gessman Loc: Colorado

Thanks! I just had cataracts removed and now with hawk-sharp vision and, uh, something less than lightning fast reaction time, being used to what I've been doing, along with what appears to be a little "winding down," I think I'm good right where I am but "ronz" may want to consider your suggestion.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I rented the Sigma 150-600 Sport, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, and the Tamron 150-600 G2, each for a week. Then I went out for 7 consecutive days for 8-10 hours and walked around carrying them doing handheld pictures to see how my shoulder, arm, and wrist reacted. I chose the Tamron 150-600 G2. Extraordinarily happy with it.

DHThomas Loc: Baton Rouge, LA

The in-body and in-lens stabilization work together with the Panasonic-Leica 100-400 and a Lumix body such as the GH5. I've been learning how best to capture BIF with this combination.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Here's an interesting video about the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and the Tamron 150-600 and while this Tamron is the original version it is still a good comparative analysis for size, weight, handling, features, etc., everything but the image quality difference between the Tamron ver 1 and ver 2. Unable to find a head-to-head comparison of the Canon 400 and Tamron 150-600 G2, one must look at several videos about how those two lens compare against other lens in head-to-head analysis in common and then conclude by inference which lens is sharpest, not exactly ideal but reasonably effective, at least effective enough to suggest that even with the image quality improvement of the G2 over the original, the consensus seems to still point to the Canon 400 f/5.6 being ultimately superior to the G2, at least for image quality and ease of handling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

The suggestions are all over the board here. I think you need to specify how much weight you can hold considering your surgery The only lens suggestion here that is "relatively light weight" is the Panasonic/Leica 100-400 mm lens which doesn't fit on your Canon equipment. Even that lens is nearly 2 1/2 pounds.

SheilaG Loc: Central Arkansas

Your Smugmug pages are awesome! I have always loved North Carolina and the beauty that lies in all those mountains and the coast line. I am thrilled that I was able to see it through your eyes. Amazing shots and color. I have been to Linville Falls, loved the shot from your viewpoint.

gessman Loc: Colorado

? - the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is 10.1 inches long and weighs 2.8 lbs. The reason suggestions are all over the board is, as usual, folks don't read very well. Add the 1.98 lb. a6500 and you're under 5 lbs for the whole thing, then there's the bridge superzooms to consider if you want much lighter than that.

Now, I'm done here in this thread. Merry Christmas to everyone and good luck to ronz in his decision.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

For sports/action I've been using Canon 100-400L IS "II" a lot the past year and a half... It would do very well for wildlife too, as a very versatile zoom lens with superb image quality throughout and on a 7DII it's got lots of "reach". (It's said to work well with 1.4X teleconverter, too... on cameras like yours and mine that can autofocus an f/8 combo, but I haven't really tested it.) Here are a couple examples with the 100-400 II (out of many thousands)...


For above it was on a tripod with a gimbal mount... but those were from a four day event where I was shooting twelve hours a day or more. As a over 3 lb. for the lens, combined with a 7DII with battery grip that's probably 2+ lb.... they are certainly hand-holdable for quite a while, just get pretty tiring during those "endurance" sessions.

I don't do a lot of it, but for BIF I prefer 300mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/4 IS or 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, all of which are both slightly smaller and a little lighter than the 100-400mm for hand holding over a period time, as well as for their larger apertures, slightly faster autofocus and slightly better focus tracking... To be fair, they're all quite fast and seldom miss. But f/4 is a wee bit better than f/5.6, and an f/2.8 lens is a wee bit faster than f/4 (you probably know... f/2.8 or larger allows many Canon cameras' AF systems to work their best). The 100-400 is f/4.5-5.6 (f/5 up to about 300mm, then f/5.6 out to 400mm).

For BIF in particular, some people really like the original 100-400L IS with it's push/pull zoom. It's just a personal preference, but I'm not a fan of that type of zoom and prefer the 2-ring design of the 100-400 II.

300mm f/4 on 5D Mark II:


And 300mm f/4 on 7D:


The EF 400mm f/5.6 is another popular lens among birders... but it lacks IS. I don't use it and prefer the EF 300/4 because I can get very nearly as good image quality with it combined with an EF 1.4X II teleconverter, for a 420mm f/5.6 combo with IS. This also gives me two focal lengths to work with, instead of just one. Below is the 300mm + 1.4X combo on 5D Mark II:


I don't have any examples of it with teleconverter, but EF 135mm f/2L is another great lens on a crop camera alone or with a 1.4X where the combo makes for a 189mm f/2.8. This was shot with 135mm alone:


Finally, I'm pretty sure the 300mm f4L and the 100-400mm II are the closest focusing of the Canon telephotos longer than 200mm. Where many of the others can do 1:5 or 1:6 magnification at best (the 400mm f/5.6L can only do 1:8, 0.12X at over 11 feet). In comparison, without any added extension tubes or close-up diopters the 300mm can focus within 5 feet for about 1:4 (0.24X) magnification and the 100-400mm can do almost 1:3 (0.31X, just over 3 feet).

This was shot with the 300mm f/4 near it's closes focus distance:

gessman Loc: Colorado

An excellent and diverse group of images!