Advice on lens selections
Jul 10, 2020 18:11:16 #
I have done a lot of research, but still not sure what the best choice is.
I shoot with a Canon 80d. I have prime 24mm and 50mm. Those are my street lenses. I also have the kit 18-55 mm, newer version.
And the Lenses I am thinking of trading. Canon 18-200mm 3.5. Canon 55-250mm kit lens.
All are EFS. Majority of my photography are wildlife and landscapes in the Atlanta area. There are many times that the 250mm max is not enough.
I am thinking of trading the two larger zoom lenses for the Tamron 16- 300 Pzd Macro Lens.
That way I would carry one lens, 16-300 for my normal walking days. But still have my two primes, and 18-55 for street.
I also have a Sony @6000 with a couple of lenses for travel.
I shoot with a Canon 80d. I have prime 24mm and 50mm. Those are my street lenses. I also have the kit 18-55 mm, newer version.
And the Lenses I am thinking of trading. Canon 18-200mm 3.5. Canon 55-250mm kit lens.
All are EFS. Majority of my photography are wildlife and landscapes in the Atlanta area. There are many times that the 250mm max is not enough.
I am thinking of trading the two larger zoom lenses for the Tamron 16- 300 Pzd Macro Lens.
That way I would carry one lens, 16-300 for my normal walking days. But still have my two primes, and 18-55 for street.
I also have a Sony @6000 with a couple of lenses for travel.
Jul 10, 2020 18:48:36 #
How about the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM. I have one of these and it takes outstanding images. I'm seeing the vII for around $15-1,600 range. Make sure it's vII the vI had it's issues with sharpness.
Jul 10, 2020 18:54:41 #
If you find 250mm too short for wildlife, increasing to just 300mm will not make a difference as 300mm also is too short for 'wildlife'. The simplicity of one superzoom delivers only simplicity, not image quality. If wildlife is an interest, consider a lens specific to this need, not a do-it-all lens that fails for wildlife. Your best bet is the EF 100-400L II, although this lens is large and heavy and expensive. With your 80D, you can extend for an effective 560mm. If still interested in a more modestly priced superzoom, look instead at the Tamron 18-400.
Jul 10, 2020 19:22:09 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
If you find 250mm too short for wildlife, increasi... (show quote)
I was thinking about that one as well, 18-400
Jul 10, 2020 23:23:54 #
Bike guy wrote:
I have done a lot of research, but still not sure ... (show quote)
When you say wildlife, do you mean the critters in your backyard or those on the Atlanta zoo or closeups of more distant creatures? For the latter you need lenses with focal lengths a fair bit beyond what 300 can deliver.
Jul 11, 2020 06:52:18 #
Jul 11, 2020 07:04:33 #
Bike guy wrote:
I was thinking about that one as well, 18-400
If you want a single lens the 18-400mm fits the bill.
It is not razor sharp as the Canon 100-400mm MII is but it takes "good enough" photos if you are not a pixel peeper.
So try it by renting it for a week and see if YOU like it.
Many do like it or they would not be making it.
Jul 11, 2020 08:01:59 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Bike guy wrote:
I have done a lot of research, but still not sure ... (show quote)
Canon 100-400 II. Get it baby, it is your best option.
Jul 11, 2020 08:10:05 #
Jul 11, 2020 08:43:00 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
I found the Tamron 28 -400 a faster focusing lens. Shooting (Motorcycle races) action I found the 18-400 too slow, but that was maybe 10 years ago. They may have upgraded the 18-400.
Jul 11, 2020 09:32:30 #
usnret wrote:
When you say wildlife, do you mean the critters in your backyard or those on the Atlanta zoo or closeups of more distant creatures? For the latter you need lenses with focal lengths a fair bit beyond what 300 can deliver.
Zoo, backyard. Not going for mountain goats.
Jul 11, 2020 09:39:34 #
If you don't have rock steady hands the only way you will be able shoot the 100-400 is on a tripod. I have the original one. heavy is an understatement. For me, at least. it must be supported
Jul 11, 2020 09:49:24 #
Bike guy wrote:
I was thinking about that one as well, 18-400
Another option to consider is the Sigma or Tamron 100-400 lens. Price is about $1000 less than the Canon. They man suit your needs.
Jul 11, 2020 11:07:58 #
boberic wrote:
If you don't have rock steady hands the only way you will be able shoot the 100-400 is on a tripod. I have the original one. heavy is an understatement. For me, at least. it must be supported
I shoot mine hand held all the time - not fun for extended periods (almost 6lbs total when you include a 5D4 and a grip and sometimes a 1.4x TC), but certainly doable. On the other hand, I do use the IS, especially when shooting slower than 1/500. Now if you need to hold it up for extended periods, a support is very useful/necessary.
I have the MKI also, and while I really don’t mind the push-pull zoom, the MKII is certainly better BUT 2x the price. With MKIs selling for ~$700-800, that’s a lot of lens for the $ if you need it and don’t want to spend $1800 for the new version.
Jul 11, 2020 11:23:41 #
Bike guy wrote:
I have done a lot of research, but still not sure ... (show quote)
Take a look at the Tammy 18-400 F3.5.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.