Wildlife lens

john t

john t

Messages
128
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
I have a 60d with 24-105 and 70-300 lens.
Later this year I will be going to Africa and will doing a Safari. I was looking to hire something, but for the price I'm seeing, I may be better off buying and then sell again when I return.

Bearing this in mind,this is a single trip lens, I don't want to go over the top with price. What lens would you recommend?

Thanks

John
 
You will get some shots with the 70-300 but depending where you're going and time of year. Is it rainy or super bright essentially? Normally you're looking at minimum 400mm, so either the 400mm prime L or the 100-400mm IS L are great to hire. The big Sigmas will be cheaper but can give great results well used. On say the 150-500 stay back a tad from 500mm and use a stop down not wide open. Most shots are from around 150-350-400mm, but longer is better. The 100-400mm can be dodgy buying used, I've had four lousy ones, but the last one I had was new and it was great. The 400mm is consistent. What you need is to stay super steady. I recommend a bean bag, but it depends again on the vehicle you're in. If it's self-drive then it's easier. If you're guided/driven then a bean bag may or may not suit, so a monopod could be handy. You need to be at f8 much of the time and distance impacts on the degree of shake you may get in shots. Two bodies is best if possible, both for redundancy in the event of one breaking and also to have a longer and a short lens right to hand. Changing lenses is a pain, encourages dust and may miss you the shot. The best options IMO are 70-200 and 400. Alternatively, a good 100-400mm IS or the 150-500mm. If you have other questions ask as I've been on countless game drives and organised several photo safaris over at POTN forum. I've used all kinds of gear, Canon and Nikon.
 
Tamron 150-600mm, I've just been out with mine again today and it still impresses me. Keep it 550mm and below and it's really sharp, and stopping down to f8 it's obviously even sharper.
 
Or even the Sigma 150-600 which from what I've read is even sharper than the Tamron. Depends on your budget. When I went on safari, sand got in the lens so weather sealing might be useful. The Sigma Sport version has this so if I was you I'd be looking at that.
 
Try and get a Sigma 150-600 Sport second hand then sell it back on the same site. Chances are you won't lose any money at all on it.
 
Yeah, the 150-600 sounds a real option. I don't know the Tamron tele's, only the 70-300 VC which is a great lens for the money. I like skiking's idea if you can find a really good used example, rather than one someone wants rid of! With dust much of it is bad luck or more often just not taking care on changes. Clean your lenses after each game drive. Baby wipes can be handy. I normally use a quality UV for safari. This is also partly why a 2x body set up is so good. Changes not needed. As mentioned, put a screw in bean bag on the lens foot or use a monopod. Practice shooting long lengths to appreciate the potential for shake. The OS will help but it's less secure than good, stable placement. Check the max range at f8 and pull back to say 580mm and 560 and 500 and see the differences, if any. A steady, high res shot at say 560 may be better than a steady shot at 600 where the resolution is questionable. The 24-104 is a decent short length to supplement the long lens; not ideal, but can do the job. The issue can be minimum focus length on the big lenses. Some of my favourite shots are quite close, around 100-200, and tho unusual, proximity can generate some fantastic images.
 
The problem is, once you've had 600mm you won't want to give it up !!! :eek:

I bought my 150-600 specifically for a trip to Canada, but have been using ever since, all that length is addictive :D

On a serious note, I'd only consider something weather sealed. It's a trip of a lifetime and you don't want to be worried about whether you're going to get the shots you want. A used 150-600 sport would be the best for budget in my opinion. But then a 400 f4 with a 1.4 EX would be good too, however a zoom would give you more flexibility.
 
htid said:
Or even the Sigma 150-600 which from what I've read is even sharper than the Tamron. Depends on your budget. When I went on safari, sand got in the lens so weather sealing might be useful. The Sigma Sport version has this so if I was you I'd be looking at that.
Click to expand...
The Sigma S is but the sigma C is on par but a touch more expensive than the Tamron (at least it was at the last time of looking). The Sigma S is considerably more expensive and much heavier though. Tamron has some weather sealing but I don't believe as much as the Sigma S. I don't believe the Sigma C has any weather sealing but happy to be proven wrong. Of course with Sigma you can use their dock.

Few shots with the Tamron today.

1.

DSC_8171 by TDG-77, on Flickr

2.

DSC_8193 by TDG-77, on Flickr

3.

DSC_8061 by TDG-77, on Flickr

4.

DSC_8104 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
The Sigma S is but the sigma C is on par but a touch more expensive than the Tamron (at least it was at the last time of looking). The Sigma S is considerably more expensive and much heavier though. Tamron has some weather sealing but I don't believe as much as the Sigma S. I don't believe the Sigma C has any weather sealing but happy to be proven wrong. Of course with Sigma you can use their dock.

Few shots with the Tamron today.
Click to expand...

Looks pretty sharp to me! That last goose... I really like the framing and lighting, very good!!!
 
My vote would be for the 100-400.
I did my first safari on a 75-300, which I found "OK", but was blown away by how much better the 100-400 was.... and I bought it used - I certainly wouldn't say there was any greater issue buying a used 100-400 than any other lens.
I've since changed to the 100-400 II, but either way, it'd be the one permanently bolted to my camera for any safari.
 
Tamron or Sigma 150-600. I'd suggest getting a 2nd hand one then if you sell it when you come back you'll likely lose very little and then would be cheaper than renting. If you buy new then you would potentially lose out if then selling on afterwards
 
i would suggest the sigma 150-600C in africa the light won't be a problem so f6.3 might be an advantage ,its lighter for travelling than the 3kg sport i use ,if you get the optional dock you can tune and upgrade the lens ,sigma are coming out with a downloadable upgrade on march 11th to make it even faster to focus than it is already
 
400mm f/5.6L prime is about as sharp as it gets and is priced very sensibly. There is no IS so that's the only drawback.
Apparently it resolves as much or more as Tamron at 600mm (it isn't real 600mm and sharpness isn't perfect at long end).

At slightly higher end 100-100mm IS L mkII is apparently amazing.
 
My vote is for the sigma 150-600 (C)
Since i bought mine ive never regretted it for a second, very sharp results throughout the range.
 
All
Looks like a resounding vote for Sigma or Tamron 150-600. I don't go till Sept, so have time to get a good used version. I'll also look to take Condyk advise and see if I can pick up another camera. Maybe upgrade mine to the 6d and sell the 60d

thanks for all you advice
 
snerkler said:
The Sigma S is but the sigma C is on par but a touch more expensive than the Tamron (at least it was at the last time of looking). The Sigma S is considerably more expensive and much heavier though. Tamron has some weather sealing but I don't believe as much as the Sigma S. I don't believe the Sigma C has any weather sealing but happy to be proven wrong. Of course with Sigma you can use their dock.

Few shots with the Tamron today.

1.

DSC_8171 by TDG-77, on Flickr

2.

DSC_8193 by TDG-77, on Flickr

3.

DSC_8061 by TDG-77, on Flickr

4.

DSC_8104 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I've just picked up a Sigma 150-600 C. Its just as sharp as the Sport version IMO but the sport is bigger and heavier! But optically neither has an advantage except the Sport has a slightly wider aperture of some of the mid range as it stops down very slightly later, but there's no noticeable advantage. I've not shot much so far, only had about 30 mins in my field earlier but I'm blown away by how sharp it is at all focal lengths (including its 600mm limit) and how good and effective the OS is over such a long range. Its only £739 new on Amazon at the moment.

I use it on a 6d too which is a great combo as you can up the ISO for the long stuff if the light isn't great without compromising IQ. And its an outdoor lens anyway so light shouldn't really be an issue.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I've just picked up a Sigma 150-600 C. Its just as sharp as the Sport version IMO but the sport is bigger and heavier! But optically neither has an advantage except the Sport has a slightly wider aperture of some of the mid range as it stops down very slightly later, but there's no noticeable advantage. I've not shot much so far, only had about 30 mins in my field earlier but I'm blown away by how sharp it is at all focal lengths (including its 600mm limit) and how good and effective the OS is over such a long range. Its only £739 new on Amazon at the moment.

I use it on a 6d too which is a great combo as you can up the ISO for the long stuff if the light isn't great without compromising IQ. And its an outdoor lens anyway so light shouldn't really be an issue.
Click to expand...
Surprised to hear that as every review and test shot I've seen show the Sport as better, but only a few percent. I would choose the C over the S for the cost and weight saving rather than gain an extra 2-5% in IQ. £739 is a great price, if it was that when I was looking I'd have probably paid the extra over what I paid for my Tamron so that I could use the dock ;)
 
Does the 60D AF at F8? I'm thinking 100/400 (f4.5/5.6) or 400 F5.6 plus a 1.4 converter for maximum flexibility, my first choice would be the zoom. I have both and having the ability to frame with the zoom, plus IS, makes it a better all round lens, if you're pixel peeping the prime might be just a bit better, but, will you be pixel peeping? All boils down to if the 60D will af with the lens and converter, otherwise I'd be tempted to go with a longer single lens. 400 f4 sounds expensive/heavy, how are you going to transport it in the plane?
Matt
 
Wasn't the sigma 50-500 os version considered a really sharp lens sharper than the 150-500! Should be some bargains to be had on 1 of these!!
 
MatBin said:
Does the 60D AF at F8? I'm thinking 100/400 (f4.5/5.6) or 400 F5.6 plus a 1.4 converter for maximum flexibility, my first choice would be the zoom. I have both and having the ability to frame with the zoom, plus IS, makes it a better all round lens, if you're pixel peeping the prime might be just a bit better, but, will you be pixel peeping? All boils down to if the 60D will af with the lens and converter, otherwise I'd be tempted to go with a longer single lens. 400 f4 sounds expensive/heavy, how are you going to transport it in the plane?
Matt
Click to expand...

No, i dont think it does. You need a single digit (1/5/6/7) for that I believe.
 
Jelster said:
No, i dont think it does. You need a single digit (1/5/6/7) for that I believe.
Click to expand...
80D does, so I expect the 60 doesn't as you say. I have a 5D3 and it didn't until they upgraded the s/w, so wasnt sure about the 60
 
Matbin
I will probably take the camera and lens as carryon luggage.
 
john t said:
I will probably take the camera and lens as carryon luggage.
Click to expand...
Have you checked your carry-on allowance? It varies more than you might expect from one airline to another, and some are very restrictive.
 
john t said:
Matbin
I will probably take the camera and lens as carryon luggage.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, DO IT! my camcorder was stolen from my checked in luggage many years ago. I didn't notice till I got home. Insurance company said because it wasnt in my possession and I let it out of my site, insurance wasn't valid. So that was £500 (and the memories from my holiday) gone. I would never put anything valuable in checked in anymore.
 
htid said:
Looks pretty sharp to me! That last goose...
Click to expand...
wardy07 said:
Great advert for the Tamron, really excellent sharp shots.
Click to expand...
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but unless I'm mistaken that goose image is only 2048 pixels across, or a little under 3 megapixels, even in the largest size displayed by Flickr. Surely it's not possible to judge the sharpness of a lens using such a small image?
 
StewartR said:
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but unless I'm mistaken that goose image is only 2048 pixels across, or a little under 3 megapixels, even in the largest size displayed by Flickr. Surely it's not possible to judge the sharpness of a lens using such a small image?
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, I've only viewed it on my phone. Still, for many people 2048 will be plenty enough unless they plan to print id assume. I resize my photos to about 2000 for flickr and then post at 1024 from flickr to here. If that's all somebody ever does than surely it's sharp. But again it depends on what the individual wants to do with the images
 
htid said:
True but to be fair noody said that's not a 100% crop to begin with.
Click to expand...
Fair point.

If it's a 100% crop then it's seriously impressive. If it's uncropped then it's meaningless. If it's somewhere between a 100% crop and uncropped then it's somewhere between seriously impressive and meaningless.
 
john t said:
I'll also look to take Condyk advise and see if I can pick up another camera. Maybe upgrade mine to the 6d and sell the 60d
/QUOTE]

Even buying a 3-4 year old body that's well rated is a good move. One of the small ones. You can shop around for ages and bag a bargain for £200 or so, then sell for the same or more when you get back. I have used the 1D mkII N a couple of times, bought a decent example and immediately sold on my return. On my last trip I actually liked it so much it was used more than the main body.

MatBin said:
Does the 60D AF at F8? I'm thinking 100/400 (f4.5/5.6) or 400 F5.6 plus a 1.4 converter for maximum flexibility, my first choice would be the zoom. I have both and having the ability to frame with the zoom, plus IS, makes it a better all round lens, if you're pixel peeping the prime might be just a bit better, but, will you be pixel peeping? All boils down to if the 60D will af with the lens and converter, otherwise I'd be tempted to go with a longer single lens. 400 f4 sounds expensive/heavy, how are you going to transport it in the plane?
Matt
Click to expand...

The 400mm 5.6 is Ok with a tcon but you won't AF with a consumer body. It's not ideal unless the light really is A1, so restricted times of day. I wouldn't use it as a matter of course, just for the exceptional moments when you really need it. The 400mm is mainly great as most of the time you will be (should be!) on a bean bag or monopod, depending on your vehicle set up. This makes the IS advantage a bit moot, but obviously it can be a good to have now and again. Framing wise you either shoot with the prime knowing you'll crap as needed later, or with the zoom the cropping is 'built in'. I wouldn't use the tcon with the zoom. You will get a decent shot now and again but you'll likely find your keeper ratio is quite poor what with trying to MF at long range with all the dust and haze. Maybe another reason to consider an 1D MK II N?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top