much to consider. If anyone else has a 5dIII with this lens and can lead me to their shots I'd appreciate it. Particularly for bif.

Thanks.

All shot with the Tamron 150-600mm - in poor light as well.

Pretty in pink by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

BA landing by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Into landing by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr