BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

The dilemma is quality versus cost. I know one usually gets what you pay for. However, I have a Canon 55-250mm STM lens that is nothing short of superb within it's entire zoom range. Problem is, it won't be long enough for many distant wildlife shots. So can you recommend a tele lens that can deliver the goods (quality IQ) at 300mm or 400mm without breaking the bank? Right now "the bank" does not have an overabundance of cash for this purpose,
I know I could rent a lens, but would prefer to purchase, if I can. (Well under 1K). Used is OK with me.

What do you think? And THANKS.

dangriss Loc: Fresno, CA

Teleconverter? A 2X could get you out to 500, just losing a couple of f-stops.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The Tamron 150-600mm G2 is a tad more, but probably is the best solution of all. A used or refurb might be found.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You are probably not going to see much of a difference between 250mm and 300mm, which leaves you wanting a 400mm. So ruling out the 400mm F2.8 and the 200-400mm F4 - both of which are 11X what your budget is yo have a few options.

In order of image quality (subjective at best):

Canon 100-400 new version (rental per week $100)
Sigma 150-600 Sport (used $1100, rental (?)) and the Tamron G2 150-600 ($1400 new, somewhat closer to $1000 used).
Canon 400mm F5.6 - (rental $61/wk, purchase new $1200)
300mm F4 with a 1.4X TC (rental or purchase used)
Sigma 100-400 new ($800)
100-400 old version (used) (rental $61/wk)

Bear in mind that there is not a world of difference between all of these lenses, except for the first two which are noticeably better than the others, but more expensive and a bit heavier.

If you purchase something used for "well under $1000" you may get lucky and get a 400mm F5.6.

Here is an interesting review on the Sigma 100-400 that is worth the read:

https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-100-400mm-f5-6-3-os-review/

I would steer clear of the older Tamron 200-500 F5.6, Sigma 150-500 or the 50-500 - they are cheap but not in the same league as the new lenses.

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I had considered the Canon 400mm 5.6, but understand it is NOT an IS (image stabilized) lens. I must have that feature on all lenses; as i often shake (age related) a bit.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Correct. But consider that if you are shooting wildlife that moves quickly you will likely be shooting with ISOs and shutter speeds that will minimize subject movement. If you are using a 400mm lens at 1/1000 sec or faster, you are not likely to have a lot of camera movement. If you rely on optical stabilization, then it will be most effective at speeds longer than 1/500 sec where subject movement, not hand movement will be an issue. At speeds shorter than 1/500 you risk the OS mechanism not settling down fast enough to allow you to take a shot without the lens element moving quickly in the middle of the shot and ruining it. Stabilization only works at longer shutter speeds and will do nothing at all to minimize subject movement. You may just end up shooting at speeds faster than 1/1000 anyway in which case the 400 will be fine. If you are shooting still or slow moving subjects, then stabilization will help a lot. Just a thought . . .

Here is a friend's website that has tons of images taken with that lens and a Canon 5dMkIII. I have never seen her use that lens on a tripod.

https://untamednewyork.smugmug.com/Birds" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://untamednewyork.smugmug.com/Birdshttps://untamednewyork.smugmug.com/Birds

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The older Sigma 100-300 f4 EX ( $500 used) is a superb lens ( at least in my hands). I have and use one in Canon mount and one in Sony/Minolta mount. Use a Tamron SP 1.4X TC with the Canon version for 420mm f5.6. There is no IS/OS - so use my facial and body stabilizers with monopod. PM me if you have questions. If you are using a high MP crop camera, like the 80D you can crop your way to 600mm ( from 420) and use pixel enlargement if necessary.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

A used 100-400L mk I or the new Sigma. Even the first model Tamron 150-600 used. All should be in the same range price wise.
What body do you have?

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

The body is a Canon Rebel T2i.

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

Would the Canon 400mm 5.6 lens be considered a "heavy" lens? How might it compare to the others weightwise?

Leitz Loc: Solms

If you can find someone who knows how to use a computer, have them Google the various lenses for you and tell you how much they weigh. What one person considers lightweight may be heavy for another.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

First, click "quote reply" and we will see what you are responding to.. This one was easy, but some aren't.

My daughter uses a T2i.
One the four 150-600 models the lightest and because it is now discontinued left over stock or a used one should be well below $1000, say $700-800. However, it is not real light. I handhold mine at times but use braces like fences etc., usually I use it on a tripod with a gimbal head.
For fair reach and less weight I would say the new Sigma 100-400 it is $799. You might find a used Canon 100-400 mkI for a bit less, but it is heavier.
On your T2i the 400mm will have the angle of view of a 640mm. That should work well for wildlife and distant subjects.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Comparison after comparison has shown that there is very little difference between modern, brand name lenses. Below are links to comparisons between 150-600mm lenses. Don't rule out used - ebay and KEH.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15236
http://www.kruger-2-kalahari.com/tamron-vs-sigma-150-600.html
https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/articles/tamron-vs-sigma-150-600mm-the-7-key-differences-48183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLXocpM5xno?

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

Check out Mike Jacksons Best of the Tetons web site. I've been going there since the 40's, my grandparents had a ranch near Wilson. I had great results with the Tamron 150/600 G1, now using the G2. The longer the lens the better for wildlife.

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

If I were shooting sports again or wildlife I would buy a used Cannon 7D with a cropped censor and the ability to fire many more frames per second than other models.

A typical 70-200mm would have the equivalent of 320mm capabilities and 300mm close to 500 for around $500.00. Not only would you have a backup camera at hand but you would love the burst mode to never miss a surfacing whale.