Wildlife Zooms vs Primes (plus lens recommendations)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- Visit KEH here: sdp.io/keh09
Code for 5% off : TNC09
Tony & Chelsea talk about the pros and cons of zoom and prime lenses for wildlife photography. Settle in and watch to find out when zooms might be the right choice and when a prime lens is the way to go.
Our lens recommendations - Canon primes:
Canon 400mm f/5.6 sdp.io/C400
A used Canon 500mm f/4 + 1.4X (even previous generations) sdp.io/C500
Canon 600mm f/4 + 1.4X sdp.io/C600
Canon zooms:
Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3… we really haven’t seen much difference. Both have some focusing issues and neither are great at 600mm, but they’re the best you can get for Canon zooms.
sdp.io/Sigma150600
sdp.io/Tamron150600
Nikon primes:
Nikon 500mm f/5.6 sdp.io/N50056
Nikon 500mm f/4 + 1.4X sdp.io/N5004
Nikon 600mm f4 + 1.4X sdp.io/N600
Nikon zooms:
Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 (outperforms Tamron & Sigma in the real world, especially for moving subjects) sdp.io/N500
Sony primes:
No cheaper primes!
Sony 600mm f/4 + 1.4X (or 2X on an a9) sdp.io/Sony600
Sony zooms:
Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 sdp.io/S200600
Fujifilm:
Fuji 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6…not as long as we’d like, but it’s your only native option. sdp.io/F400
MFT:
Olympus 300mm f/4 + 1.4X sdp.io/O300 - Наука та технологія
I would love to see more videos of you testing equipment out in the field, especially wildlife. This video was very helpful. Thanks.
I have the Canon 100-400mm mkII and it's absolutely fantastic, it's compact, sharp, IS is great and MFD is amazing. Worth the price increase compared to the Sigma and Tamron lenses
Not enough reach. Love my Sigma 150-600mm, it was sharp right out of the box. Just don't use any TC with it.
Yea me too. I upgraded from 400 5.6 to 100-400 II and it's so awesome!
Interesting recommendations, I found that the Tamron 150-600mm g2 was slightly sharper than the Nikkor 200-500mm & the difference was minimal overall, so I went with the Tamron for extra reach/versatility on the short/long end.
With that said, my dream wildlife lense is the Nikkor 180-400mm built-in 1.4x TC...shame about the cost 🤑 lol!
After I added the tap in console to adjust both back and front focusing issues at different focal lengths and did a firmware update, my G2 150-600 really preforms well. I do not think many reviewers spent the time doing this. I also needed the weather seals of the G2.
Yep, the Tamron 150-600mm g2 is a great lens for this price ! sharp and fast and more versatile....
@@jacobl6572 I think all lens reviewers on youtube fail to use the tap-in console to fine tune the lens to the camera being used. I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens on a Nikon D3400 (cheap body) and can clearly see blades of grass at 400 metres away.
Thank you so much for all the advice. I am a wheelchair bound photographer here in New Zealand. I use an old Cannon 5D2 and a Sigma 150-600mm. I've just discovered your videos and really love the peaceful style to your videos. Straightforward, simple and easy to understand. :)
Very helpful tips in this review for a beginner photographer like me.. Thanks for the video, really helpful!🙌🙌
I have a 600mm f4 and 150-600mm zoom for years. After these years the prime always stays at home due to its heavy weight. The best lens is the one with you most of the time.
Thank you!! Clear and clean advice - finally! I'm ready to upgrade and was flip flopping between the Nikon 200-500 mm zoom lens and the Sigma 150-600 mm and this video helped so much. Also, I'm sure I'll upgrade to a prime when I've refined my skills so thank you for the prime lens recommendations!
As a Canon user I am surprised by your recommendation in the zoom category. I have used both Sigma and Tamron 600mm zoom lenses and the Canon 100-400mm mk2 lens is better than both by a mile even with an added 1.4x tele.
Guess its due to the price difference.. that is enormous.
Is 200mm shorter and is twice the price of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary. You can't compare a Canon L lens to a non-native lens, you get what you pay for. I have the Sigma and I am very happy with it. I am sure the Canon 100-400mm would be faster and sharper, but as mentioned before you have to account for the cons too. If you are talking about birding, as far as I am concerned, reach is king, if you can't even get there, is pointless to talk about sharpness.
To be honest, the problem lies in Canon because they have left a huge gap in their lens line-up and that being they simply don't have a super zoom. What they really need is a 200-600m L lens much like Sony's 200-600mm G lens. If it happens to be much faster and sharper, I would pay for one. I think a lot of people would be happy to pay for quality L zooms, they just don't want to drop US$13K on a 600mm f/4 that's all.
They seemed to summarize around 6:00 that zooms are for the budget conscious. If you're always shooting the 100-400 at 400mm, how does it compare to the old 400mm f5.6 prime?
@@grahamfloyd3451 Hi I did use the old 400mm F5.6 L lens with the 7D2 ( not my lens a friends ). I still think the 100-400mm is better iq personally than the prime even at 400mm. Also the image stabilisation is of course a huge advantage in the zoom lens compared to the prime. Optic technology has of course improved a lot since the release of the prime as well. I think Canon should look at a replacement for the prime especially in the RF mount with the advantage now of ibis in there R6 and R5 cams I think it would sell very well.
@@johnwhiteaway2795 do you recommend 100-400 with 1.4x teleconverter?
I use a Sony a6400 and my go to lens for wildlife is the Sigma 100-400 for Canon with the MC-11 adapter. With the crop factor of the a6400 it gives a great focal range and it is small enough to fit in my Manfroto NX Camera backpack. Its a great portable setup and has given me great results.
Thank you guys. Been following since the beginning and I done with all the millions of videos out there now I always come back to you both for the best knowledge and info.
Thank you for this video. I tried the site you recommended re used lenses.
Nice video, no mention of the Pentax world again, they have an interesting 560mm and the 150-450 with K1 or K3 has given me great results
🤣 Chelsea is funny even when she doesn't try. 5:05
Tony and Chelsea in their natural habitat (UA-cam) 😂
I use Pentax. K3 with a 150-450mm (4.5-5.6)and it’s a great combination especially with the 1.5x crop factor. Really enjoying the results. Also use the 300 mm da* prime (450 with crop factor ) and very happy with the shots.
This is one of my favorite Tony and Chelsea videos.
Thank goodness the original Northrup format is back! Very welcome. Maybe a little heavy on the sponsorship plugs, we got it the first time.
Thanks again.
I had the Tamron 100-400 on my 80D and it was a bit of a disaster within about 20 minutes - focus dreadful and varied accross the frame.
Change to the Canon 400 5.6 and never looked back let's face it you're nearly always at 400 anyway with a zoom.
This vid is aimed at the deeper pockets with cash for more than one lens, your earlier video of the 70-200 2.8 + 2x converter is very good advice when you have to limit how many you have.
I don't normally like pumper zooms so I am sticking with Primes for longer glass. Internal zooms are fine I think because they don't blow dust through your camera like the pumper zooms tend to. Trying to stay away from the pumper zooms as much as possible, getting primes for the longer glass.
Great Video Thanks!! But I just think the best thing is for me is to get out and have fun with the gear I got or can afford it might not be the best but it works for me. I do not make money on my photos so my Sigma 150-500 and my Nikon D700 work just fine.
That Sigma 150-500 sounds like a lens i could also use for shooting sports with my D7200. Can I ask you for a link to that lens, please?
@@Jensrnsholt It is a older one I got it used the 150-600 is the one that replaced it
@Greg Yes, the D700 is alive and kickin' (cf. recent Matt Granger vid). I wouldn't give mine up.
@@joanarling Yes I just saw that Video
Why was Sigma not included the 100-500 or 600 are good lenses and in several mounts with contemporary and sport models to choose from
I can't get enough of your videos... you guys are great , I mean it...
This was helpful! Enjoyed the video
And because T&C typically ignore the Pentax world the 150-450 f5.6 is a fantastic lens. I personally haven't used the 560mm f5.6, but it is an extremely long lens, but light lens. There is of course the used 200-600mm f5.6 F and FA as well as the outstanding 600mm f4 F or FA lenses which have the added benefit of closer focus than Canon or Nikon of the day and every bit as sharp. I have seen nice images with the Sigma 500mm f4.5 as well. My longest lens is a used 600mm A f5.6 (manual focus) that I use with outstanding results, including award winning wildlife images.
The Sigma 100-400mm lens is worth looking at if one wants a long-telephoto lens that is reasonably light and compact. I have been very pleased with mine.
Biggest issue is the lack of a tripod collar, that is why I tried the Tamron - that was a disaster though so the Cannon 400 is what I ended up with and Im chuffed!
Great video as usual. I think Chelsea gets more and more beautiful with every video. You are a blessed man Tony. God bless you both.
i just got my Sony 200-600MM today..
got 1 of the 5 that got delivered to the Netherlands this week. :P
And it just fits inside my Camera backpack.
Cracking lens doing a review on my channel soon
What you mean 1 in 5? Got mine in beginning of July you mean only 4 have been delivered since? It has been a lot of fun, works great with the 1.4TC.
Watched less than 3 minutes and already I've received enough info to better decide on new lenses going into 2020.
Need to get rid of my sigma 18-250mm asap 😁
More primes, a (real) macro lens and a better zoom is the way to go 👍 Great video you two!
I would love for an updated video using the older mounts and the newer mounts in a few price ranges.
Very clear and useful video! Thank you
Should have talked about the Sony 100-400 GM. Significantly smaller and lighter than the 200-600. Also has dual af motors unlike the 200-600. 100-400 works very well with a 1.4x TC and it will get you extra reach if you need it.
It's more expensive and not as sharp as the 200-600 at 600. We did side by side testing.
@@TonyAndChelsea 200-600 with A9 is a killer combo, prefer it over the 100-400 + TC. It's not that heavy for it's reach.
Great video you two! I have the Sigma 150-600mm C lens and it's a great lens. I've bought from KEH but I won't sell to them. They only offered me $56 for a two week old $456 MB-D12 battery grip.
I've had the same experience with them. Another good used photo gear site I've used is in Indiana. (usedphotopro.com)
You guys are always the best!
I always learn something from your videos or reminded of something I have forgotten
Such wise advice. Was thinking about buying the 2x teleconverter for Olympus 300mm so especially interested it’s not quite as good as 1.4. Have a great day!
I use the Canon 100-400, which is also a good choice in my opinion.
It’s an amazing lens I don’t know why no mention of it & it can use a 1.4 teleconverter!.
I use it as well. Every time I start drooling over one of the big primes, I remember all the near macro shots that I've gotten with the 100-400 which focuses down to close to 3 feet. Great for flowers, butterflies, and dragonflies. None of the big primes will do that. With the 1.4 X extender, I'm shooting at 560 mm, and get good quality images with that set-up.
@@quietsolopursuits1414 It is a great lens, but is terrible at macro at or near MFD.
An awesome lens. Love it. I am embarrassed to say I only recently started using it for some macro shots. Surprisingly great. I think if I was making oodles of cash to justify the cost of the long Primes, perhaps I would make that a go-to - or could spare leaving a body permanently attached to go through the schlep of swapping out. 100-400mm is lovely (I am guessing this lens was not pushed was because its been specifically covered years back - Chelsea nailing shots out of a moving car window) - see 'Canon 100-400 II vs Sigma 150-600 Sport & Tamron 150-600, Canon 400 f5.6 +Wildlife Photography Tips
'
@@Trigger-xw9gq Maybe it depends on which body you use it on. I've noticed there seems to be a difference in lens performance with Canon bodies. I use the 100-400 mm on a 5D Mk IV now, it didn't do as good on the 7D Mk II, even though the crop sensor got me closer.
Nice Video I like it, thanks Tony and Chelsea
Not even an MFT user but I'm pretty sure that there's more than just the 300 f4 in their lineup. The leica 100-400 only marginally underperforms the similarly specced 100-400 from Fuji. This isn't to mention the 100-300 II which is great value for its asking price. Also, isn't Olympus coming out with their 150-400 early next year or something?
And if you're a Pentax shooter, the old FA250-600 f'5,6 is a great zoom, or there is the old FA600 f/4 out there too - or an A 1,200 f/8, if you can find one :)
or of course the D-FA 150-450 or 560 f/5.6 if you want a modern lens
Thanks for the KEH coupon!
Hey thanx Guys, A good point..- I'll put the savings 2 better use - as I considered buying the 1.4X TC for the much Loved 100-400. Always a pleasure 2 wake here in AU with your informative videos.
You two are awsum thankyou for your insight on the used gear site 👍
Hello Tony and Chelsea love your videos goo as always. As a Sony shooter I think you missed a 100-400 GM witch may be good for wildlife you can also connect converter. All the best
3:34 you can buy a Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 lens and put on a teleconverter though. But I am not carrying that lens for you.
You forgot an alternative recommendation for fuji user. XF 200mm F/2 + TC 2x
Hey Tony and Chelsea. How come you excluded the Fujinon 200mm f/2?
I am glad that you did this video - your observations are quite realistic and useful. I like that you are promoting the value of buying used gear. Used gear almost always gives more bang for the buck.
There are a few lenses that you didn't mention, and they are noteworthy in that they are exceptions to the norm.
There are some telephoto zoom lenses that provide sharpness akin to that of the $10K+ primes. These would be the Canon 100-400mm, the Canon 200-400/560mm, and the Sigma 300-800mm. These three lenses provide image quality on par with the very expensive prime lenses, and are probably available now at KEH!
I'm just surprised that you didn't mention these lenses, as they are notable exceptions to the "rules" that you discussed.
Great video 👍🏻 can you see how the new 90d works with them !?!
Great video! The Canon 400mm DOII f4 is very sharp, 2.1Kg and half the price of a Sony f4 lens. The Canon 400mm f5.6 that you mentioned is such good value. My thought is don't buy a teleconverter & struggle to get your subject in the viewfinder, just crop the image.
No mention of the Nikon 300 f/4 PF? That thing is a beast for traveling. Same size as a 24-70 and 450mm reach on my D500. Not enough room in my bag for the 200-500 on some flights, but the 300 fits anywhere.
300 or 400 is a little short for wildlife, more of a sports lens. I think they were not considering them unless they were 500mm. I have Canon 400mm f4 DO II, for sports and both Canon extenders giving me 560 and 800 when I shoot wildlife. At 4lbs it replace my 12lb f2.8 400 that was amazing but a pain.
All that said a buddy loaned me his sigma 150-600mm contemporary lens and for the cost, that thing is amazing.
@@DeputyNordburg Fair enough. I wouldn't say 450mm equivalent reach is necessarily too short for wildlife though. It's certainly not ideal for small birds, but shooting larger mammals is pretty good. My main point though was that I think the lens doesn't get enough credit for its portability. Often when traveling there won't be enough space to fit a 600 f/4, so often the decision is between not taking long glass at all or throwing the 24-70 sized 300 pf in my bag. For what it is, I think it does an amazing job.
The Panasonic/Leica 100-400mm has done well for me on my G9. And it weighs less than 1Kg. It's probably not as sharp as the Oly 300, but not nearly as bad as some early reviews made out.
I have also Leica with my GH4. Absolutely high quality lens and one of the best for MFT bodies!
The Primes will be a bit sharper.
But a good quality Zoom will be the choice for most IMO.
Like a canon 100-400
And if you are beginning.. Sigma or Tamron's super zoom is a great start.
150-600
The option I'd choose for myself would be the Canon 100-400
Would you buy the sigma super over the canon 100-400?
I will definitely buy the Sigma 150-600mm C over the Canon 100-400mm. At the end of the day, it is all about price point and budget. The Canon is almost 3 times the price of the Sigma over here in Asia. And that is before you take into account of the Canon's inferior focal length. If we are talking about bird photography, focal length/reach is king. Losing out 200mm is a lot!!
@@Rascallucci The Canon is way sharper at 400mm and cropped in than the Sigma and Tamron's at 600mm. It is as sharp as the prime 400mm, especially for the Mark II version.
I would always go with the Canon. I've tried the Tamron 100-400 and the focus accuracy just wasn't there. Don't get me wrong, I love Tamron lenses. For most glass I believe the huge cost savings are with the trade-off that they miss focus sometimes, and the build quality of their new G2 line is amazing (got the 24-70, 70-200, 35 and 85). For telephoto action shooting though, their only options are consumer grade lenses and they have really, really not been up to par for me. Even in a controlled studio test setting and after adjusting with their tap in console, they wouldn't consistently nail focus but miss like one out of three times. That's too unreliable for wildlife.
@ThePointblank That may be, but ultimately we are talking about 2 different things here. You are talking about the increased relative sharpness and I am looking at max focal length/reach. Seriously? If I was just shooting my dogs like I used to before they passed away, then sure the Canon 100-400mm would be perfect. But, I am trying to shoot birds now. What I have learnt is reach is king because birds are tiny and more than often you need to shoot from afar to avoid spooking the bird plus you need to crop super tight with birds which ultimately leaves you with no choice but to go for max focal length. While the Sigma 150-600mm might not be as sharp, it is still sharper than the Tamron and the end result is not that bad. Or if you wish, you could still have the option to pull back a little to only shoot at 500mm for sharper results, it is still farther than the Canon can reach. I think to me what it boils down to is a matter of priority. If sharpness is No.1 to you even if it means you will need to cut back on focal length, then naturally you would go for the Canon. But, if you want to make shots that weren't possible before with the luxury of increased focal length, then the Sigma will be the way to go. Just think about this for a moment, with a 1.6x crop factor body, you can shoot at 960mm with the Sigma while the Canon will only be able to give you 640mm. That is a massive difference of 320mm!!
@@Rascallucci I've shot with all three lenses before, and I can tell you that the Canon is tack sharp at 400mm. Even when cropped down to 600mm FoV, it's still very sharp with excellent rendition and detail. The Sigma and the Tamron lenses become very soft past 400mm, and up at 600mm, it's noticeably soft. Not to mention that you loose a half stop of light with the Sigma and Tamron, which means you have to increase the ISO, which increases the grain in your pictures.
And don't forget that the Canon will AF much more reliably, quickly and accurately than the Sigma and Tamron lenses; I've found that both the Sigma and Tamron lenses will hunt or will mis-focus far more often than the Canon lens. There's something to be said about getting the shot but be forced to crop in, versus missing the shot entirely because your AF is acting up.
Hi. I would not agree with Sony. There is also 100-400 and it's probably quicker in autofocus area. Check some reviews about it.
and the 400mm 2.8.
Agree with both comments there is also 1.4 and 2 x converters to extend the length. But these lenses are relatively new compared to the Nikon and Canon mentioned so the chances of getting second hand through the video sponsors or anyone else is limited
For a regular mortal beings the most amazing, but also affordable *Canon APS-C* telephoto zoom is *55-250 STM* . Razor sharp, great AF, perfect IS and pretty much enough range for a wildlife (including getting as close as 85cm to the subject if needed), considering modern cameras have at least 24Mpx to crop on demand later. Can't beat the value of this piece of gear.
I've got a Panagor 400mm f5.6 for 85 euro yesterday. I absolutely love it. I've go some great shots already.
I was wondering how the Nikon D500’s AF holds up if you put a 1.4 TC on the 200-500 f/5.6, given that you would be dropping a stop of light to get the extra range?
Great video as usual.
i use the canon 77d, not looking to upgrade the body anytime soon. I do use the sigma 150-600 alot though, it does have its draw backs though. Would there be a better lens i could use for wildlife?
wish you did this video earlyier....I went with Tamron 150-600 on Nikon D850, I don't say I went wrong but sometimes it is a bit slow in focusing and sometimes I miss more photos with it then with Nikon 80-400(the new one) which is very fast and sharp...but too short...so I believe your recomandation for Nikon is the best. I refer to zoom lenses because I haven't tried primes for wildlife...they are too expensive.
Nikon has some amazing and very cheap (like sub 500$) 300mm Primes, that are AF-D, they might be old, heavy and not so fast but the image quality is there. Be sure to keep your shutter speed high though with the lack of IS!
@@BurningBroadcast I still go with tamron 150-600 rather then a 300 mm, even with TC it is too short for wildlife...Anyway, I'm a landscape photographer primarily but I have some passion also for wildlife...
@@photo-markus Ah yea there is no beating reach for wildflife, especially smaller birds there is a big difference between 300-400 and a 600mm.I dont do wildlife much personally, except in the Zoo, not really wildlife there imo haha. I use a 70 - 200 F2.8 with a 1.4 TC for motorsports. ideal for pit/paddock portraits/shots without the TC, but also for track shots (potentially with TC). All on a 1.3x Crop APS-H Canon 1D Mark III.
Just picked up the Sony 70-300mm for about $900 on ebay. Been getting some pretty good results on the A7rii as you can crop quite a bit
Chelsea and Tony, I have the Canon 400 5.6 and the Canon 1.4x TC but fear using the teleconverter because of what it does to the f stop. That increase in f stop makes the lens impossible to use in the woods where light is at a premium. Further, because that lens lacks IS, it is hard for me to hand hold and get sharp results with the TC, especially when light is at a premium. Thus I tend to get so much noise that I wind up disappointed. I hope I get better at this!
"Canon zooms:
Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3… we really haven’t seen much difference. Both have some focusing issues and neither are great at 600mm, but they’re the best you can get for Canon zooms."
Seriously?
You know Canon make telephoto zooms right? 100-400 MKII, 200-400 built in 1.4x TC for example.
Hi Tony, which one amongst Nikon d850 +200-500 or sony a7riv +200-600 would be a better choice for wildlife photography..
It's great cause you guys try them, I bought the 200-500 Nikon, love it, it's sharp. You do you think with a 1.4x would it still be sharp?
I’d be interested to know if any Fuji shooters are using the new 200mm f/2 lens with the 1.4x teleconverter to shoot wildlife. Tony omitted that lens from his summary, but you get an equivalent full-frame focal length of 427mm with the teleconverter so I feel it could be appropriate to consider it.
I really loved this video
For Sony, there are A-Mount options from SIgma and Tamron that produce good (not amazing, but good) images and are super affordable.
I've got the Tamron version for nikon 100 to 400 on 1.4x teleconvertor and it gives 550mm . Starting at f4.5 -5.6 fstop
I loved the recommendations. I only wish you mentioned bodies as well. After recently upgrading from D7200 to D810, I am afraid wildlife is one subject were the extra reach from the crop could be really desirable. Thoughts on that?
True. Many pro's, like Thom Hogan, use both FX and DX, but mostly DX for wildlife.
What about the Sony 200-600, Sony 100-400, Sony 600 F4, Sigma 60-600?
Sony 200-600 is the sharpest zoomlens at 600mm you can buy today. Second comes the Sigma 60-600.
Tony, I see you are rocking a 5ds on that prime lense?! - Is it worth to use the extra MP for cropping vs a faster camera like the 5dm4 or 7dm2 ? (i ask because those are the ones i have and what should i be using for wildlife?)
My plan for getting into wildlife photography is first to buy a good zoom lens - and when I have some experience with that, try hiring a top-of-the-range prime lens for particular shoots. I suspect this may well, eventually tempt me into spending the price of a small car on a prime... But at least when I do, I'll know I'm ready for it.
For MFT users, Olympus is coming out soon with a full featured 150-400 f4.5 PRO. And remember the expensive but sharp Panasonic-Leica 200 f2.8 has a 400mm equivalent FF FOV, and it comes with a teleconverter.
Hi- I think depending on where and what you are taking pics of makes a huge difference in lens choice. My daughter and I went to rocky mountain national park and she got way more photos with a 70-300 than i did with 200-500 Nikon. I think with a 600 prime you will miss a ton of shots. Don't get me wrong, the 600 has its place, but most people will be way more happy with a zoom. Also the money you save with the zoom you can use for other gear and travel costs to get yourself to the wildlife in our beautiful parks.
I have done a lot of business with KEH. I highly recommend them.
Yeah we only took them as a sponsor because they're just universally loved.
Tony & Chelsea Northrup universally loved 🤔 They're not puppy dogs 😂
Are these the same lenses you would use for horizon photography? Sunrises and sunsets, and mountains and all different kinds of terrain. Thanks for your videos. I'm working my way through them. Learning being new to using canon now. Thank you in advance.
For Sony you could shoot with Canon primes and converter...I've used 500mF4 with metabones and it works fantastically given the other option is $12000 lens
Very good info..
Love this video..
I have the Canon M50.
I just started doing wildlife photography, I was looking for the Tamron 150-600mm g2..
Any recommendations on that lens, or any other you could recommend?
My budget is just little limited tho.. 😔
First of all, thank you for the videos and valuable knowledge you have constantly share with your audience.
Primes are definitely sharper, but depending on the circumstances, how useful is a $13k prime lens if you can't frame your subject, or not even take a picture of it, because it is "too close", at the end wildlife is obviously mobile and can show up at any time and at any distance, making zoom lens all around better option, and Tony, very respectful to your comment about prime users more professional than zoom user, but you can't measure professionalism by the pricetag of gear, there is a lot a people with very expensive gear that can take professional pictures.
Hey guys, would love to see you sprinkle in some film content!
I have a question where should i sell my shots in wildlife
Tony, I'm sure you said in a previous video that there is no noticeable difference between name brand teleconverters and the 3rd party ones. We're you just referring to image quality or auto focus performance?
You should do new video with mirrorless cameras with their very good iso capabilities and new lenses like RF 100-500 mm.
In a previous Canon life I had both the Tamron 150 - 600 and the Canon 400 f5.6 on an 80D, in the real world the 400 was the clear winner. Lighter, much sharper and focussed better. The Tamron was really too soft beyond 400 and was slower too at that length. Now a Fuji X-T2 with the 100 - 400 does a good job and works reasonably well with the1.4 converter but I do miss that Canon 400!!
I got a telescope used for astrophotography on a classified site for only $350. The glass on it was from an explore scientific triplet but the tube holding the lens elements was from some company that went out of business I believe. It's really heavy with no adjustable aperture and the focusing is all manual so shooting birds in flight is not really an option. The images are so sharp though if I mail the focus. My camera is the Nikon d5300
Can anyone help me. I'm thinking between a6000 and d5600. Mainly for Nightscapes ,portraits ,landscapes and maybe some wildlife. Tell me what's better and why. Tnx
Do you know something about vintage manual focus lenses? I know manual focus is not so good as AF lenses for wildlife but still...
Canon 500mm f4 mark I. Is it sharp enough to take advantage of the 90D sensor?
I use the D850 and 500mm pf, great combination
Who did you kill to get that lens? It's still on backorder where I live.
@@youknowwho9247 It's also in backorder where I live. I found a store from the UK that had three in stock. Placed an order immediately, and 4-5 days later, I got the lens
@@Ohjoo I'd love to get used one at a good price. Maybe in 2025 or something...
It's still on Back order EVERYWHERE... the D850 and the Q2 were easier to get! But there's plenty in Japan...
@@gewglesux The store I ordered from has in stock again
Why do you not consider the Canon 100-400 L II or the 200-400 4 L w 1.4x?
I love your video's but what about pentax? I have had pentax camera's since 35mm in the 80's. Are they dead? My K-s2 takes good images and I have some good wide angle and mid range lenses, what do you think about pentax for wildlife?
What about a 300 mm f4 for Nikon..? I get my from KEH at bargain and is amazing.. with my D7200 work so sweet
But to be honest: for 1000$, you could get the ultra sharp 400mm 5.6 with no image stabilisation or the Tamron 150-600 which is less sharp, but has more focal length and great image stabilisation. Depending on the way you photograph, the 150-600 is the better choice for a lot of people. If you do not use a tripod that often and you're out in the mornings or evenings, the 150-600 gives your a lot sharper results hence the image stabilisation. The image stabilisation combined with the rather soft 600mm gives you more effective sharpness in those situations than the sharper 400mm without any image stabilisation.
How does the Sigma 500mm stack up against the Canon primes?
Very nice. Thanks for making well organized vids. Always informative!
I have a canon 2.8L IS and love my lens. Yes I paid full price I bought it new from Canon when I worked for Wolf Camera. Professional Nature Photographer Art Morriss showed me you could use teleconverters with large prime lenses and still have tack sharp images.
Nikon D500 + 300mm F4 pf. You have an effective fov of 450mm @ F4 with the D500's crazy fast AF and fps, not to mention the combo is super lightweight. How about that?
If you are not afraid of used stuff I can hardly think of anything better than this as starters. Heck, you can throw on a 1.4 tc and go above 600mm @ F5.6.
Why don't you do a video on the best gimbals tripods for prime telephoto lens and how to use them.
What would you recommend between the Nikon 80-400 and 200-500?
Any update with the new Canon EOS 90D review for wildlife
FWIW, the Fuji 100-400 is compatible with their 1.4x and 2x TCs
After looking at different lens scores across DXO Mark, would I be right in thinking DXO are reserving "excellent" for something in the future that doesn't currently exist because I'm yet to find a lens that sits just about average...