pila

Got that on my Nikon D 500.
Sharp

John O.

The Tamron 18-400 and 16-300mm are great. I know several top notch photographers who use them. I had an EF-S 18-135 and 70-300. We were on a trip to Australia. The 18-135mm wasn't long enough and the 70-300 wasn't wide enough. I lost lots of images because it took too long to change lenses on the tour.

We later took a trip to Japan and I used the older Tamron 16-270mm and never lost out on what I wanted to photograph in spite of the rush of the tour. I now have the Tamron 18-400mm and my wife has the Tamron 16-300 which we used on a trip to Alaska. Prime lenses may be great but not for tours. You don't want to change lenses in windy or inclement weather like you experience on tours. The Tamron glass is good enough to win photo contests.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

After getting a 150-600 I realized I am almost always at the 600mm. I'm now thinking that a straight 600 mm with better f would be better than a 150-600 for birding.

willaim Loc: Sunny Southern California

Check out the Tamron 18-400. I think it's modernly priced and with the 80D(I have that camera) it will give you, about, 38mm-620 equivalent to full frame. Quiet and fast auto focus. Sharp at all zoom ranges.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The Tamron 18-400; was only released at the beginning of 2018. It is the only lens with that focal range. There was no previous version. You must be referring to a different lens.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

I agree. If really really high quality is your goal go the lenses suggested. If good quality, easy portability and a good zoom range is what you want the Tamron 18-400 is one of the best. I used the Tamron 16-300 on my Nikon d7100 (crop) and liked it. I finally switched to the Tamron 18-400 although I was nervous about losing the "macro" part of the 16-300. Once I switched I did not notice the loss in close-up pictures but the additional reach really helped with wildlife (Africa, South America and North America). I don't think you can go wrong with the Tamron unless you are striving for prize worth or professional quality pictures.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Forget the Tamron 16-300mm. While it's not bad as a "do it all" zoom, for wildlife photography it simply doesn't provide enough addition focal length going from 250mm you have now to 300mm that lens offers. At a minimum, I'd recommend 400mm and there are a half dozen or so ways to achieve that.

Also, you don't say which of the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS lenses you have.... the latest STM version or the earlier and cheaper ones with slower micro motor focus drive. The latest 55-250mm has better image quality than the Tamron 16-300mm, particularly at their longer focal lengths. At 300mm the Tamron's images are soft with low contrast and lots of chromatic aberration. (Note: the Canon EF-S 18-200mm doesn't have any better image quality than the Tamron 16-300mm, at focal lengths they share.)

If 300mm were "enough" (it's not, IMO, for wildlife), I'd highly recommend one of the Canon 70-300mm lenses. They've offered four or five different ones over the years, any of which have significantly better image quality than the Tamron does in the focal lengths they share. All the Canon 70-300m also have fast USM focus drive and image stabilization. There are the original, now discontinued but still widely available EF 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ($377), the EF 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM "II" ($500), EF 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6"L" IS USM (the only one that can optionally be fitted with a tripod ring... and has the best image quality of all... but costs $1349!). There also was a more compact, but not lighter weight EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 "DO" IS USM (was the most expensive when new at over $1400, but now sells used for between $400 and $500).

AVOID the Canon EF 75-300mm lenses.... especially the "III" that's often sold in kit with entry level cameras. It's Canon's worst telephoto zoom in nearly every respect: It uses slower, noisier, less reliable micro motor focus drive, isn't very close focusing, doesn't have image stabilization and has the worst image quality, especially at 300mm. The only good thing that can be said about it is that it's cheap... new it's $200... used it's often under $100. But, although they'll cost more ANY Canon 70-300mm or 55-250mm is an improvement in many ways, especially in terms of image quality.

Better for wildlife would be a lens that reaches at least 400mm. Among the "reasonably affordable" choices of those, the sharpest and fastest focusing is the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. It's on sale, but is still $1149 new. AND, unfortunately it doesn't have image stabilization. Nearly as sharp and far more versatile is the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM "II" zoom, but it's also the most expensive I'll list here: $2199. The earlier "push/pull" version of that lens is also a very good performer, weighs a little less and can be found used for around $800-$900 (Note: this version requires IS be shut off when the lens is "locked down" on a tripod and, although it has very good image quality, it's not quite as good as the "II" version. It also isn't as close focusing and should not be used with any filters, because for some reason even a very good filter tends to make this lens "go soft".)

Tamron and Sigma also both offer more affordable 100-400mm lenses. The Sigma 100-400mm OS HSM is the cheapest at $699 and the smallest, but it's also the "slowest" (has 1/3 to 2/3 stop smaller max aperture) and cannot be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. The Tamron 100-400mm VC USD is a little more expensive at $799, slightly larger and heavier, but there is option to add a tripod ring to it (sold separately, $129) and is slightly brighter with larger max apertures. I won't kit you... Neither of these lenses has the build quality, image quality or overall performance as the Canon 100-400mm L-series lenses.... But they are a close, a little smaller/lighter and significantly less expensive than the comparable Canons.

If you shop used, you'll find discontinued 120-400mm, 150-500mm and 50-500mm lenses made by Sigma. In their day, these lenses were the only affordable alternatives to pricey OEM lenses. But none of them have image quality as good as the newer lenses listed above (though the latest, "OS" versions of those old Sigma lenses might be better than the Tamron 16-300mm).

Finally, yes, there is another do-it-all zoom that will get you to 400mm... the Tamron 18-400mm. That extra 100mm puts it in contention. However, just like the 16-300mm, there's a price to pay for the "convenience". At most focal lengths it's image quality is compromised, just like the 16-300mm. At some it's even worse. It's also a very "dim" lens, the variable aperture closes down rapidly... it starts out as an f/3.5, but has lost 1.33 stops of like and dropped to f/5.6 by 89mm and loses another 1/3 stop to f/6.3 at 117mm. So it will be a difficult lens to use in challenging lighting conditions (in comparison, while it's not a "large aperture/low light lens" by any means, the Canon is f/4.5 to 134mm, f/5 to 311mm and f/5.6 beyond that.... 2/3 stop faster at most focal lengths. This can be a make or break factor, when shooting wildlife.) The Tamron 18-400mm also is no wider than you have now, so you might want a wide angle lens for landscape photography. It's reasonably compact (except when zoomed to 400mm), lightweight and affordable ($650). It cannot be fitted with a tripod mounting ring.

Any of the above would get you to 400mm.... which I consider a minimum for wildlife photography. The down side is that all these lenses are bigger and heavier. And they aren't "do it all" lenses (that typically don't do anything particularly well). There are also 150-600mm and even 60-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron... but they are a lot bigger and heavier. Even the lightest of them is at least 50 or 60% heavier than a Siggy or Tammy 100-400. One of the Sigma's and their 60-600mm are more than twice the weight of those 100-400s.

You will need a shorter "walk around" lens to complement any of the above telephotos for wildlife. You also don't mention which of the Canon 18-55mm lenses you have. There have been around eight or nine versions of those... some of them pretty good, others not so much. If the front element of yours rotates when the lens focuses, it's one of the older and less capable models with lower image quality. There have been a couple more recent models with improved IQ and with front elements that don't rotate when focused. IQ is good enough, but focus speed isn't great. Autofocus with the "STM" or "stepper motor" version is faster and more accurate than with the non-STM (micro motor) version. But even the STM version isn't as fast as a USM lens.

It's more expensive, but better built and higher performance, plus offering a broader range of focal lengths (both longer tele & wider wide angle)... you might consider the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I'm recommending this because wider than 18mm would sure be nice for those landscape shots.... and while 15mm doesn't sound like a lot, it actually is quite significant. The alternative is a lens like the EF-S 10-18mm IS STM or the EF-S 10-22mm USM... both of which are even wider, but also end up adding another lens to your bag. While you were trying to whittle it down to one lens, at least a combo such as a 15-85mm and a 100-400mm would limit it to two. While landscape photography can be done with longer focal lengths, it can be really nice to have the option to go wide, too! New the Canon 15-85mm sells for around $800. But it can be found used for between $350 and $400.

An alternative walk-around lens is the Canon EF-S 18-135mm. There have been three or four versions of that lens, too. The best, with very good image quality, are the "STM" and the "USM" versions. Those are optically identical. The difference is that the USM version (with Canon's newest "Nano USM" focus drive) is said to be 2X to 4X faster focusing than the STM version (which is, in turn, faster focusing than the two micro motor versions that preceded it). Problem is, the 18-135mm STM sells for around $400 (less used) and the USM for about $600 (also less used, but not a lot and more difficult to find). These lenses also don't give you any wider angle of view than what you already have, so you might want an EF-S 10-18mm or EF-S 10-22mm (both of which are quite capable... but you'd be back to a 3-lens kit).

You also don't mention which of the 24mm and 50mm Canon lenses you have. I'm guessing those are some of the smaller ones, based upon your description of them as "street lenses". They're probably fine, especially if they are the more recent "STM" or "USM" versions with moderately fast and accurate autofocus.

To raise money for whatever you decide to do, you might consider selling that Sony a6000 and lenses you have for it. Either just travel with your 80D and a couple lenses. Or get a Canon SL2 or SL3, both of which are ultra-compact DSLRs, less than 4 ounces heavier than the a6000, and can directly share and use any and all lenses you have for your 80D. The SL2/SL3 use essentially the same 24MP sensor as your 80D. They have a simpler 9-point AF system and do not have the 80D's top LCD display, but otherwise are fairly similar. Between the two, I'd look for the discontinued, but still available used SL2 because it uses the Digic 7 processor and makes CR2 RAW files (your 80D uses one generation older Digic 6). The SL3 uses Digic 8 that allows it to film 4K video, but also makes for CR3 RAW files that are a lot more likely to require a software upgrade to handle them (SL2 can shoot 1080p HD video, but not 4K.) The SL2 is nearly 10 oz. lighter than your 80D, and a bit more compact, possibly making for a better travel camera. It also is rated to get nearly 2X the number of shots per charge as the a6000 is rated to do, so you might need fewer spare batteries. But, the main thing is that it can directly use any and all lenses you have for your 80D. (Note: There are adapters that allow Canon EF/EF-S lenses to be used on Sony E-mount... such as the Sigma MC-11... but that's relatively expensive at $200 and the adapted lenses won't focus as quickly and reliably as they will on a Canon camera.)

Always happy to help fellow UHHers spend their money!

jrcarpe Loc: Jacksonville,AR

I have the Tamron 16/300 which I use most of the time. I also use Canon 50mm,85mm,28/105 from time to time on my Canon 70D,I used to shoot with the Canon 28/135 but gave it to my daughter along with a Canon 40D.That was a great combination.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If you can live with the 300mm high end, the Sigma 18-300 costs much less than the Tamron 16-300. I have it on my 80D and love it.

Bike guy Loc: Atlanta

Thank you AM foto 1
That was an excellent book you wrote. I will save it.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

How about a Sigma 150-600?
https://amazon.com/Sigma-150-600mm-5-6-3-Contemporary-Canon/dp/B00THOYRN6/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2NUT3B8IUN8FY&dchild=1&keywords=150-600mm+lens+for+canon&qid=1594505631&sprefix=150-600%2Caps%2C171&sr=8-3

Bike guy Loc: Atlanta

Torment, nice lens but more than I need.
Thanks

billmck Loc: Central KY

You already have two pages of replies, but I'll add my two cents' worth...

I've had the Tamron 18-270 (both versions), the 16-300 and now the 18-400. The 18-400 is the best of that assortment and is my regular lens.

foxfax8win2

Try looking at the canon 400x 5.6. I'ts super sharp. Lighter than the rest. I use a harness to make the it easier.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Oh man, check out the new Canon R6 and the new 600 and 800 f11 lenses. If they are sharp they are going to be a great value, both well under a grand.