I have the Canon 100-400mm mkII and it's absolutely fantastic, it's compact, sharp, IS is great and MFD is amazing. Worth the price increase compared to the Sigma and Tamron lenses
I have a 600mm f4 and 150-600mm zoom for years. After these years the prime always stays at home due to its heavy weight. The best lens is the one with you most of the time.
Should have talked about the Sony 100-400 GM. Significantly smaller and lighter than the 200-600. Also has dual af motors unlike the 200-600. 100-400 works very well with a 1.4x TC and it will get you extra reach if you need it.
And because T&C typically ignore the Pentax world the 150-450 f5.6 is a fantastic lens. I personally haven't used the 560mm f5.6, but it is an extremely long lens, but light lens. There is of course the used 200-600mm f5.6 F and FA as well as the outstanding 600mm f4 F or FA lenses which have the added benefit of closer focus than Canon or Nikon of the day and every bit as sharp. I have seen nice images with the Sigma 500mm f4.5 as well. My longest lens is a used 600mm A f5.6 (manual focus) that I use with outstanding results, including award winning wildlife images.
The Sigma 100-400mm lens is worth looking at if one wants a long-telephoto lens that is reasonably light and compact. I have been very pleased with mine.
Biggest issue is the lack of a tripod collar, that is why I tried the Tamron - that was a disaster though so the Cannon 400 is what I ended up with and Im chuffed!
I use it as well. Every time I start drooling over one of the big primes, I remember all the near macro shots that I've gotten with the 100-400 which focuses down to close to 3 feet. Great for flowers, butterflies, and dragonflies. None of the big primes will do that. With the 1.4 X extender, I'm shooting at 560 mm, and get good quality images with that set-up.
An awesome lens. Love it. I am embarrassed to say I only recently started using it for some macro shots. Surprisingly great. I think if I was making oodles of cash to justify the cost of the long Primes, perhaps I would make that a go-to - or could spare leaving a body permanently attached to go through the schlep of swapping out. 100-400mm is lovely (I am guessing this lens was not pushed was because its been specifically covered years back - Chelsea nailing shots out of a moving car window) - see 'Canon 100-400 II vs Sigma 150-600 Sport & Tamron 150-600, Canon 400 f5.6 +Wildlife Photography Tips '
@@Trigger-xw9gq Maybe it depends on which body you use it on. I've noticed there seems to be a difference in lens performance with Canon bodies. I use the 100-400 mm on a 5D Mk IV now, it didn't do as good on the 7D Mk II, even though the crop sensor got me closer.
And if you're a Pentax shooter, the old FA250-600 f'5,6 is a great zoom, or there is the old FA600 f/4 out there too - or an A 1,200 f/8, if you can find one :) or of course the D-FA 150-450 or 560 f/5.6 if you want a modern lens
Great video you two! I have the Sigma 150-600mm C lens and it's a great lens. I've bought from KEH but I won't sell to them. They only offered me $56 for a two week old $456 MB-D12 battery grip.
Interesting recommendations, I found that the Tamron 150-600mm g2 was slightly sharper than the Nikkor 200-500mm & the difference was minimal overall, so I went with the Tamron for extra reach/versatility on the short/long end. With that said, my dream wildlife lense is the Nikkor 180-400mm built-in 1.4x TC...shame about the cost 🤑 lol!
After I added the tap in console to adjust both back and front focusing issues at different focal lengths and did a firmware update, my G2 150-600 really preforms well. I do not think many reviewers spent the time doing this. I also needed the weather seals of the G2.
@@jacobl6572 I think all lens reviewers on youtube fail to use the tap-in console to fine tune the lens to the camera being used. I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens on a Nikon D3400 (cheap body) and can clearly see blades of grass at 400 metres away.
Agree with both comments there is also 1.4 and 2 x converters to extend the length. But these lenses are relatively new compared to the Nikon and Canon mentioned so the chances of getting second hand through the video sponsors or anyone else is limited
No mention of the Nikon 300 f/4 PF? That thing is a beast for traveling. Same size as a 24-70 and 450mm reach on my D500. Not enough room in my bag for the 200-500 on some flights, but the 300 fits anywhere.
300 or 400 is a little short for wildlife, more of a sports lens. I think they were not considering them unless they were 500mm. I have Canon 400mm f4 DO II, for sports and both Canon extenders giving me 560 and 800 when I shoot wildlife. At 4lbs it replace my 12lb f2.8 400 that was amazing but a pain. All that said a buddy loaned me his sigma 150-600mm contemporary lens and for the cost, that thing is amazing.
@@DeputyNordburg Fair enough. I wouldn't say 450mm equivalent reach is necessarily too short for wildlife though. It's certainly not ideal for small birds, but shooting larger mammals is pretty good. My main point though was that I think the lens doesn't get enough credit for its portability. Often when traveling there won't be enough space to fit a 600 f/4, so often the decision is between not taking long glass at all or throwing the 24-70 sized 300 pf in my bag. For what it is, I think it does an amazing job.
But to be honest: for 1000$, you could get the ultra sharp 400mm 5.6 with no image stabilisation or the Tamron 150-600 which is less sharp, but has more focal length and great image stabilisation. Depending on the way you photograph, the 150-600 is the better choice for a lot of people. If you do not use a tripod that often and you're out in the mornings or evenings, the 150-600 gives your a lot sharper results hence the image stabilisation. The image stabilisation combined with the rather soft 600mm gives you more effective sharpness in those situations than the sharper 400mm without any image stabilisation.
The Primes will be a bit sharper. But a good quality Zoom will be the choice for most IMO. Like a canon 100-400 And if you are beginning.. Sigma or Tamron's super zoom is a great start. 150-600 The option I'd choose for myself would be the Canon 100-400 Would you buy the sigma super over the canon 100-400?
I will definitely buy the Sigma 150-600mm C over the Canon 100-400mm. At the end of the day, it is all about price point and budget. The Canon is almost 3 times the price of the Sigma over here in Asia. And that is before you take into account of the Canon's inferior focal length. If we are talking about bird photography, focal length/reach is king. Losing out 200mm is a lot!!
@@Rascallucci The Canon is way sharper at 400mm and cropped in than the Sigma and Tamron's at 600mm. It is as sharp as the prime 400mm, especially for the Mark II version.
I would always go with the Canon. I've tried the Tamron 100-400 and the focus accuracy just wasn't there. Don't get me wrong, I love Tamron lenses. For most glass I believe the huge cost savings are with the trade-off that they miss focus sometimes, and the build quality of their new G2 line is amazing (got the 24-70, 70-200, 35 and 85). For telephoto action shooting though, their only options are consumer grade lenses and they have really, really not been up to par for me. Even in a controlled studio test setting and after adjusting with their tap in console, they wouldn't consistently nail focus but miss like one out of three times. That's too unreliable for wildlife.
@ThePointblank That may be, but ultimately we are talking about 2 different things here. You are talking about the increased relative sharpness and I am looking at max focal length/reach. Seriously? If I was just shooting my dogs like I used to before they passed away, then sure the Canon 100-400mm would be perfect. But, I am trying to shoot birds now. What I have learnt is reach is king because birds are tiny and more than often you need to shoot from afar to avoid spooking the bird plus you need to crop super tight with birds which ultimately leaves you with no choice but to go for max focal length. While the Sigma 150-600mm might not be as sharp, it is still sharper than the Tamron and the end result is not that bad. Or if you wish, you could still have the option to pull back a little to only shoot at 500mm for sharper results, it is still farther than the Canon can reach. I think to me what it boils down to is a matter of priority. If sharpness is No.1 to you even if it means you will need to cut back on focal length, then naturally you would go for the Canon. But, if you want to make shots that weren't possible before with the luxury of increased focal length, then the Sigma will be the way to go. Just think about this for a moment, with a 1.6x crop factor body, you can shoot at 960mm with the Sigma while the Canon will only be able to give you 640mm. That is a massive difference of 320mm!!
@@Rascallucci I've shot with all three lenses before, and I can tell you that the Canon is tack sharp at 400mm. Even when cropped down to 600mm FoV, it's still very sharp with excellent rendition and detail. The Sigma and the Tamron lenses become very soft past 400mm, and up at 600mm, it's noticeably soft. Not to mention that you loose a half stop of light with the Sigma and Tamron, which means you have to increase the ISO, which increases the grain in your pictures. And don't forget that the Canon will AF much more reliably, quickly and accurately than the Sigma and Tamron lenses; I've found that both the Sigma and Tamron lenses will hunt or will mis-focus far more often than the Canon lens. There's something to be said about getting the shot but be forced to crop in, versus missing the shot entirely because your AF is acting up.
For Sony - If you do not need 1200mm and also shoot in poor lighting or action, the 400mm GM is an awesome alternative to the 600mm GM. The 400mm is very sharp even with the 2x teleconverter which makes this lens very versatile! + it is smaller and lighter.
I use a Sony a6400 and my go to lens for wildlife is the Sigma 100-400 for Canon with the MC-11 adapter. With the crop factor of the a6400 it gives a great focal range and it is small enough to fit in my Manfroto NX Camera backpack. Its a great portable setup and has given me great results.
wish you did this video earlyier....I went with Tamron 150-600 on Nikon D850, I don't say I went wrong but sometimes it is a bit slow in focusing and sometimes I miss more photos with it then with Nikon 80-400(the new one) which is very fast and sharp...but too short...so I believe your recomandation for Nikon is the best. I refer to zoom lenses because I haven't tried primes for wildlife...they are too expensive.
Nikon has some amazing and very cheap (like sub 500$) 300mm Primes, that are AF-D, they might be old, heavy and not so fast but the image quality is there. Be sure to keep your shutter speed high though with the lack of IS!
@@BurningBroadcast I still go with tamron 150-600 rather then a 300 mm, even with TC it is too short for wildlife...Anyway, I'm a landscape photographer primarily but I have some passion also for wildlife...
@@photo-markus Ah yea there is no beating reach for wildflife, especially smaller birds there is a big difference between 300-400 and a 600mm.I dont do wildlife much personally, except in the Zoo, not really wildlife there imo haha. I use a 70 - 200 F2.8 with a 1.4 TC for motorsports. ideal for pit/paddock portraits/shots without the TC, but also for track shots (potentially with TC). All on a 1.3x Crop APS-H Canon 1D Mark III.
Ha..I use both the Nikon AF-S 500mm f4 Prime Lens and the Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 Lens, each set up on their own tripods shooting my latest air show..both of the best worlds!
I use Pentax. K3 with a 150-450mm (4.5-5.6)and it’s a great combination especially with the 1.5x crop factor. Really enjoying the results. Also use the 300 mm da* prime (450 with crop factor ) and very happy with the shots.
First of all, thank you for the videos and valuable knowledge you have constantly share with your audience. Primes are definitely sharper, but depending on the circumstances, how useful is a $13k prime lens if you can't frame your subject, or not even take a picture of it, because it is "too close", at the end wildlife is obviously mobile and can show up at any time and at any distance, making zoom lens all around better option, and Tony, very respectful to your comment about prime users more professional than zoom user, but you can't measure professionalism by the pricetag of gear, there is a lot a people with very expensive gear that can take professional pictures.
I am glad that you did this video - your observations are quite realistic and useful. I like that you are promoting the value of buying used gear. Used gear almost always gives more bang for the buck. There are a few lenses that you didn't mention, and they are noteworthy in that they are exceptions to the norm. There are some telephoto zoom lenses that provide sharpness akin to that of the $10K+ primes. These would be the Canon 100-400mm, the Canon 200-400/560mm, and the Sigma 300-800mm. These three lenses provide image quality on par with the very expensive prime lenses, and are probably available now at KEH! I'm just surprised that you didn't mention these lenses, as they are notable exceptions to the "rules" that you discussed.
Where are you? It looks like you are nearby (Bradenton FL).I use an old Nikon 300 f4, the one that accepts filters in the body. I may get an old 1.4X converter to go with it.I used the 300 for astrophotography mostly.
Hi- I think depending on where and what you are taking pics of makes a huge difference in lens choice. My daughter and I went to rocky mountain national park and she got way more photos with a 70-300 than i did with 200-500 Nikon. I think with a 600 prime you will miss a ton of shots. Don't get me wrong, the 600 has its place, but most people will be way more happy with a zoom. Also the money you save with the zoom you can use for other gear and travel costs to get yourself to the wildlife in our beautiful parks.
Tony - can you go nerdy for us on teleconverters. How do they affect lens speed and focusing, how to select one and considerations while shooting with one.
I personally have done decently with the Nikkor 80-400. No possibility of a teleconverter with that lens, but the price is very approachable especially if you go for an older generation lens. My photography mentor loved shooting 400mm on a crop-sensor body, and the results were very impressive. And yes, KEH rocks. They offer payment plans via Affirm, which also rocks.That's not a plug, I'm just a happy customer.
The Nikkor 80-400 works splendidly with the 1.4 teleconverter. Do not go for an older generation lens - I have read that they are dogs. The newer 80-400 is much improved and I recommend it highly - maybe it's the older ones that won't take the teleconverter.
Great video! The Canon 400mm DOII f4 is very sharp, 2.1Kg and half the price of a Sony f4 lens. The Canon 400mm f5.6 that you mentioned is such good value. My thought is don't buy a teleconverter & struggle to get your subject in the viewfinder, just crop the image.
My choice as I don’t do really wild life, just a bit of sport occasionally, is a 300mm f2.8 plus a x1.4 and a x1.7... I have actually sold my old Sigma 170-500, it was just gathering dust...
How about hand holding zoom lens like Nikon's 200-500mm, I often see people letting go of the lens to use two hands to adjust camera settings, what's the risk in damaging the camera mount? Is it the weight or the length of the lens? Is there any risk when you're only holding the camera with the lens vertically?
For Sony you could shoot with Canon primes and converter...I've used 500mF4 with metabones and it works fantastically given the other option is $12000 lens
I have a canon 2.8L IS and love my lens. Yes I paid full price I bought it new from Canon when I worked for Wolf Camera. Professional Nature Photographer Art Morriss showed me you could use teleconverters with large prime lenses and still have tack sharp images.
Very precise presentation. The Sony 400 FE 2.8 has come out since. If you have $12K to drop on a lens, it's worth considering....But dollar for dollar the Sony 200-600 is a better pick for most. Note: I've been trying to find a 600 FE 4.0. Those seem to be sold out on a world wide basis.
@Erkan, yes, of course, I tested it with the 2x converter - still good results, focusing quite fast and the IQ is better than enlarging/upscaling the picture without converter.
With MFT systems, why didn't you considered in this comparative the two Panasonic zooms (the 100-300mm Mk II and the Leica 100-400mm)?! Used with the best MFT cameras, they should be similar in quality to a Nikon 200-500mm! I like also to use too the now discontinued Nikon 1 system, with the Nikon 1 70-300mm (equiv. to 189-810mm in fullframe), in a Nikon V3 it will have fast autofocus (including contrast and phase detect AF) with VR!
I have quite a collection of Contax N-mount lenses (also 645 lenses and compatible Hasselblad lenses). Do you have any experience using any such lenses with Sony equipment with a Metabones (or other) adapter? Obviously, I'm trying to salvage my investment in N-mount glass while upgrading to a better camera body.
@@TonyAndChelsea Could you tell me what you think of the Sigma 60-600 compared with the Tamron 150-600 G2? The G2 lenses seem to review well for sharpness, in their class, apparently better than comparable Sigmas, but now I'm tempted by surprisingly positive reports of the 60-600. I want something versatile and proportionate for my limited shooting opportunities but with as little IQ compromise as possible. Thank you for all of your helpful videos!
Hey thanx Guys, A good point..- I'll put the savings 2 better use - as I considered buying the 1.4X TC for the much Loved 100-400. Always a pleasure 2 wake here in AU with your informative videos.
Noob question, having never used any lens with a focal length above 200mm ... Why do you always use the lens hoods with these massive lenses? Wouldn't avoiding the hood make them a tad lighter, smaller and easier to carry around?
Watched less than 3 minutes and already I've received enough info to better decide on new lenses going into 2020. Need to get rid of my sigma 18-250mm asap 😁 More primes, a (real) macro lens and a better zoom is the way to go 👍 Great video you two!
Are these the same lenses you would use for horizon photography? Sunrises and sunsets, and mountains and all different kinds of terrain. Thanks for your videos. I'm working my way through them. Learning being new to using canon now. Thank you in advance.
@@DeputyNordburg You've not explained why at all. They have zero chromatic aberration, very little spherical aberration, and optical figures routinely above a Strehl of 0.95. So why would the photos be terrible? I could understand partly if the caveat of IBIS wasn't mentioned.
@@Astrolavista Apochromatic Telescopes are a type of refracting telescope that have a better correction of chromatic and spherical aberration than the more common achromat lens, not "zero". The lenses in an apochromatic telescope will bring light of three different frequencies to a common focus in the eye piece of the telescope. The design is not intended to do so on the focal plane of a camera. In adition telescopes aperture is generally f11 or smaller making use on a moving subject or without a sturdy tripod impractical for wildlife.
So I took your advise and went and checked out the 200-500 Nikon lens and purchased it. Wow I am impressed with it using it on my D500 I bought myself as a retirement present. Great combination.
Please condone an off topic question. Will you do a review on the Tesla electric car. I trust your reviews on cameras and all things photography and since i am seriously considering buying a Tesla I like to have hour take on that automobile.
We've been meaning to do this. It's a good car! However we had a TERRIBLE service experience recently (45 days in the service center while they waited for a wiring harness). So, we're selling it and switching to a more manufacturer with better service. Your area might have better service centers; Tesla isn't very well established in New England. Also long road trips and supercharging really is a PITA, even though owners won't admit it... especially in the cold winters where the battery depletes faster and charges slower. We gave up driving it on road trips.
Could you please at least acknowledge the fact that Sony has official adapter's for its old A mount lenses. A friend recently bought a decent 600mm f4 Minolta manual lens for his A7 and its pretty amazing consisting it cost him just $200. I believe there are a lot of people out there that still use A mount, and could use a recommendation.
@@daran0815 actually, he bought the lens in front of me for $180 Australian. Haggled his way from $250. He got the adaptor when he bought his camera. He's been using the A mount 24-70mm on it ever since.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Nikon 500mm pf lens - Sharp, light, and less money than a prime. Also the Sigma 500mm f4 prime is fantastic at half the price of the Nikon.
KEH, not sure i would recommend them for used looking at some of there used prices. Hard to save money when some used gear is listed for more then brand new and or literally a few bucks less then new.
I love your video's but what about pentax? I have had pentax camera's since 35mm in the 80's. Are they dead? My K-s2 takes good images and I have some good wide angle and mid range lenses, what do you think about pentax for wildlife?
Still missing from your offering the Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 200mm f/2.8 Power O.I.S. it’s much sharper and overall better lens compared to the Oly 300!!! It also have a 1.4/2x teleconverter...
i use the canon 77d, not looking to upgrade the body anytime soon. I do use the sigma 150-600 alot though, it does have its draw backs though. Would there be a better lens i could use for wildlife?
Very good info.. Love this video.. I have the Canon M50. I just started doing wildlife photography, I was looking for the Tamron 150-600mm g2.. Any recommendations on that lens, or any other you could recommend? My budget is just little limited tho.. 😔
Im on a budget SETUP . All prices in CAD Canon eos m100 (350$) NEW Canon ef 300mm f4 usm L (150$) USED EBAY * doesn't manual focus but AF works. Has tiny bit of dust in front glass but doesn't affect image* Canon 1.4x extender III (125$) USED EBAY *no issue found. In mint condition* Canon ef-eos m adapter (60$) USED EBAY I get very sharp and fast AF (6m to infinity) or decent af speed (2m to infinity) . Nice eBay find indeed.
I have the Canon 100-400mm mkII and it's absolutely fantastic, it's compact, sharp, IS is great and MFD is amazing. Worth the price increase compared to the Sigma and Tamron lenses
Not enough reach. Love my Sigma 150-600mm, it was sharp right out of the box. Just don't use any TC with it.
Yea me too. I upgraded from 400 5.6 to 100-400 II and it's so awesome!
I have a 600mm f4 and 150-600mm zoom for years. After these years the prime always stays at home due to its heavy weight. The best lens is the one with you most of the time.
🤣 Chelsea is funny even when she doesn't try. 5:05
I would love for an updated video using the older mounts and the newer mounts in a few price ranges.
Should have talked about the Sony 100-400 GM. Significantly smaller and lighter than the 200-600. Also has dual af motors unlike the 200-600. 100-400 works very well with a 1.4x TC and it will get you extra reach if you need it.
It's more expensive and not as sharp as the 200-600 at 600. We did side by side testing.
@@TonyAndChelsea 200-600 with A9 is a killer combo, prefer it over the 100-400 + TC. It's not that heavy for it's reach.
And because T&C typically ignore the Pentax world the 150-450 f5.6 is a fantastic lens. I personally haven't used the 560mm f5.6, but it is an extremely long lens, but light lens. There is of course the used 200-600mm f5.6 F and FA as well as the outstanding 600mm f4 F or FA lenses which have the added benefit of closer focus than Canon or Nikon of the day and every bit as sharp. I have seen nice images with the Sigma 500mm f4.5 as well. My longest lens is a used 600mm A f5.6 (manual focus) that I use with outstanding results, including award winning wildlife images.
The Sigma 100-400mm lens is worth looking at if one wants a long-telephoto lens that is reasonably light and compact. I have been very pleased with mine.
Biggest issue is the lack of a tripod collar, that is why I tried the Tamron - that was a disaster though so the Cannon 400 is what I ended up with and Im chuffed!
I use the Canon 100-400, which is also a good choice in my opinion.
It’s an amazing lens I don’t know why no mention of it & it can use a 1.4 teleconverter!.
I use it as well. Every time I start drooling over one of the big primes, I remember all the near macro shots that I've gotten with the 100-400 which focuses down to close to 3 feet. Great for flowers, butterflies, and dragonflies. None of the big primes will do that. With the 1.4 X extender, I'm shooting at 560 mm, and get good quality images with that set-up.
@@quietsolopursuits1414 It is a great lens, but is terrible at macro at or near MFD.
An awesome lens. Love it. I am embarrassed to say I only recently started using it for some macro shots. Surprisingly great. I think if I was making oodles of cash to justify the cost of the long Primes, perhaps I would make that a go-to - or could spare leaving a body permanently attached to go through the schlep of swapping out. 100-400mm is lovely (I am guessing this lens was not pushed was because its been specifically covered years back - Chelsea nailing shots out of a moving car window) - see 'Canon 100-400 II vs Sigma 150-600 Sport & Tamron 150-600, Canon 400 f5.6 +Wildlife Photography Tips
'
@@Trigger-xw9gq Maybe it depends on which body you use it on. I've noticed there seems to be a difference in lens performance with Canon bodies. I use the 100-400 mm on a 5D Mk IV now, it didn't do as good on the 7D Mk II, even though the crop sensor got me closer.
And if you're a Pentax shooter, the old FA250-600 f'5,6 is a great zoom, or there is the old FA600 f/4 out there too - or an A 1,200 f/8, if you can find one :)
or of course the D-FA 150-450 or 560 f/5.6 if you want a modern lens
i just got my Sony 200-600MM today..
got 1 of the 5 that got delivered to the Netherlands this week. :P
And it just fits inside my Camera backpack.
Cracking lens doing a review on my channel soon
What you mean 1 in 5? Got mine in beginning of July you mean only 4 have been delivered since? It has been a lot of fun, works great with the 1.4TC.
You should do new video with mirrorless cameras with their very good iso capabilities and new lenses like RF 100-500 mm.
Great video you two! I have the Sigma 150-600mm C lens and it's a great lens. I've bought from KEH but I won't sell to them. They only offered me $56 for a two week old $456 MB-D12 battery grip.
I've had the same experience with them. Another good used photo gear site I've used is in Indiana. (usedphotopro.com)
Interesting recommendations, I found that the Tamron 150-600mm g2 was slightly sharper than the Nikkor 200-500mm & the difference was minimal overall, so I went with the Tamron for extra reach/versatility on the short/long end.
With that said, my dream wildlife lense is the Nikkor 180-400mm built-in 1.4x TC...shame about the cost 🤑 lol!
After I added the tap in console to adjust both back and front focusing issues at different focal lengths and did a firmware update, my G2 150-600 really preforms well. I do not think many reviewers spent the time doing this. I also needed the weather seals of the G2.
Yep, the Tamron 150-600mm g2 is a great lens for this price ! sharp and fast and more versatile....
@@jacobl6572 I think all lens reviewers on youtube fail to use the tap-in console to fine tune the lens to the camera being used. I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens on a Nikon D3400 (cheap body) and can clearly see blades of grass at 400 metres away.
3:34 you can buy a Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 lens and put on a teleconverter though. But I am not carrying that lens for you.
Hi. I would not agree with Sony. There is also 100-400 and it's probably quicker in autofocus area. Check some reviews about it.
and the 400mm 2.8.
Agree with both comments there is also 1.4 and 2 x converters to extend the length. But these lenses are relatively new compared to the Nikon and Canon mentioned so the chances of getting second hand through the video sponsors or anyone else is limited
I always learn something from your videos or reminded of something I have forgotten
No mention of the Nikon 300 f/4 PF? That thing is a beast for traveling. Same size as a 24-70 and 450mm reach on my D500. Not enough room in my bag for the 200-500 on some flights, but the 300 fits anywhere.
300 or 400 is a little short for wildlife, more of a sports lens. I think they were not considering them unless they were 500mm. I have Canon 400mm f4 DO II, for sports and both Canon extenders giving me 560 and 800 when I shoot wildlife. At 4lbs it replace my 12lb f2.8 400 that was amazing but a pain.
All that said a buddy loaned me his sigma 150-600mm contemporary lens and for the cost, that thing is amazing.
@@DeputyNordburg Fair enough. I wouldn't say 450mm equivalent reach is necessarily too short for wildlife though. It's certainly not ideal for small birds, but shooting larger mammals is pretty good. My main point though was that I think the lens doesn't get enough credit for its portability. Often when traveling there won't be enough space to fit a 600 f/4, so often the decision is between not taking long glass at all or throwing the 24-70 sized 300 pf in my bag. For what it is, I think it does an amazing job.
But to be honest: for 1000$, you could get the ultra sharp 400mm 5.6 with no image stabilisation or the Tamron 150-600 which is less sharp, but has more focal length and great image stabilisation. Depending on the way you photograph, the 150-600 is the better choice for a lot of people. If you do not use a tripod that often and you're out in the mornings or evenings, the 150-600 gives your a lot sharper results hence the image stabilisation. The image stabilisation combined with the rather soft 600mm gives you more effective sharpness in those situations than the sharper 400mm without any image stabilisation.
The Primes will be a bit sharper.
But a good quality Zoom will be the choice for most IMO.
Like a canon 100-400
And if you are beginning.. Sigma or Tamron's super zoom is a great start.
150-600
The option I'd choose for myself would be the Canon 100-400
Would you buy the sigma super over the canon 100-400?
I will definitely buy the Sigma 150-600mm C over the Canon 100-400mm. At the end of the day, it is all about price point and budget. The Canon is almost 3 times the price of the Sigma over here in Asia. And that is before you take into account of the Canon's inferior focal length. If we are talking about bird photography, focal length/reach is king. Losing out 200mm is a lot!!
@@Rascallucci The Canon is way sharper at 400mm and cropped in than the Sigma and Tamron's at 600mm. It is as sharp as the prime 400mm, especially for the Mark II version.
I would always go with the Canon. I've tried the Tamron 100-400 and the focus accuracy just wasn't there. Don't get me wrong, I love Tamron lenses. For most glass I believe the huge cost savings are with the trade-off that they miss focus sometimes, and the build quality of their new G2 line is amazing (got the 24-70, 70-200, 35 and 85). For telephoto action shooting though, their only options are consumer grade lenses and they have really, really not been up to par for me. Even in a controlled studio test setting and after adjusting with their tap in console, they wouldn't consistently nail focus but miss like one out of three times. That's too unreliable for wildlife.
@ThePointblank That may be, but ultimately we are talking about 2 different things here. You are talking about the increased relative sharpness and I am looking at max focal length/reach. Seriously? If I was just shooting my dogs like I used to before they passed away, then sure the Canon 100-400mm would be perfect. But, I am trying to shoot birds now. What I have learnt is reach is king because birds are tiny and more than often you need to shoot from afar to avoid spooking the bird plus you need to crop super tight with birds which ultimately leaves you with no choice but to go for max focal length. While the Sigma 150-600mm might not be as sharp, it is still sharper than the Tamron and the end result is not that bad. Or if you wish, you could still have the option to pull back a little to only shoot at 500mm for sharper results, it is still farther than the Canon can reach. I think to me what it boils down to is a matter of priority. If sharpness is No.1 to you even if it means you will need to cut back on focal length, then naturally you would go for the Canon. But, if you want to make shots that weren't possible before with the luxury of increased focal length, then the Sigma will be the way to go. Just think about this for a moment, with a 1.6x crop factor body, you can shoot at 960mm with the Sigma while the Canon will only be able to give you 640mm. That is a massive difference of 320mm!!
@@Rascallucci I've shot with all three lenses before, and I can tell you that the Canon is tack sharp at 400mm. Even when cropped down to 600mm FoV, it's still very sharp with excellent rendition and detail. The Sigma and the Tamron lenses become very soft past 400mm, and up at 600mm, it's noticeably soft. Not to mention that you loose a half stop of light with the Sigma and Tamron, which means you have to increase the ISO, which increases the grain in your pictures.
And don't forget that the Canon will AF much more reliably, quickly and accurately than the Sigma and Tamron lenses; I've found that both the Sigma and Tamron lenses will hunt or will mis-focus far more often than the Canon lens. There's something to be said about getting the shot but be forced to crop in, versus missing the shot entirely because your AF is acting up.
that prime lens is so big that birds get caught in it: 3:11
lol
For Sony - If you do not need 1200mm and also shoot in poor lighting or action, the 400mm GM is an awesome alternative to the 600mm GM.
The 400mm is very sharp even with the 2x teleconverter which makes this lens very versatile! + it is smaller and lighter.
We compared them and the 600 outperforms it for wildlife, especially for tracking AF (since you can use a lesser TC).
I use a Sony a6400 and my go to lens for wildlife is the Sigma 100-400 for Canon with the MC-11 adapter. With the crop factor of the a6400 it gives a great focal range and it is small enough to fit in my Manfroto NX Camera backpack. Its a great portable setup and has given me great results.
Nice video, no mention of the Pentax world again, they have an interesting 560mm and the 150-450 with K1 or K3 has given me great results
wish you did this video earlyier....I went with Tamron 150-600 on Nikon D850, I don't say I went wrong but sometimes it is a bit slow in focusing and sometimes I miss more photos with it then with Nikon 80-400(the new one) which is very fast and sharp...but too short...so I believe your recomandation for Nikon is the best. I refer to zoom lenses because I haven't tried primes for wildlife...they are too expensive.
Nikon has some amazing and very cheap (like sub 500$) 300mm Primes, that are AF-D, they might be old, heavy and not so fast but the image quality is there. Be sure to keep your shutter speed high though with the lack of IS!
@@BurningBroadcast I still go with tamron 150-600 rather then a 300 mm, even with TC it is too short for wildlife...Anyway, I'm a landscape photographer primarily but I have some passion also for wildlife...
@@photo-markus Ah yea there is no beating reach for wildflife, especially smaller birds there is a big difference between 300-400 and a 600mm.I dont do wildlife much personally, except in the Zoo, not really wildlife there imo haha. I use a 70 - 200 F2.8 with a 1.4 TC for motorsports. ideal for pit/paddock portraits/shots without the TC, but also for track shots (potentially with TC). All on a 1.3x Crop APS-H Canon 1D Mark III.
Ha..I use both the Nikon AF-S 500mm f4 Prime Lens and the Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 Lens, each set up on their own tripods shooting my latest air show..both of the best worlds!
I use Pentax. K3 with a 150-450mm (4.5-5.6)and it’s a great combination especially with the 1.5x crop factor. Really enjoying the results. Also use the 300 mm da* prime (450 with crop factor ) and very happy with the shots.
You forgot an alternative recommendation for fuji user. XF 200mm F/2 + TC 2x
First of all, thank you for the videos and valuable knowledge you have constantly share with your audience.
Primes are definitely sharper, but depending on the circumstances, how useful is a $13k prime lens if you can't frame your subject, or not even take a picture of it, because it is "too close", at the end wildlife is obviously mobile and can show up at any time and at any distance, making zoom lens all around better option, and Tony, very respectful to your comment about prime users more professional than zoom user, but you can't measure professionalism by the pricetag of gear, there is a lot a people with very expensive gear that can take professional pictures.
I'm a newbie, and just starting out but I will bite the bullet and get a Sony 600mm f/4, because I know I will eventually want that.
If the 400 mm f5.6 cannon got an IS, it would be the best lens (of these in the end of the video) in terms of price/performance ratio, I thinks.
300 f4 pf on dx is also a good start!
Ohh yeah. Such a killer combo with a D500.
I am glad that you did this video - your observations are quite realistic and useful. I like that you are promoting the value of buying used gear. Used gear almost always gives more bang for the buck.
There are a few lenses that you didn't mention, and they are noteworthy in that they are exceptions to the norm.
There are some telephoto zoom lenses that provide sharpness akin to that of the $10K+ primes. These would be the Canon 100-400mm, the Canon 200-400/560mm, and the Sigma 300-800mm. These three lenses provide image quality on par with the very expensive prime lenses, and are probably available now at KEH!
I'm just surprised that you didn't mention these lenses, as they are notable exceptions to the "rules" that you discussed.
Where are you? It looks like you are nearby (Bradenton FL).I use an old Nikon 300 f4, the one that accepts filters in the body. I may get an old 1.4X converter to go with it.I used the 300 for astrophotography mostly.
Hi- I think depending on where and what you are taking pics of makes a huge difference in lens choice. My daughter and I went to rocky mountain national park and she got way more photos with a 70-300 than i did with 200-500 Nikon. I think with a 600 prime you will miss a ton of shots. Don't get me wrong, the 600 has its place, but most people will be way more happy with a zoom. Also the money you save with the zoom you can use for other gear and travel costs to get yourself to the wildlife in our beautiful parks.
Tony - can you go nerdy for us on teleconverters. How do they affect lens speed and focusing, how to select one and considerations while shooting with one.
sdp.io/tc
Tony & Chelsea Northrup : thanks
For Sony, there are A-Mount options from SIgma and Tamron that produce good (not amazing, but good) images and are super affordable.
I personally have done decently with the Nikkor 80-400. No possibility of a teleconverter with that lens, but the price is very approachable especially if you go for an older generation lens. My photography mentor loved shooting 400mm on a crop-sensor body, and the results were very impressive. And yes, KEH rocks. They offer payment plans via Affirm, which also rocks.That's not a plug, I'm just a happy customer.
The Nikkor 80-400 works splendidly with the 1.4 teleconverter. Do not go for an older generation lens - I have read that they are dogs. The newer 80-400 is much improved and I recommend it highly - maybe it's the older ones that won't take the teleconverter.
You two are awsum thankyou for your insight on the used gear site 👍
I just bought a Nikkor 200-400 ED VRII used, in perfect cond. for less than half price. It’s a great lens.
Great video! The Canon 400mm DOII f4 is very sharp, 2.1Kg and half the price of a Sony f4 lens. The Canon 400mm f5.6 that you mentioned is such good value. My thought is don't buy a teleconverter & struggle to get your subject in the viewfinder, just crop the image.
My choice as I don’t do really wild life, just a bit of sport occasionally, is a 300mm f2.8 plus a x1.4 and a x1.7... I have actually sold my old Sigma 170-500, it was just gathering dust...
Just wanted to mention Fuji offers teleconverters too, so the 100-400 can become a 200-800
How about hand holding zoom lens like Nikon's 200-500mm, I often see people letting go of the lens to use two hands to adjust camera settings, what's the risk in damaging the camera mount? Is it the weight or the length of the lens? Is there any risk when you're only holding the camera with the lens vertically?
For Sony you could shoot with Canon primes and converter...I've used 500mF4 with metabones and it works fantastically given the other option is $12000 lens
I have a canon 2.8L IS and love my lens. Yes I paid full price I bought it new from Canon when I worked for Wolf Camera. Professional Nature Photographer Art Morriss showed me you could use teleconverters with large prime lenses and still have tack sharp images.
Well done. I’m a birds in flight photographer. My experience overlays your comments exactly.
Fuji 100-400 also has either a 1.4 or 2X Teleconverter. Lens is sharp, even with the Fuji teleconverter.
Very precise presentation. The Sony 400 FE 2.8 has come out since. If you have $12K to drop on a lens, it's worth considering....But dollar for dollar the Sony 200-600 is a better pick for most. Note: I've been trying to find a 600 FE 4.0. Those seem to be sold out on a world wide basis.
The Sony 200-600 accepts teleconverters right?
@Erkan, yes, of course, I tested it with the 2x converter - still good results, focusing quite fast and the IQ is better than enlarging/upscaling the picture without converter.
With MFT systems, why didn't you considered in this comparative the two Panasonic zooms (the 100-300mm Mk II and the Leica 100-400mm)?! Used with the best MFT cameras, they should be similar in quality to a Nikon 200-500mm!
I like also to use too the now discontinued Nikon 1 system, with the Nikon 1 70-300mm (equiv. to 189-810mm in fullframe), in a Nikon V3 it will have fast autofocus (including contrast and phase detect AF) with VR!
5:55 Chelsea: you can get a zoom lens for far less expensive 😜
Hey Tony and Chelsea. How come you excluded the Fujinon 200mm f/2?
I have quite a collection of Contax N-mount lenses (also 645 lenses and compatible Hasselblad lenses). Do you have any experience using any such lenses with Sony equipment with a Metabones (or other) adapter? Obviously, I'm trying to salvage my investment in N-mount glass while upgrading to a better camera body.
Crop mode on my longest lens is as close as I get. Sometimes it is all about watching the greener grass on the other side.
What about the Tamron 150-600 G2 vs Nikon 200-500?
Soo how is nobody making jokes about 6:09 yet, did everyone become mature all of a sudden? ;'D
Naw.... I wish mine was longer.... i'm reminded of that everyday.
I’ve been looking at the Sigma 60-600mm - any comments or reviews on that? Thanks!
Only choose it if you need the 60-150 range more than better IQ at 600mm.
@@TonyAndChelsea Could you tell me what you think of the Sigma 60-600 compared with the Tamron 150-600 G2? The G2 lenses seem to review well for sharpness, in their class, apparently better than comparable Sigmas, but now I'm tempted by surprisingly positive reports of the 60-600. I want something versatile and proportionate for my limited shooting opportunities but with as little IQ compromise as possible. Thank you for all of your helpful videos!
Hey thanx Guys, A good point..- I'll put the savings 2 better use - as I considered buying the 1.4X TC for the much Loved 100-400. Always a pleasure 2 wake here in AU with your informative videos.
Sony a7r4 + 70-350 (105-525) could be interesting
Nah, if I have the Sony A7R IV, I would go with Sony's 200-600mm.
that's a incredible zoom, i only used P1000
Sony 100400 gm?
Noob question, having never used any lens with a focal length above 200mm ... Why do you always use the lens hoods with these massive lenses? Wouldn't avoiding the hood make them a tad lighter, smaller and easier to carry around?
What's with the Fuji 200mm F2.0? At 300mm FOV equivelant who is it for? Probably not long enough for wildlife. Sports only?
Watched less than 3 minutes and already I've received enough info to better decide on new lenses going into 2020.
Need to get rid of my sigma 18-250mm asap 😁
More primes, a (real) macro lens and a better zoom is the way to go 👍 Great video you two!
Great video as usual. I think Chelsea gets more and more beautiful with every video. You are a blessed man Tony. God bless you both.
I can't get enough of your videos... you guys are great , I mean it...
Are these the same lenses you would use for horizon photography? Sunrises and sunsets, and mountains and all different kinds of terrain. Thanks for your videos. I'm working my way through them. Learning being new to using canon now. Thank you in advance.
I am disabled and when looking at the size of that prime, I know why I settle for MFT G9 every time.
Very nice infomercial for KEH.
FWIW, the Fuji 100-400 is compatible with their 1.4x and 2x TCs
Fuji has a 200mm f/2. On a crop body like the X-T3 that's 300mm and with their 1.4x tele it's 420mm f/2.8. Not bad at all.
If you've got IBIS, wouldn't it be cheaper to use an Apochromatic refractor telescope instead of a prime lens?
The photos would be terrible, but yes, it would be cheaper.
@@DeputyNordburg You've not explained why at all. They have zero chromatic aberration, very little spherical aberration, and optical figures routinely above a Strehl of 0.95. So why would the photos be terrible? I could understand partly if the caveat of IBIS wasn't mentioned.
@@Astrolavista Apochromatic Telescopes are a type of refracting telescope that have a better correction of chromatic and spherical aberration than the more common achromat lens, not "zero".
The lenses in an apochromatic telescope will bring light of three different frequencies to a common focus in the eye piece of the telescope. The design is not intended to do so on the focal plane of a camera. In adition telescopes aperture is generally f11 or smaller making use on a moving subject or without a sturdy tripod impractical for wildlife.
So I took your advise and went and checked out the 200-500 Nikon lens and purchased it. Wow I am impressed with it using it on my D500 I bought myself as a retirement present. Great combination.
Great combo I use my 200-500 with the 7200 and I get great pics
Thanks for the KEH coupon!
It's great cause you guys try them, I bought the 200-500 Nikon, love it, it's sharp. You do you think with a 1.4x would it still be sharp?
Please condone an off topic question. Will you do a review on the Tesla electric car. I trust your reviews on cameras and all things photography and since i am seriously considering buying a Tesla I like to have hour take on that automobile.
We've been meaning to do this. It's a good car! However we had a TERRIBLE service experience recently (45 days in the service center while they waited for a wiring harness). So, we're selling it and switching to a more manufacturer with better service. Your area might have better service centers; Tesla isn't very well established in New England. Also long road trips and supercharging really is a PITA, even though owners won't admit it... especially in the cold winters where the battery depletes faster and charges slower. We gave up driving it on road trips.
What's the new KEH Code?
Could you please at least acknowledge the fact that Sony has official adapter's for its old A mount lenses.
A friend recently bought a decent 600mm f4 Minolta manual lens for his A7 and its pretty amazing consisting it cost him just $200.
I believe there are a lot of people out there that still use A mount, and could use a recommendation.
Uh, you got him wrong. He paid 200 bucks for the adapter. That lens still goes for more than $2000.
@@daran0815 actually, he bought the lens in front of me for $180 Australian. Haggled his way from $250.
He got the adaptor when he bought his camera. He's been using the A mount 24-70mm on it ever since.
@@SHREYAS1112 That's not called haggling, it's called robbing:-)
@@SHREYAS1112 Even though that manual focus is almost worthless for BIF, I have managed some (using an actual telescope 700mm f7).
@@daran0815 the same seller had a Sony 500mm reflex with autofocus for $400. Pristine condition.
I almost bought it.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Nikon 500mm pf lens - Sharp, light, and less money than a prime. Also the Sigma 500mm f4 prime is fantastic at half the price of the Nikon.
Guys, I love you ❤️
I recently bought the Tamron 150-600mm G1 second hand for $800 , currently shooting on a Canon Eos 760D , but investing in a 6D mk2 very soon
KEH, not sure i would recommend them for used looking at some of there used prices. Hard to save money when some used gear is listed for more then brand new and or literally a few bucks less then new.
Does KEH ship to Canada?
I love your video's but what about pentax? I have had pentax camera's since 35mm in the 80's. Are they dead? My K-s2 takes good images and I have some good wide angle and mid range lenses, what do you think about pentax for wildlife?
Still missing from your offering the Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 200mm f/2.8 Power O.I.S. it’s much sharper and overall better lens compared to the Oly 300!!! It also have a 1.4/2x teleconverter...
Why do you not consider the Canon 100-400 L II or the 200-400 4 L w 1.4x?
You forgot to mention the Fujifilm 200 f2 with the Fujifilm converters.
No mention of the EF 100-400 ?.. Shame..
Canon 200-400 w1.4x built in, and Canon 1.4x just in case/ sharp and versatile
Very clear and useful video! Thank you
i use the canon 77d, not looking to upgrade the body anytime soon. I do use the sigma 150-600 alot though, it does have its draw backs though. Would there be a better lens i could use for wildlife?
The prices are way too hight to compare with other place , this Nikon lens 500mm I found new one for better price the used one here ???
I think the Tamron 150-600 g2 is much better than and sharper than 200-500
Very good info..
Love this video..
I have the Canon M50.
I just started doing wildlife photography, I was looking for the Tamron 150-600mm g2..
Any recommendations on that lens, or any other you could recommend?
My budget is just little limited tho.. 😔
You forgot Canon 100-400 mk II it can be used with 1,4 TC = f8 but okay with birds in the air.
We didn't forget; in our testing we found using the TC didn't improve the detail captured. You're better off just cropping without the TC.
What would you recommend between the Nikon 80-400 and 200-500?
I have a question where should i sell my shots in wildlife
Good info! I spend enough on lenses, glad I don’t shoot wildlife otherwise I would want one of these primes. :)
Im on a budget SETUP . All prices in CAD
Canon eos m100 (350$) NEW
Canon ef 300mm f4 usm L (150$) USED EBAY * doesn't manual focus but AF works. Has tiny bit of dust in front glass but doesn't affect image*
Canon 1.4x extender III (125$) USED EBAY *no issue found. In mint condition*
Canon ef-eos m adapter (60$) USED EBAY
I get very sharp and fast AF (6m to infinity) or decent af speed (2m to infinity) . Nice eBay find indeed.
What about composition?