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
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.
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.
As a Canon user I am surprised by your recommendation in the zoom category. I have used both Sigma and Tamron 600mm zoom lenses and the Canon 100-400mm mk2 lens is better than both by a mile even with an added 1.4x tele.
Is 200mm shorter and is twice the price of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary. You can't compare a Canon L lens to a non-native lens, you get what you pay for. I have the Sigma and I am very happy with it. I am sure the Canon 100-400mm would be faster and sharper, but as mentioned before you have to account for the cons too. If you are talking about birding, as far as I am concerned, reach is king, if you can't even get there, is pointless to talk about sharpness. To be honest, the problem lies in Canon because they have left a huge gap in their lens line-up and that being they simply don't have a super zoom. What they really need is a 200-600m L lens much like Sony's 200-600mm G lens. If it happens to be much faster and sharper, I would pay for one. I think a lot of people would be happy to pay for quality L zooms, they just don't want to drop US$13K on a 600mm f/4 that's all.
They seemed to summarize around 6:00 that zooms are for the budget conscious. If you're always shooting the 100-400 at 400mm, how does it compare to the old 400mm f5.6 prime?
@@grahamfloyd3451 Hi I did use the old 400mm F5.6 L lens with the 7D2 ( not my lens a friends ). I still think the 100-400mm is better iq personally than the prime even at 400mm. Also the image stabilisation is of course a huge advantage in the zoom lens compared to the prime. Optic technology has of course improved a lot since the release of the prime as well. I think Canon should look at a replacement for the prime especially in the RF mount with the advantage now of ibis in there R6 and R5 cams I think it would sell very well.
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 don't normally like pumper zooms so I am sticking with Primes for longer glass. Internal zooms are fine I think because they don't blow dust through your camera like the pumper zooms tend to. Trying to stay away from the pumper zooms as much as possible, getting primes for the longer glass.
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.
For a regular mortal beings the most amazing, but also affordable *Canon APS-C* telephoto zoom is *55-250 STM* . Razor sharp, great AF, perfect IS and pretty much enough range for a wildlife (including getting as close as 85cm to the subject if needed), considering modern cameras have at least 24Mpx to crop on demand later. Can't beat the value of this piece of gear.
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
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.
Great Video Thanks!! But I just think the best thing is for me is to get out and have fun with the gear I got or can afford it might not be the best but it works for me. I do not make money on my photos so my Sigma 150-500 and my Nikon D700 work just fine.
"Canon zooms: Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3… we really haven’t seen much difference. Both have some focusing issues and neither are great at 600mm, but they’re the best you can get for Canon zooms." Seriously? You know Canon make telephoto zooms right? 100-400 MKII, 200-400 built in 1.4x TC for example.
Not even an MFT user but I'm pretty sure that there's more than just the 300 f4 in their lineup. The leica 100-400 only marginally underperforms the similarly specced 100-400 from Fuji. This isn't to mention the 100-300 II which is great value for its asking price. Also, isn't Olympus coming out with their 150-400 early next year or something?
The Panasonic/Leica 100-400mm has done well for me on my G9. And it weighs less than 1Kg. It's probably not as sharp as the Oly 300, but not nearly as bad as some early reviews made out.
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
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.
Thank you so much for all the advice. I am a wheelchair bound photographer here in New Zealand. I use an old Cannon 5D2 and a Sigma 150-600mm. I've just discovered your videos and really love the peaceful style to your videos. Straightforward, simple and easy to understand. :)
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.
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.
Thank goodness the original Northrup format is back! Very welcome. Maybe a little heavy on the sponsorship plugs, we got it the first time. Thanks again. I had the Tamron 100-400 on my 80D and it was a bit of a disaster within about 20 minutes - focus dreadful and varied accross the frame. Change to the Canon 400 5.6 and never looked back let's face it you're nearly always at 400 anyway with a zoom. This vid is aimed at the deeper pockets with cash for more than one lens, your earlier video of the 70-200 2.8 + 2x converter is very good advice when you have to limit how many you have.
For MFT users, Olympus is coming out soon with a full featured 150-400 f4.5 PRO. And remember the expensive but sharp Panasonic-Leica 200 f2.8 has a 400mm equivalent FF FOV, and it comes with a teleconverter.
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.
@@youknowwho9247 It's also in backorder where I live. I found a store from the UK that had three in stock. Placed an order immediately, and 4-5 days later, I got the lens
Thank you guys. Been following since the beginning and I done with all the millions of videos out there now I always come back to you both for the best knowledge and info.
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.
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.
Excellent. I’d add the Sony 100-400 GM to the list though, it’s a seriously good lens even for professional shooting (not just me saying so, Paul Nicklen raves about his!). Close focus allows for a decent shot of “macro” subjects, and its still 18MP at 600 mm at a pinch (in APS-C mode). Very flexible lens in situations where it’s difficult to anticipate subject size or distance - for instance, on safari where you’re limited to roads, or shooting out of zodiacs in the Arctic. Lightweight for travel and hiking, too.
Agree! And don't take my word for it...read Roger Cicala's Lens Rentals blog and you'll know that Canon 100-400 II is the sharpest of all the zooms at 400mm. Stick a 1.4x converter on it and it is still sharper than the big Tamron and Sigma 600mm zooms, although you need a body that can autofocus at f/8 and... you're at f/8 😒... hence, the primes win!
Also worth mentioning that Canon lens can shoot a very sharp f/5 at 300mm. Most zooms shoot a crappy f/5.6 at that focal length and need to be stopped down to f/8 to look good!
Good video, but you forgot to mention (or aren't aware) that the Sony 200-600 lens works VERY well with the Sony 1.4 extender, and I've even seen good, sharp images with the 2X extender! Sony's extenders (and this particular lens) are far better than Canikon efforts, heck even Nikon's 1.7X and 2X extenders on the Nikon 500 f/4 E (the latest version) are horrible.
@@TonyAndChelsea I know what you mean, I wouldn't dream of putting one on a Sigma/Tamron/Nikon, but have you tried the Sony extenders on the 200-600? They are much MUCH better than the Canon & Nikon extenders, and the fact that they work well on the 200-600 (a9 anyways) is a testament that Sony is doing something right.
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 like this video a lot, but am a little concerned about the recommendation to buy the old Canon 500mm F/4. I was going to do that a little while back, because it is definitely sharp. However I decided not to do so because Canon no longer services that lens. That is a big negative for me.
Great tips for beginners with absolutely no clue about lenses whatsoever, but who are eager to spent several thousands on a lens. Thanks Fullframe-Tony! (Who in another video said that an Olympus 300mm for $2,400 was "an expensive lens").
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.
Such wise advice. Was thinking about buying the 2x teleconverter for Olympus 300mm so especially interested it’s not quite as good as 1.4. Have a great day!
@@tobiasyoder For most wildlife shots I've done I've rarely been close enough to need anything shorter than a 600mm equivalent on FF. A 400mm f2.8 would provide no benefit over a 600mmf/4 unless you were close enough to fill the frame completely at 400mm.
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.
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.
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.
Indysbike , I have to agree with Tony on this. Had both for a short time bc I was able to buy the Sig for a song. (the previous owner just wanted to get some of his money out of it) He went out and got a used Nikon 200-500 after using mine for a week. I too decided to keep the Nikon and sell the Sig (for a small profit). That guy also sold it and got a Nikon. So that’s 3 in a row that just preferred the Nikon. Did you own/try both? Not very expensive to rent. Or maybe you had a bad copy; it happens. Good Luck , you can get great results with either lens.
My plan for getting into wildlife photography is first to buy a good zoom lens - and when I have some experience with that, try hiring a top-of-the-range prime lens for particular shoots. I suspect this may well, eventually tempt me into spending the price of a small car on a prime... But at least when I do, I'll know I'm ready for it.
In a previous Canon life I had both the Tamron 150 - 600 and the Canon 400 f5.6 on an 80D, in the real world the 400 was the clear winner. Lighter, much sharper and focussed better. The Tamron was really too soft beyond 400 and was slower too at that length. Now a Fuji X-T2 with the 100 - 400 does a good job and works reasonably well with the1.4 converter but I do miss that Canon 400!!
Nikon D500 + 300mm F4 pf. You have an effective fov of 450mm @ F4 with the D500's crazy fast AF and fps, not to mention the combo is super lightweight. How about that? If you are not afraid of used stuff I can hardly think of anything better than this as starters. Heck, you can throw on a 1.4 tc and go above 600mm @ F5.6.
This was a video youtube was missing.... no one have done one like this and it confirmed my toughts. I purchased a 150 600 sport and canceled the order and switched to a nikon 200 500... and then i found this video... im fresh as the air right now
D500, 300mm F4 PF and a 1.4x teleconverter. That’s a 420mm f5.6 (I think), then the 1.5x crop from the D500 would give you read up to 630mm. If you find you’re shooting too tight, take the teleconverter off or have a spare older FX body like a D3, D700 or D800 as well. Would be a really nice lightweight camera and lens setup.
Thank you!! Clear and clean advice - finally! I'm ready to upgrade and was flip flopping between the Nikon 200-500 mm zoom lens and the Sigma 150-600 mm and this video helped so much. Also, I'm sure I'll upgrade to a prime when I've refined my skills so thank you for the prime lens recommendations!
3:50 I could not agree with your disagreement more! I bought a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM (used) and someone told me that I shouldn't be using f/2.8, and they walked out when I kept responding to them saying "that is your opinion". For me, sometimes too much background blur can ruin the photo, but sometimes it can be really nice, it is all about what photo you want to get, not what others think you should get. I was actually testing the lens at f/2.8, as I've never had a super-telephoto lens with f/2.8 so I was curious as to when it could work for me. Even at f/2.8, the sharpness at the DOF area is just excellent, so for small birds at a distance, f/2.8 really works for me! :D
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...
I got a telescope used for astrophotography on a classified site for only $350. The glass on it was from an explore scientific triplet but the tube holding the lens elements was from some company that went out of business I believe. It's really heavy with no adjustable aperture and the focusing is all manual so shooting birds in flight is not really an option. The images are so sharp though if I mail the focus. My camera is the Nikon d5300
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.
Surprised that you don’t include the 400mm f2.8 from either Nikon or Canon...? Incredibly fast, super sharp and can easily use teleconverters. My Nikon 400mm f2.8 afs lens is more than 12 years old now but still gives amazing results with the 1.4 , 1.7 & 2 x converters.
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.
