lens advice/opinions please

[poppersgirls]

I currently have a Canon T6i and use an 18-200 lens.  I have an 18 year old 150-600mm, but it has no vibration correction.  I haven't used it in several years because I'd rather crop my 200mm clear shot than have a 600mm dark and blurry.  Photography is just a hobby.  We've been on several Caribbean cruises, traveled to Italy and Egypt, and I also love to photograph the marching band. My daughter will be the drum major this year, and we are planning an Alaskan cruise for next summer, so I'd like to add a longer zoom to my bag.  I'm a teacher, so $$ is a big factor.  I'm looking at either a Tamron 18-400 or Tamron 150-600(older version not G2).  Using the 18-400 would mean no swapping lenses.  The 150-600 would give me the reach I really like.  Thoughts? Advice?

 

[havoc315]

One should never fear swapping lenses, that's why they are called INTERCHANGEABLE lens cameras. 

The "do everything" lenses tend to make massive compromises so they do everything poorly.

Which would you rather have -- steak 1 night and pasta another night. Or some dish that tries to make pasta taste like steak, and eat it both nights.

 

Another factor -- If this is a 1-time use lens, just rent it. Instead of spending $1,000 on a so-so telephoto lens, go spend $150 and rent the G2 for the week.

 

 

[peety3]

Like Havoc said, rent. Try for lenses with lower zoom ranges (like Havoc said) for better optics. A non-zoom lens ("prime lens") will almost always have better optics than a 3x-4x zoom lens, which will almost always have better optics than a 10x-15x zoom lens.

[joshgates]

You also might want to consider getting a "bridge" or "superzoom" camera instead of a new lens.  It's got it's tradeoffs but the best option is the one you're going to want to use.

 

For a quick example, the Lumix FZ21000 is a 25-600mm equivalent with a 2.8-4 and has image stabilization. 

[AL3XCruise]

11 hours ago, poppersgirls said:

'm a teacher, so $$ is a big factor.  I'm looking at either a Tamron 18-400 or Tamron 150-600(older version not G2).

 

I'm far less experienced than some other posters, but I found myself in a very simliar position a few months ago so my experience and research might be applicable.

 

Have you looked at the Sigma 150-600C?  I was looking at getting a teleconverter for a Canon 100-400L (first gen), but ended up finding a deal on the 150-600C and decided to try it.  I have been very happy.  While a second gen 100-400L would probably beat it, and a high end prime would definitely give a better photo, I have been happy.

 

It is priced around the same as the Tamron 150-600 first gen, but most of the comparative reviews I looked at showed it as being a  better lens (its more competitive with the G2.)  My only issue has been some AF issues shooting flying birds against a clear sky.  Of course, that is demanding for any lens, though I think the Canon was slightly better.  The IS has been pretty good too.  It is big compared to the 100-400, but is much lighter than some of the other 150-600 options (most notably Sigma's 150-600s).

 

I was tempted to look at something like a 50-500 or 60-600 to reduce the amount of lens swapping, but as the other posters have said the longer the zoom range has a downside.  Reviews showed a lot more people complaining about sharpness on either the short or long end of these lenses,  and the issues seemed to vary form lens to lens making me think quality control is very tough on a lens with such an extreme range.  I did not look at the Tamron 18-400, but it might have similar issues.

 

Of course if you don't need the reach, the suggestion to rent makes sense.  Similarly some used options might be good.  But I appreciate the value proposition.  I should note I use a 5D MKIII, so you'll have a crop factor relative to me.  In addition, you might want to check how the lenses work with your cameras AF; at 600mm its an F/6.3 lens (so is the Tamron) and not all AFs like that.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Just a few quick pics from the 150-600C:

560mm f/9 1/320

 

600mm F/5.3 1/400

 

560mm, f/9, 1/400

Edited August 8, 2019 by AL3XCruise

[quack2]

On my recent trip to Alaska, I took my new Tamron 18-400, a canon 10-22, as well as my G7x and my iphone. 

 

I was pretty happy to have both the wide angle option for landscapes as well as the 18-400 mm for wildlife photos.

[Oakman58]

I'm not as experienced as others but for your needs, the 18-400 should be a good choice.  While the 150-600 is a great choice for wildlife photography in Alaska, you would have to have it on a tripod when zoomed out beyond 400mm for really crisp photos.  Lighting conditions along the coast of Alaska aren't the best on most days.  There are a lot of rainy days in Alaska and even when it's not raining you can have dense low hanging clouds.  In the mornings and evenings you will be shooting with somewhat slow shutter speeds.  Also, don't forget in some cases you will be shooting from a moving ship and depending on the excursions you take a moving bus, train, or boat.

 

That's my 2 cents.  I'm sure others will disagree but my choice would be the 18-400 for its versatility.

 

[AL3XCruise]

3 hours ago, Oakman58 said:

.  Lighting conditions along the coast of Alaska aren't the best on most days.  There are a lot of rainy days in Alaska and even when it's not raining you can have dense low hanging clouds.  In the mornings and evenings you will be shooting with somewhat slow shutter speeds.

 

That's a good point; been too long since I've been to Alaska!  With IS I've taken shots at 600mm down to about 1/60 shutter, but the keep rate is abysmal.  I frequently use a monopod.  If your subject is slow moving or still it works; if you might only have the opportunity for three or four shots there is a good chance none will be satisfactory. 

 

The same light factors will apply for photos of a marching band, though there are more options to plan the shot than with wildlife.

 

I have had at least one scenario where I needed 600mm, light wouldn't cooperate, and I elected to crank the ISO just so that I could get something of a rare (at least around where I was) bird in the distance.  Its a pretty bad photo, but without 600mm it would have been nothing.  Does the possibility of such a scenario justify buying and lugging around an expensive and heavy lens?  Only the OP can decide!

[chipmaster]

1st consideration are you a peeper/measurbator?   IE do you crop heavily and then blow up to large print size, or only for webshare and smartphone sharing?    This sets the actual need.

 

Next is what do you hope to capture, what will the light be, distance, motion.

 

For sports actions there is NO replacing what you get with a fast zoom, 2.8 is required to get the SS you need.  That is why in the upcoming olympics you'll see the 70-200, 300, 400 2.8 monsters out.

 

For wildlife in good light you can get by with a 5.6 aperture variable / slower zoom.  Then comes down to reach / IQ / convenenience.       The rule of SS < 1/FF is a good rule for all still/slow moving objects and non-shakers.   For shakers then monpod/tripod required at any distance or any lens, LOL

 

An 18 year old variable aperature zoom is probably both lower quality and slow and won't hold up well except in the best light.

 

The latest 18-400 variable aperture zooms will do reasonably well and impress all your smartphone friends with the IQ but won't hold up under peepers/measurbators or blowing up much beyond 8x10.    Will likely serve you well for vacation even alaska, and having a longer much heavier might not be worth the inconvenience unless you live to shoot and just can't bear not coming back with "the shot"       A few years back I only had my 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter for 400, would have loved longer but didn't feel like it was worth carrying more .

 

For sports you really need to consider getting the bread and butter 70-200 2.8, you can add a 2x teleconverter that will degrade both IQ and speed but will be equal to better than the variable aperture superzoom.   If money is a concern get the used generation 2 70-200 Canon with IS, it is a good lens and can be had for pretty good prices used.   You won't regret having that when you shoot your band action stuff for night games or in poorer light. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by chipmaster

[zackiedawg]

The 18-400mm is more of an all-in-one convenience solution - I find they can do very well in average and general shooting, and can handle more extreme and focused needs in a pinch if not optimally.

The 150-600mm lenses are completely different beasts - mostly wildlife focused lenses, and NOT something most people would walk around with or throw in a bag for a trip...most people who use these lenses will mount them on the body and use it throughout the day on a wildlife or birding trip, not swapping out with other lenses or mixed use shooting.  If you've never had such a lens, be warned - though these are quite light compared to huge fast primes built for wildlife shooting, they're still much bigger and heavier than daily lenses.

That said, the Tamron 150-600mm is a very good lens, and a heck of a bargain for the reach it delivers and very respectable image quality throughout the range.  I still have my G1 version and use it occasionally - it was my primary wildlife lens for a few years on my DSLRs...and I still occasionally like to put it on my mirrorless camera for fun.

 

Here's my gallery from the Tamron 150-600mm G1, used on a variety of different camera bodies - obviously mostly for birding and wildlife - if it helps give some idea of the lens' ability:

https://pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron_150600&page=all

[GUT2407]

The 18-400 has to much of a trade off for my liking, and too heavy for a walk around, I do like the 150-600 Tamaron, a reasonable compromise using your 18-200 as a day to day and pulling out 5he big one for extreme telephoto work.