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



## alexturton (Jun 3, 2014)

I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.

The options I'm considering are:

Tamron 150-600 @ £950

or 

Sigma 120-300 Sport @ £2500 + a 2x TC

I can afford either of these options but not both. My question is, which will be better at 600mm? considering, IQ and AF speed.

I have the canon 70-200 2.8ii so the sigma for its 120-200 range doesn't excite me (neither does the cost or weight). but 300mm f2.8 excites me, so does 400mm f4 but I not sure about 600mm via a 2x TC.

Have anyone come across a direct comparison of these two routes to 600mm?

All opinions greatly welcomed.
thanks in advance.
Alex


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 3, 2014)

Comparison from TDP. It looks like the Tamron is a bit better in the center/middle or the frame. You can also go the 400 f/5.6 +1.4x II/III for 560mm route. You lose IS, but it will AF with your 5DIII and it's a nice combo I used for many years. Comparison to the Tamron

I ended up with the 300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III. Not cheap, but less than the 600mm f/4 IS II and more flexible for my purposes. 

I'd go with the Tamron were I in your shoes as it seems to offer the best mix of features & price.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 3, 2014)

If you want 600mm and don't want to pay for it then there are 2 practical options though neither is cheap.
The first is to go the route that mackguyver went and get the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk2. The second is to go the route that I went, namely to get the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1. A bit cheaper, a little heavier and (with Mk3 extenders) the AF is a touch slower.
Neither option will quite match a Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk1 or 2 but they are surprisingly close in IQ and do allow more flexibility and portability.
There are a few other ways of achieving the 600mm goal but, having tried a few, you will probably be disappointed if yo go for lesser setups than the above, and end up spending more money in the long run!


----------



## dcm (Jun 3, 2014)

There might be a bit of a wait for the Tamron. Orders placed in mid March at B&H haven't been filled yet. I'm also on the waiting list at the local camera store. At this rate I might save enough for a big white before the Tamron ships. Been thinking the 300 f/2.8L IS II was the next step for me since already have the extenders, just thought I'd be waiting until a year or two after I got the Tamron.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 3, 2014)

dcm said:


> There might be a bit of a wait for the Tamron. Orders placed in mid March at B&H haven't been filled yet. I'm also on the waiting list at the local camera store. At this rate I might save enough for a big white before the Tamron ships. Been thinking the 300 f/2.8L IS II was the next step for me since already have the extenders, just thought I'd be waiting until a year or two after I got the Tamron.



Honestly if the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk2 is a bit of a stretch (it ain't cheap!) then have a look at a used Mk1. IQ wise there is little between them, yes the Mk2 is better but it takes a Guru of heightened enlightenment to really see the difference.


----------



## jasonsim (Jun 4, 2014)

If you need 600mm there is no alternative to the 600mm f/4L II IS. It simply cannot be beet. A close second would be to use a 300mm f/2.8L II IS + 2x III. You loose little in terms of image quality, but loose a little more in AF speed. Sadly, I cannot recommend the 300mm f/4L IS. It is too old and does not take the extenders well at all. If you can live with 400mm, I'd recommend the 400mm f/5.6L. 

You might just wait for the new 100-400mm L to be released. It should take the 1.4x III and can be used to AF on 5D III and 1Dx bodies. Though, it is still just rumored and should be pretty expensive ( guess around $3k ).

For the price, the Tamron might be the only option without having to pony up some serious cash!

Best of luck,
Jason S.


----------



## ctaylor42 (Jun 4, 2014)

Keep in mind that though the Tamron has been released, it's been on backorder for many months.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jun 5, 2014)

Personally, I would opt for the Canon 300/4 L IS with a Canon 2x extender. The IQ from this combo is surprisingly good, as you can see at The Digital Picture here: 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The resultant 600/8 may still function with AF and IS if you only use the center AF point. As an added bonus, you can add a Canon 1.4x extender for a pretty awesome 420/5.6 AF IS.


----------



## brad goda (Jun 5, 2014)

go to a pro sports event…
bring a bat and a bag…

free


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 5, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> Personally, I would opt for the Canon 300/4 L IS with a Canon 2x extender. The IQ from this combo is surprisingly good, as you can see at The Digital Picture here:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> The resultant 600/8 may still function with AF and IS if you only use the center AF point. As an added bonus, you can add a Canon 1.4x extender for a pretty awesome 420/5.6 AF IS.


Really? Do you own this? I own this and the tamron and I assure you the tamron leaves this combo for dead
It's no contest in iq and af accuracy and speed


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jun 5, 2014)

Yes, really.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 5, 2014)

Read the OPs question. He wants an opinion on two particular zooms for use in zoos that will extend to 600mm, not a general debate on all 600mm alternatives. I'd recommend the Tamron. It performs very well indeed, it is much cheaper and is lighter than the Sigma with an extender. 

A 600mm prime or doubled 300mm would not be my first choice for a zoo.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 5, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> Personally, I would opt for the Canon 300/4 L IS with a Canon 2x extender. The IQ from this combo is surprisingly good, as you can see at The Digital Picture ...



I own this combination, and wouldn't recommend it. But then I also wouldn't recommend either of the options the OP is considering if the OP requires a respectable 600mm. If those are his only choices, the Tamron is probably the better one (though I have no experience with it).

Owning the 300mm f/4 IS, I've learned to use my feet and develop skills approaching wildlife when possible. People seldom consider skill development to make up for gear... though if you're really interested in something like birds it won't help you nearly enough.

Renting perhaps if you only use the lens occasionally?

That's my $0.02.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 5, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I would opt for the Canon 300/4 L IS with a Canon 2x extender. The IQ from this combo is surprisingly good, as you can see at The Digital Picture ...
> ...



I own both the Tamron and the Canon 300/2.8 II + TCs and can say from considerable experience with both that the Tamron is a "respectable" 600mm. Remarkably, the Tamron stacks up very well against the 300/4 from Canon as seen on TDP and MtF measurement on Lenstip and is far better at 400mm than the 300/4 with a 1.4 xTC

http://www.lenstip.com/403.4-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_Di_VC_USD_Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/211.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_300_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html

In agreement with you about developing skills, what are you supposed to when you spot something on the other side of a lake - swim on your back using just your feet and holding the 300/4 above your head?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 5, 2014)

alexturton said:


> I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.



What you need is a decent wealth redistribution program ... :-X


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 5, 2014)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2014)

alexturton said:


> I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.



I wanted a 600mm, and I paid for one. Having said that, given your price constraints and from what I've seen so far, I'd strongly consider getting the Tamron 150-600.


----------



## weixing (Jun 5, 2014)

Hi,


alexturton said:


> I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.
> 
> The options I'm considering are:
> 
> ...


 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... IMHO, I think your canon 70-200 2.8ii with 1.4x TC or with 2x is good enough. Anyway, if you really want a 600mm, Tamron 150-600mm is a very good choice since it had a short minimum focusing.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 5, 2014)

Another vote for Tamron 150-600 when budget is on tight end.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 5, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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"


----------



## Scott_McPhee (Jun 5, 2014)

Get the Tamron mate - I have one and I am really delighetd with it.

This was shot with the Tamron at full 600mm - see what you think:




Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


----------



## 2n10 (Jun 5, 2014)

Yet another vote for the Tamron.


----------



## Too_Many_Hobbies (Jun 5, 2014)

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 (Jun 5, 2014)

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 (Jun 5, 2014)

Scott_McPhee said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2014)

Too_Many_Hobbies said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2014)

This was shot at 600mm too....




Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 5, 2014)

weixing said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2014)

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 (Jun 5, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



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 (Jun 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2014)

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 (Jun 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Canon will need more titanium
> ...


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 (Jun 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



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 (Jun 5, 2014)

ctaylor42 said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2014)

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 (Jun 5, 2014)

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 (Jun 5, 2014)

westr70 said:


> 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


----------



## westr70 (Jun 5, 2014)

Scott_McPhee said:


> westr70 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 6, 2014)

Scott, those are all excellent shots, and the BA Landing one is exceptional.


----------



## Scott_McPhee (Jun 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Scott, those are all excellent shots, and the BA Landing one is exceptional.



Thank you  - all shot with the Tamron just as the light was starting to go so these were not ideal conditions and the lens performed excellently on my 5D3.

I would love one of the big whites too but this lens really makes sense if you want the 600mm reach but can't afford the big bucks.


----------



## westr70 (Jun 6, 2014)

Thanks for Posting Scott. I also checked out your flickr page. Nice work and appreciate your effort.


----------



## weixing (Jun 6, 2014)

Hi,
One thing to note is that if you use the Tamron 150-600mm in a hot day, make sure the lens is cover with lenscoat or something... I realised that if I remove the zoom barrel lenscoat (must remove if you want to zoom) and there is direct sunlight hitting the zoom barrel, it's get hot very quickly and AF accuracy and contrast will drop quite significantly... may be this is why Canon Super Telephoto are white??

Have a nice day.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 6, 2014)

Scott_McPhee said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Scott, those are all excellent shots, and the BA Landing one is exceptional.
> ...



nice work! glad its working out for you


----------



## candc (Jun 6, 2014)

alexturton said:


> 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.



i have the sigma and the tamron. the sigma is better with canon and kenko extenders than it is with the sigma extenders. the sigma bare lens and with a 1.4tc is better than the tamron. the sigma with a 2x is about the same as the tamron but the sigma is huge and heavy! i use the tamron all the time unless i really need 120-300 2.8 or 420 f/4


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 6, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I own both the Tamron and the Canon 300/2.8 II + TCs and can say from considerable experience with both that the Tamron is a "respectable" 600mm. Remarkably, the Tamron stacks up very well against the 300/4 from Canon as seen on TDP and MtF measurement on Lenstip and is far better at 400mm than the 300/4 with a 1.4 xTC



My comment was about _600mm if he needed that focal length_--most amateur zooms do better when not racked out, and from what I've seen of posted photos I don't consider the Tamron consistent for anything more than about 450mm. Beyond that the color and contrast are too low for me, which is the same reason I stopped using a TC with the 300 f/4 (except as a spotting scope). I would consider the Tamron for the same application I got the 300 f/4 for, which is telephoto for backcountry backpacking trips where weight is a limiting factor.

With tele zooms, most amateurs want to shoot at the longer end more often than not. Unfortunately, the typical amateur expects a "really good" X --> Y tele zoom to be good at focal length Y, when it is typically good only at focal lengths X --> (Y - (Y-X)/4).

Your post doesn't state clearly whether your Tamron is equivalent to your 300 f/2.8 II + TC at 600mm. I would be surprised if the Tamron did that well, but if you have some side-by-side comparisons to share I'd be interested in seeing them.

I do wish a manufacturer would step up with a 250-500mm or 300-600mm that is tack sharp with rich color at the long end. 2x ratios seem to be more manageable lens designs, and 500-600mm would be enough for most birds and other wildlife.


----------



## edwyun (Jun 6, 2014)

Scott_McPhee said:


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





Excellent "BIF"! 8)


----------



## Steve (Jun 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 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 .



Hell while we're at it let's just grow lens elements from pure diamond.


----------



## Canon1 (Jun 6, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > There might be a bit of a wait for the Tamron. Orders placed in mid March at B&H haven't been filled yet. I'm also on the waiting list at the local camera store. At this rate I might save enough for a big white before the Tamron ships. Been thinking the 300 f/2.8L IS II was the next step for me since already have the extenders, just thought I'd be waiting until a year or two after I got the Tamron.
> ...



Not entirely true. Without tc's I would agree with you, but once you add a 1.4 and especially a 2.0 tc, the difference in iq between the 300i and 300ii is significant and immediately noticeable. AF performance is also significantly improved on the mark ii over the mark I. 

Regardless, based on the op I would recommend the tamron. That focal range will be very versatile for the zoo and animals will not be as skittish or fast as they are in the wild so AF performance will likely be just fine. Have fun!


----------



## Scott_McPhee (Jun 6, 2014)

Best suggestion is go and try one - I am in Central Scotland and anyone is welcome to have a go with my Tamron and see what they think.

I ordered mine in on a "try-before-buy" basis but after 5 minutes I was sold - straight to the 600mm end, shoot, check in crop - excellent. 

Thanks for the very kind comments on my pictures - much appreciated.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I own both the Tamron and the Canon 300/2.8 II + TCs and can say from considerable experience with both that the Tamron is a "respectable" 600mm. Remarkably, the Tamron stacks up very well against the 300/4 from Canon as seen on TDP and MtF measurement on Lenstip and is far better at 400mm than the 300/4 with a 1.4 xTC
> ...



The Tamron is not as good as my Canon lens. For extreme crops under poor conditions I use the Canon. However, the Tamron is good enough for most of the time. Here is a selection i took with the Tamron, going down the page at 309mm, 450mm, 600mm and 600mm. They might not be up to your standards, but they are good enough for me.

ps - they are all 100% crops. The EXIFS are on the images and you can download to read.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 6, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > dcm said:
> ...



Interesting - I didn't really see much in it, and then only by pixel peeping, though I would definitely agree on the AF improvement on the 300 Mk2 + Mk3 extenders over the Mk1 with the same extenders.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2014)

alexturton said:


> I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.
> 
> The options I'm considering are:
> 
> ...



What price are used 300 2.8 IS going for these days? That might be a better 420mm and 600mm option than the 120-300 in terms of AF and IQ and even weight.

For trekking around zoos all day long though these are a bit of a drag. The 120-300 is really heavy for that sort of scenario and even the 300 2.8 IS isn't so fun. I'm not sure what the Tamron weighs, but it's gotta be better right?? (or not???) And you'll need to also be lugging you 70-200 along as well. A real mess. Although from the talk of it, I guess you are talking about just doing some targeted, super serious shooting, so maybe it's ok??


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 7, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 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.



Hah, now THAT would crazy sweet. ;D ;D ;D ;D The 400 2.8 is just beyond a beast, hideously more unwieldy than the 300 2.8.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 7, 2014)

Scott_McPhee said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Scott, those are all excellent shots, and the BA Landing one is exceptional.
> ...



yeah great stuff


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2014)

a full day trip at shanghai zoo with the tamron on 5dmk3 was heavy enough I couldn't imagine the sigma 120-300 it would not be pleasant


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The Tamron is not as good as my Canon lens. For extreme crops under poor conditions I use the Canon. However, the Tamron is good enough for most of the time. Here is a selection i took with the Tamron, going down the page at 309mm, 450mm, 600mm and 600mm. They might not be up to your standards, but they are good enough for me.
> 
> ps - they are all 100% crops. The EXIFS are on the images and you can download to read.



Thanks for sharing, Alan. Yeah, the 309mm shot is fine for me. The 450mm is not a disaster, but the 600mm for me would be unacceptable, and looks similar to what I got with the 300 f/4 IS + 2x TC: washed out color, low definition. Reminds me of a bunch of shots I had to toss from a wildlife safari trip with that combo, where everything with IS or a TC went in the trash bin.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The Tamron is not as good as my Canon lens. For extreme crops under poor conditions I use the Canon. However, the Tamron is good enough for most of the time. Here is a selection i took with the Tamron, going down the page at 309mm, 450mm, 600mm and 600mm. They might not be up to your standards, but they are good enough for me.
> ...



You obviously have high standards. The emerald dove was taken in terrible light, f/6.3, where the lens is at its weakest, iso1250, which is higher than I like to go, and 1/250 s, hand held. Here are a couple of better examples. The mandarin duck was a f/6.3 again, but iso640 and 1/1250 s. The wigeon was at f/8, iso640 and 1/1000. Both at 600mm and hand held.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2014)

For comparison, here is one at a similar low light level to the emerald dove, a kingfisher with the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on the 5DIII. Iso1250, f/5.6, 1/320s, hand held. As with the others, they are taken in RAW with the only processing being DxO PRIME noise reduction followed by sharpening with USM in PS by 0.9 pix.els at 100%.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jun 7, 2014)

To my eyes the Wigeon looks sharper and more vibrant than the Kingfisher. But light is better for sure on the Wigeon. I personally think there are many bad shots with the Tamron floating around the net. And there are some very good ones as well. It is not going to be better than an $11,000 600mm f4 or perhaps not as good as a $6,500 300mm 2.8 + a 1.4iii ($400+) lens but it is way more portable and far cheaper for in my opinion not very much extra sharpness. Some of the shots at this link are very good. Check them out and see for yourself. I own the Tamron and am very happy with it. I have gotten some perfectly acceptable shots for me and shots that are very sharp as well at 600mm. I also find that the zoom has come in handy quite a few times and actually prefer it over the fixed 400mm f5.6 that I used to use.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&t=tamron_150-600vc


----------



## Kerry B (Jun 7, 2014)

Wow Alan that is some image with that lens combination. Does show how good that set up is.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 7, 2014)

Weixing, the heat expansion issue and the consequent effect on autofocus is exactly why the Canon supertelephotos are white/cream colored. FWIW, I try to find light colored backpacks for the same reason, avoiding cooking the camera gear within.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 7, 2014)

AlanF said:


> You obviously have high standards. The emerald dove was taken in terrible light, f/6.3, where the lens is at its weakest, iso1250, which is higher than I like to go, and 1/250 s, hand held. Here are a couple of better examples. The mandarin duck was a f/6.3 again, but iso640 and 1/1250 s. The wigeon was at f/8, iso640 and 1/1000. Both at 600mm and hand held.



Hard to compare with lenses hand-held, as one doesn't know what is lens or movement. I shoot almost everything on a tripod anyway, so for me that's a more useful comparison. The second set is better, though I'm not fond of the bokeh in the widgeon shot. I love the pose of the kingfisher and the detail is noticeably better, but I still wonder if a tripod would have pulled a little more contrast on the back. 

Attached is a 100% crop of a hummer on my old 10Mp Canon Xti with 300 f/4 IS + 2x TC, tripod mounted, f/13 1/125s, ISO 100. Feather and branch details are soft, and even the catch light isn't crisp, but should give folks a rough idea about how this combination compares. Bleh!


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 7, 2014)

Oh, and no sharpening or other bit-wigglin' on that one, just cropped it down.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 8, 2014)

Scott
To compare further, I took this about 3 hours ago out on a walk. Hand held Canon 5DIII + 300mm f/2.8 II 2xTCIII, 1/400 s, f/5.6, iso640. With four stops of IS I don't need a tripod at 1/400s.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 9, 2014)

One of the other reasons for getting a native 600L instead of a 300L and a 2X converter, is that the 600L can be used with converters to extend the focal length even further. The 600L makes a great 840mm f5.6L and a very good 1200mm f8 lens when using converters. 
My 400L pretty much maxxes out at 800mm. I've tried it with a 2x and a 1.4x and the results weren't good, even by stopping down 2 or 3 stops. The 2x is usable wide open and a bit better stopped down a stop. The 1.4x is pretty much as sharp as the native lens wide open.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 9, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> One of the other reasons for getting a native 600L instead of a 300L and a 2X converter, is that the 600L can be used with converters to extend the focal length even further. The 600L makes a great 840mm f5.6L and a very good 1200mm f8 lens when using converters.


And that is why I still need a 600mm and will buy one as soon as I can justify the expense


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> One of the other reasons for getting a native 600L instead of a 300L and a 2X converter, is that the 600L can be used with converters to extend the focal length even further. The 600L makes a great 840mm f5.6L and a very good 1200mm f8 lens when using converters.



Indeed… Most of my shots with the 600/4L IS II are with the 1.4xIII behind it.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2014)

It's horses for courses. Ideally, I would like a 600mm f/4 L II + 1.4xTCIII for excursions when I don't have to carry far and will be sitting in a hide or fixed spot with a good tripod. For hiking and using hand held for impromptu shots of birds and for birds in flight, the 600mm f/5.6 (aka 300mm f/2.8 II x2) is best because of weight and ability to hand hold for a length of time - I didn't particularly like taking my new monopod this weekend. Whereas the 600mm at 840mm would give me the length I frequently crave, the shot of the wren in the tree just posted required me to be quick on the uptake and swing the 300x2 into position for a transient moment when walking.

I just wish Canon would make a lightweight 600mm f/5.6 prime as it would be perfect for to use native and at 840 f/8 with a TC.


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 9, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Scott
> To compare further, I took this about 3 hours ago out on a walk. Hand held Canon 5DIII + 300mm f/2.8 II 2xTCIII, 1/400 s, f/5.6, iso640. With four stops of IS I don't need a tripod at 1/400s.



Thanks for sharing that, Alan. I like wrens, and that's a great, lively shot; wish there were more interest in these under-photographed fowl. Really shows how much better the 300mm f/2.8 is with the TC. (My TC is the 2nd generation, for anyone taking notes.) Good to see that it is usable hand-held--I checked the old specs for the original f/2.8, and that is more than a pound heavier than your model. My wife and I are getting interested in birds, so I might have to think about that lens--after I "get my first million," as my father would jest.


----------



## weixing (Jun 9, 2014)

Hi,
For your reference, below are some of my lightroom screenshot (at 100% view) of birds I took using my Tamron @ 600mm F6.3. All are without processing (just open using lightroom and took the screenshot):


















Have a nice day.


----------



## westr70 (Jun 9, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> For your reference, below are some of my lightroom screenshot (at 100% view) of birds I took using my Tamron @ 600mm F6.3. All are without processing (just open using lightroom and took the screenshot):
> 
> Have a nice day.



Great Shots weixing. So long does it take to get one of these? Hmm...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 15, 2014)

Here's a recent 400 f2.8 LIS (mkI) with a 2x converter. One image over view and the other at 100% crop.
This is very nearly wide open:










It's a heavy lens but worth it. Not many lenses can come close to this level of quality


----------



## Click (Jun 15, 2014)

Beautiful shot. The 400 f2.8 with the 2x converter is very impressive. Well done.


----------



## Steve (Jun 15, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's a heavy lens but worth it. Not many lenses can come close to this level of quality



Sure, but if you're going to spend the money and carry the weight, you might as well get a 600 f4, at least if your main shooting subject is going to be wildlife.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > It's a heavy lens but worth it. Not many lenses can come close to this level of quality
> ...



That's what I did. I'll take 1200mm over 800mm, and 840mm over 560mm...


----------



## Click (Jun 15, 2014)

I agree with you neuro. That's what I did too.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Absolutely true if you assume you need 1200mm to reach your wild life. I regularly need 400mm for my working distance. The original OP requested a 600mm not a 1200mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The original OP requested a 600mm not a 1200mm.



The original OP indicated a price range that clearly excludes a 400/2.8 (even used, deals involving wiring funds to Nigeria notwithstanding).


----------



## eml58 (Jun 16, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Here's a recent 400 f2.8 LIS (mkI) with a 2x converter. One image over view and the other at 100% crop.
> This is very nearly wide open:
> 
> It's a heavy lens but worth it. Not many lenses can come close to this level of quality



Lovely Image GMC, Nailed focus & beautiful background to complement the colours of the Puffin, well done.

It's a great lens as well, enjoyed mine when I had it, enjoyed the weight saving of the Mk II even more, but IQ was similar in both, brilliant.


----------

