Gerald Friesen

Love the "lense" vrs "lens" spell check comment by Stoshik. Very pedantically written. And when I looked up the meaning of "pedantic", the definition flared a forgotten memory. I had seen that word before. A word written across the title page of a college history paper I had submitted some 50 years ago. MADE ME LAUGH OUT LOUD. Thanks for the memories.
...but in all cases, having a lens is better than being lensless.
lens: late 17th century: from Latin, ‘lentil’ (because of the similarity in shape).

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

I was about to respond in the same tone. It seems Nikoners can't resist at the drop of a hat to tell someone they should dump their Canon gear and switch to Nikon.

I'm starting to think that feelings of inadequacy go along with Nikon users.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Consider the Tamron 150-600 G2 for the Canon....I have the Nikon version - great lens and can be used handheld with VC on, or off with a fast enough shutter speed. On a crop sensor camera will give FOV of a FF 225-900mm. It is a bit heavy though and new around $1300.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

It is an option - a very GOOD option........no matter the sounding !

It did not "sound" to me like he is ready to manage a 150-600 .....

..

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

Yes just make sure it's a series ii and not series I. A big improvement in image quality on series ii

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I’m assuming you are referencing the Tamron lens but since you didn’t use “quote reply” we can only assume which lens you are referring to.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Canon makes a 100-400mm zoom that is awesome.

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

Sorry. Was referring to Canon 100-400 L series ii

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

FWIW, the Sigma Sport 150-600, while giving very good IQ, is awfully heavy at 6.3 lbs. The Canon 100-400 is the lightest of the 4 lenses. I would go for the Tammy.

See https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Sigma_150-600mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Contemporary_Lens_for_Canon_EF_vs_Tamron_SP_150-600mm_f_5-6.3_Di_VC_USD_G2_for_Canon_EF_vs_Canon_EF_100-400mm_f_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM_Lens_vs_Sigma_150-600mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Sports_Lens_for_Canon_EF/BHitems/1082154-REG_1277358-REG_1092632-REG_1082152-REG

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

Wow! It seems like your observations on spelling errors ought to be brought to the attention of administration and/or spell check, rather than the uncomfortable charge against the OP. The readership knew what the OP was saying, even thought the grammar was not to your standard. There is a way to comment on an issue, and there is a way to be offensive. I believe you entered the twilight zone. Please be more respectful of fellow members with insensitive comments that offend. Thank you.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The best lens for that purpose and on your camera would be the Canon EF 100-400mm IS USM II. It's hand-holdable at around 3.5 lb. and with image stabilization, fast focusing and has superb image quality. Includes lens hood and built in tripod mounting ring. But it costs $2000.

Next best would be Tamron 100-400mm VR.... very good image quality, fairly fast focus and hand-holdable at about 3 lb., has image stabilization, includes lens hood, but tripod mounting ring is sold separately. $800 plus $129 for the tripod ring (highly recommended).

Third choice... Sigma 100-400mm OS... very good IQ, fairly fast focus and the lightest of the three at a bit less than 3 lb. Has image stabilization and includes lens hood, but there is no option or means to install a tripod mounting ring. On sale for $700.

Of the above three lenses, throughout more of their zoom range the Canon is 1/3 to 2/3 stops faster than the other two. For example, the Canon is f/5 up to 312mm, then f/5.6 through 400mm. The Tamron drops to f/5.6 at 181mm and then loses another 1/3 stop to f/6.3 at 281mm. The Sigma is even slower, dropping from f/5 to f/5.6 at only 112mm and then an add'l 1/3 stop to f/6.3 at 234mm. This can be an important consideration when light conditions are less than ideal... especially when using the lenses on an older camera that's not as high-ISO-capable as some of the newer models.

There's also the first version of the Canon 100-400mm, which is a bit unusual as a push-pull zoom and even a little lighter than the II. It can be widely found used for $800-$900 and has quite good image quality, is fast focusing and has effective IS. Some people really like the push-pull zoom design, others don't (personally I'm one of the latter). This lens uses an earlier type of IS that can be a problem if locked down on a tripod or in any other situation where there's no movement at all for it to correct (see below, 300mm f/4 has the same issue). Needs to be manually turned off in those instances, but it's more likely to be used handheld or on a monopod where it's fine. This particular lens also doesn't play well with filters. For some reason, even high quality filters tend to make it "go soft". A lot of folks who used it from new with a "protection" filter on it have been amazed to see how good their lens was when they removed the filter and shot without it. (The lens hood or lens cap do a better job of protection, anyway!)

Sigma and Tamron also both offer 150-600mm lenses too, ranging in price from $800 to $1800 depending upon model (while supplies of the now-discontinued original Tamron model last... after that the Sigma "Contemporary" will be the least expensive, currently on sale for about $940). These much longer focal lengths are bigger, heavier and significantly harder to hand hold. A tripod is usually not advisable if shooting from a boat (engine vibration and other movement cause problems, not to mention the risk of tipping over or tripping someone on a crowded deck). The additional 200mm focal length would be nice, but the image quality is a bit reduced from the less extreme lenses. Sigma has announced a new 60-600mm lens, but it's part of their more robust "Sports" series and is going to be big and heavy. It's also going to cost $2000 and isn't in stores yet. Image quality and performance, unknown.

In the past there also were Sigma 120-400mm, 150-500mm and 50-500mm lenses.... the last versions of which all had image stabilization. These discontinued lenses are available on the used market, often for under $500. But they simply aren't as good optically as any of the above. Out of production for some years now, they also might be impossible to get repaired if anything is ever needed (same will be true of the original Canon 100-400 eventually).

Another possibility is the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens, which is great on it's own and quite hand-holdable at approx. 3 lb. With f/4 it's up to a stop faster than the 100-400s and it's well built, fast focusing... but just doesn't offer much more reach than you already have with your 55-250mm. However, it works very well with Canon 1.4X II and III Extenders (teleconverters). Adding one of those makes for a 420mm f/5.6 combo with image stabilization that has very fine image quality and remains quite hand-holdable. (The excellent Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM may be a wee bit sharper, but lacks image stabilization and isn't as versatile as the 300mm and teleconverter combo.) The 300mm f/4L sells for $1350 and the 1.4X III costs around $430, making this combo fairly expensive. HOWEVER, the 300mm f/4 has been in continuous production since the mid-1990s (was one of Canon's first IS lenses) and there are A LOT of them on the used market, where they often can be bought for $900 or so. The older 1.4X II works very well with this lens and is a good value on the used market, usually less than $200. So this combo can pretty easily put together for around $1000-$1100, instead of the $1800 it costs new. The 300mm f/4 IS uses a more basic form of image stabilization, that can cause problems if left turned on while using the lens locked down on a tripod so that there's no movement (not a concern if hand holding the lens... especially if you're shooting from a boat!). When used that way, the IS should be turned off at the switch. This is the case with four or five Canon lenses. Most other Canon lenses automatically turn off IS in those circumstances and don't need to be manually turned off. Frankly, I never use this lens on a tripod... mostly use it hand held or, at most, on a monopod. I don't think I've ever turned of the IS in many years using it.

So why not just get a 1.4X or even a 2X teleconverter to use with your current lens or some other of the above? Teleconverters reduce the light reaching the camera. A 1.4X "costs" one stop, while a 2X costs two stops. You camera would not be able to autofocus any of the above lenses if they were combined with any teleconverter... plus in many cases your viewfinder would be so dim it would make manual focus difficult (not to mention the challenges trying to manually focus rapidly when photographing orca!) Of all these lenses, only the 300mm is an f/4 lens and will still be f/5.6 with a 1.4X attached. Your camera can autofocus that (it will probably only do so using the center AF point, though). And buying a much bigger, heavier and more expensive f/2.8 lens to use with it, a 2X teleconverter is completely out of the question.

Personally I use both the Canon 300mm f/4L IS and the Canon 100-400mm II. I use the zoom when lighting is reasonably good and switch to the 300mm when needed. (I also have Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS... but it's about double the size and weight of the f/4 lens, and so is mostly a tripod lens for anything more than a couple quick shots... but sometimes needed in really challenging lighting.)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-100-400mm-f-4.5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-100-400mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Contemporary-Lens.aspx

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-G2-Lens.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Contemporary-Lens.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-II-Tele-Converter-Review.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I would keep the Tamron 18-400 in mind. Decent all around quality and a good focal range. Light to handle and reasonably priced. Many reviews here on the Hogg.

george19

[quote=Stoshik]Hello~
I'm really sorry to bring this up...
I hate being pedantic, but you've gotten in to some bad writing habits over the years. And it's not a typo if you repeat it...

Pedantic was the word of the week in my office, and we mercilessly abused it. Thank you for trying to bring closure to this issue.

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

I second the mirror lens solution. I have a Tokina 600mm from my film days that I use on my 7DII with an adapter from Minolta MC mount to Canon's EF mount. Works rather well, just remember that mirror lenses are a fixed lens ( most are f8) and you will need a lot of light to use them.
.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I forgot about that lens (just not a fan of "do everything" zooms.... most compromise in a lot of ways).

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-18-400mm-f-3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-HLD-Lens.aspx