WHEN IS IT TIME FOR A NEW LENS?
Searching for a wildlife lens with more reach that won’t break the bank is a common quest for us bird and wildlife photographers. That is exactly why, even though I love my Canon 100-400mm L II, I decided to try out the Tamron 150-600mm G2.
Nearly all of my bird and wildlife photographs have been made on the Canon 100-400mm. It has been a fantastic lens with a lot of flexibility. There are times though, especially with small birds, when 400mm just doesn’t get me close enough.
Using a teleconverter has been helpful to add some reach. The problems is that it works well in bright lighting conditions but is less than ideal in low light settings. Adding a 1.4x teleconverter effectively transforms a 400mm f/5.6 into a 560mm f/8. That means the light coming into your camera is reduced by one stop. If I’m photographing birds early in the morning or in the late afternoon when the light often is the prettiest, I want the ability to let the most light possible into my camera and the teleconverter hinders that. I’ve also found that the autofocus becomes sluggish in low light when the teleconverter is on, tripping up some bird-in-flight opportunities.
Most of time, if I cannot create a photo that I have envisioned, it is because I haven’t learned a particular skill yet or am not being imaginative enough in my approach. Every so often though, there are times that I hit the limits of my current camera gear. That is the time to consider adding or upgrading a piece of gear. So I started researching lenses, hoping to find one that gives me more reach at a reasonable price. The Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens became a contender.
As far as long lenses go, the 150-600mm G2 is very reasonably priced, currently around $1,400. The Canon 100-400 II is priced about $700 higher, at $2,100, which is still in the “mid-priced” range for telephoto lenses. The fact that the Canon costs significantly more than the Tamron might make the comparison seem a little unfair. But I have seen excellent quality images from talented photographers using the Tamron so it was worth a try.
I also was interested in the Tamron because, like the Canon, it is relatively light and easy-to-pack for a long telephoto lens. Weight is important to me because I prefer to handhold whenever possible when I photograph birds. I also want as much portability as possible when traveling, especially on planes. The Tamron is listed at 4.4 lbs and the Canon is listed at 3.6 pounds. Although the Tamron is a little bit longer than the Canon, it fits well in my medium-sized, 30L camera backpack.
TRYING OUT THE TAMRON 150-600MM G2.
I rented the Tamron for a week and set out looking for birds here in southeast Louisiana. By the way, I am not a very techie person so this isn’t that kind of review. These are just my personal experiences using the Tamron G2 and my thoughts on how it performed and any relevant differences that I noticed between it and the 100-400mm.
The week that I had the Tamron was exceptionally gray and foggy for southeast Louisiana. One morning, I headed over to a small beach on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, looking for some shorebirds. I was happy to find the least sandpiper and greater yellowlegs that you see in the photos below hanging out at the water’s edge.
Least sandpiper, photographed with Tamron 150-600mm G2 at 600mm f/6.3.
Greater yellowlegs, photographed with Tamron 150-600mm G2 at 600mm f/6.3.
[Photo tip: if you are new to bird photography, try positioning yourself low so that you are at the bird’s eye level, which often creates a nice, intimate perspective.]
There also were common loons on the lake, calling from behind the dense fog bank but they stayed hidden for the most part. In my YouTube video about my week using the Tamron, you can hear the loons during the beach segment.
I switched to the Canon to try to get some photos in the same conditions so I could do more of a side-by-side comparison but that plan flopped. The shorebirds had flown off and did not return. The loons drifted even further into the fog. In other words, I had lost my subjects.
The photos below are from the previous morning when I used the Canon 100-400 to photograph more cooperative loons and a great blue heron in the rain at a different spot along the lake.
Common loon in the rain, photographed with Canon 100-400 II at 400mm f/7.1.
Great blue heron in the rain, photographed with Canon 100-400mm II at 400mm f/6.3.
If you want to look through more images made with the Canon 100-400mm II, the photos on the Birds, Botswana wildlife (except the elephant spraying dust) and Osa wildlife galleries on my website are made with that lens. Here is one example.
Ruby-crowned kinglet perched on autumn cypress tree branch, photographed with the Canon 100-400 II at 400mm f/5.6.
A few performance differences between Tamron 150-600 G2 and Canon 100-400 II caught my attention.
I found that the Tamron has a slight lag in autofocus compared to the Canon. The Tamron is certainly fast and works well. It is just that the Canon’s autofocus is super-fast. Because small, quick-moving birds – think warblers and gnatcatchers – are one of my main interests and I often use autofocus to track them, I noticed the minor difference. If your thing is mammals or other slower moving animals, you might not notice it all. All that said, throughout the week, I was able to adjust my shooting to accommodate for the autofocus timing on the Tamron and made some images that I really liked, like the eastern bluebird photo at the top of this post.
Another difference was that, in my experience with the two lenses, the Canon is a bit sharper than the Tamron. I did not do an on-tripod, side-by-side comparison of a static subject, which would offer more accurate insight into the lenses’ sharpness. These are just my takeaways from using both lenses out in the field in the way that I normally do.
And to be fair, there are a lot of variables, usually associated with user error, that can affect how sharp our images are. Because I like to hand-hold my camera and lens when photographing birds, my comfort and familiarity with the 100-400mm, which I’ve used for years, may have led to me getting sharper images with it than I did with the Tamron, which I used only for a week. That said, I did shoot with the Tamron a lot that week and felt pretty confident that I was seeing a genuine, albeit slight, sharpness difference.
The last, very minor issue was that I saw some vignetting (darkening around the corners of the image) with the Tamron, particularly at 600mm at the widest aperture, as you can see in the example below. I really don’t knock the Tamron for it because, from what I have read, a little bit of vignetting is common with most super telephoto lenses. I very rarely see vignetting with the Canon but it then only goes to 400mm. Plus, a vignette is really easy to fix in post-production with Lightroom or Photoshop, which I ultimately did with the photo below.
Note the vignette (darkening around edges of frame). Least sandpiper preening on beach, photographed with Tamron 150-600mm G2 at 600mm f/6.3.
If I didn’t own the Canon already, which one would I buy? It depends.
Despite the minor differences I just discussed, in my opinion, both are great lenses and I would be happy to use either one.
If affordability is key, the Tamron would be the better choice. The $700 price difference is significant. Please don’t let my comments here make you doubt the Tamron’s quality. If. you don’t watch him already, check out Morten Hilmer’s YouTube channel. He is an amazing wildlife photographer who uses the Tamron 150-600mm G2 (along with a high-end 600mm prime and other lenses) to make stunning images, like in his episode photographing mountain hares in the snow with the Tamron.
If cost isn’t the deciding factor and you can afford either lens, my personal preference would be the Canon 100-400mm L II. Because I primarily photograph birds these days, including birds in flight, the slightly faster autofocus and sharpness make the Canon the lens for me. Even though it would be very nice to have the extra reach of 600mm, I use a full-frame 30.4 megapixel camera and don’t mind cropping my images some to compensate for less reach.
Will I switch to the Tamron 150-600mm from the Canon 100-400mm? No.
My situation probably is a little unusual because I am considering the Tamron while already owning the Canon. Even with the extra bump to 600mm that the Tamron provides, I plan to keep the 100-400mm until I’m ready to invest in a prime (more on that below).
What about the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Sport? I haven’t tried it.
Sigma also has a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Sport but I can’t comment on it because I haven’t tried it. It is priced at about $1,850, making closer to the Canon 100-400 II’s price. The Sigma is listed as weighing 6.29 lbs. For me, that is a significant bump up from the Canon’s 3.6 lbs. Everyone will have a unique view as to how much is too much weight, but, if I am going to carry that much more weight and need to use a tripod more often, my attention shifts over to prime lenses.
If the few extra pounds isn’t an issue for you, I have read good things about the Sigma 150-600mm’s quality and it might be a lens you want to consider.
Finally, whAT ABOUT A big prime lens? I am dreaming and scheming to get one.
As I just mentioned, if I’m going to work with a heavier kit, I want it to be worth it. What “worth it” means will be different for each of us. For me, it means gaining the advantages of a prime telephoto lens, such as improved image quality, wider maximum aperture, and better performance with teleconverters.
The Sigma 500mm f/4 DG OS HSM Sport for Canon weighs about 7.3 lbs. A prime with a maximum aperture of f/4, it would give me enough of a boost in quality and light to justify the extra weight and price, which I will get to in a second. Plus, adding a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter has much more appeal when the result would be 700mm at f/5.6 or 1000mm at f/8.
But we are talking about a major jump in price from the zoom lenses just discussed. And in this price tier, affordability becomes a huge factor for me. The Sigma 500mm Sport sells for about $6,000 new. Yikes! The Canon 500mm f/4 L II is even lighter, weighing 7.0 lbs, and sells for $9,000 new. Bigger yikes!! Finding a used version of either lens will lower the price some but, if the lens is in good condition, it still is a serious investment.
I’ve used the Sigma 500mm Sport and liked it a lot. I have not used the Canon 500mm II but have no doubt that it is a beautiful lens. Earlier this year, I rented the dream lens -- the Canon 600mm III -- and it lives up to the hype. It is a lightweight, absolutely gorgeous lens. With a purchase price of $13,000 new, renting the 600mm did not leave me burning with unrequited love because buying it is not even vague option for me. A used 500mm II is still out of reach for me, although getting closer to the realm of possibility. My plan at the moment is to resist even trying the Canon 500mm (don’t want the temptation), maintain my happy thoughts about the lower-priced, great quality Sigma, and find a good used version of that when I am ready to buy.
Wow! That was a lot of lens talk! I hope it helps if you are trying to figure out which wildlife and bird photography lens is best for you.
Spanish moss at sunset in Mandeville, Louisiana, photographed with Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm f/9.0.
Tufted titmouse eating an acorn seed, photographed with Tamron 150-600mm G2 at 600mm f/7.1.
Blue-headed vireo singing its beautiful song, photographed with Tamron 150-600mm G2 at 600mm f/7.1.
All images © Elizabeth Acevedo and may not be used without prior written permission. All rights reserved.