dblackard Loc: Rockport Texas

i am looking at a 18 by 270 tamron lens or a sigma or tamron 70 by 300 lens . Also looked a a sigma 18 by 275. Which would be best to capture wildlife photography? i know i need the VR or OS depending on brand. I have the nikon d7000 so i dont need an internal motor on lens since i have one on camera. Not planning on taking the tripod too much so dont want something that has to have a tripod. i would like to go higher but feel i would need a tripod then. i have done alot of research and it looks like the tamron would be better but i am not sure because i would be overlapping some with my other lenses but if the 18 would keep me from having to change lenses more often wouldnt this be better? I have a 55 by 200. or would the reach be significently better between the 270 to 300 range?? please help!! i need to order soon so i can practice before i go.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Then you will definitely want OS, VR or whatever image stabilization the lens manufacturer calls theirs. I can personally recomment the Sigma 150-500mm zoom with OS, I use it on my D7000. Its good to handhold in decent light and has the net 35mm equivalent of a 225-750mm on your body. I just recently sold my 50-500mm NON-OS to upgrade to the OS model just for that feature, it makes a WORLD of difference over a non-OS lens.
This would pick up right where your 55-200mm leaves off.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

D, I will say it is hard to have your cake and eat it too. I can't advise you much on those specific lenses since I don't know any of those you mention. I'm sure there must be some Hogs here that use those. You don't say what kind of wildlife you will be shooting? If you are thinking birds all of the lenses you mention are a bit short. Take your 200 and shoot a tennis ball at 20 feet and see how much of your frame it fills, a 300 is not much longer, is that close enough for you? For large animals 300 would barely be enough if you can get pretty close. Most animals/birds are a waiting game and it's hard to wait w/o a tripod even with a short lens but doable. If you are going to do nature and landscape at the same time then yes the 18 would be better, but that is assuming that 300 turns out to be long enough, but I dont think so. You can of course increase your reach with an extender but make SURE one will work with the specific lens that you are going to buy.
I use a 100-400 fairly often because at 100 it will fit into a small sling bag and usually I hand hold it. 4.5- 5.6 zoom lenses are pretty compact and light and easily used w/o a tripod. At longer than 300 and 4.0 and faster lenses start getting heavy quickly and almost always need a tripod, not to mention cost.
Not sure if this has helped at all since I don't know your lenses but you don't give much in the way of specific uses.

dblackard Loc: Rockport Texas

thanks for the replies. wildlife will be moose, whales, some birds, walrus, seals, that sort of thing. there will be landscapes as well. i do have a 50 prime and 18 to 105 as well as the 55 to 200 but really dont want to be out on a boat esp. if it is misting or raining and needing to change lenses.

judy 2011 Loc: Northern Utah

I have the Canon 100-400 and use that for my wildlife. 300 is not enough reach for me. And starting to want the Tamron 500 for more of a reach. Sometimes the 400 isn't enough for me. But it is a great lens!

colo43 Loc: Eastern Plains of Colorado

I agree with your findings, as it seems to be the same for me.

Gary Truchelut Loc: Coldspring, TX

Same here, I don't think 300 would be enough as at 400, I'm not quite there. Sigma makes some fine 50 or150-500mm zooms. That's what I would be looking at. As for changing lenses, you should be able to guess ahead of time what lens to put on the camera depending on what you are going to shoot.

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

When shooting wildlife I bring my Tameron 18-270 and the Sigma 150-500 and a nice tripod if needed. On the boat I would only bring the 18-270.

arphot Loc: Massachusetts

From Digital Landscape & Nature Photography For Dummies®:

The focal length you need to photograph wildlife depends on your prey. If you’re going to photograph birds that are fairly tame, you can get by with a focal length of 150mm to 200mm. If your goal is to photograph wildlife
like deer, bobcats, or grizzly bears, you’re going to need more reach — a lens with a focal length of 300mm or greater. These lenses are expensive, but if you intend to pursue wildlife photography, they are well worth the investment.

SteveH Loc: Putnam Valley NY & Boynton Beach, Fla

I would not even consider the tamron 18-270 because there is too wide a gap between the wide angle and telephoto to get really sharp images.

If you need a wide angle use your smaller lenses and go for something that will give you at least 400MM for your other wildlife shots. I like others have the Canon 100-400 on my 5D full frame and like it very much.

When I want to take scenics I use my 17-40mm or 24-105 both are L lenses and I find this scenerio perfect for me.

RoysJungle Loc: Ohio

I'm with Mt Shooter on this one in saying get the Sigma 150-500 I don't have it but every review I've seen says it's pretty sharp throughout its entire length. I have the Tamron 18-270 and a lot of times it just doesn't zoom in far enough for really good pictures of wildlife its also not really all that sharp but its a good general walk around with lens.

kerbscustom Loc: Valley Center, CA

I have to second the above. I use the same three lenses to cover essentially all of my shooting. But as has been mentioned before...oft times the 400 is still short of what I want. A doubler helps, but with it you lose the auto focus in most lighting conditions, and you lose that critical sharpness. I had a Pentax 500 prime lens (until it was stolen), comparing it to the 100-400 L you could see why the pro wildlife photogs use prime lenses instead of zooms.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Some people talk about excellent results with Tamron lenses but no so for me. I own one, an 18-200 and I won't buy another because of aberration and focus issues. So I for one don't recommend Tamron.

Good Luck

Eugene G Campbell

I have a 70-300mm VR nikon 4.5 and it's fairly sharp over the full range. I was told that using say a 28-300 wouldn't be as sharp because there are more glass elements to gain the wider angle focal lengths causing a loss in definition overall. I've found this to be true because I have a non-OS Tamron 28-300mm which renders very poor quality images in comparision while even using a tripod. Maybe the Sigma 150-500mm would be a good choice from reading others posts that are more experienced with their use. If I could afford the cost I'd be partial to a 100-400mm 2.8 VR Nikor lens and use a 1.4x Nikon teleconverter. Good Luck-Gene C.

Rich Maher Loc: Sonoma County, CA

I also have the Canon 100-400. Great lens. Just wish I could afford their 600mm. Are you listening, Santa. Remember you never brought me a pony. This will make up for that.