Best Way to get (affordable) Reach

[Kayaker72]

I was planning on waiting to start this thread until a few more reviews had trickled in. But that changed today when I was told my 150-600S is on the way. I am mostly intrigued by this lens as, if it is good, it would be a great complement to my core kit that includes the 5DIII, 24-70 II, and 70-200 II. I own other pieces that I plan to keep, but those are more of niche lenses, like the UWA/nightscape lens of the Rokinon 14 f/2.8. A lot of my other gear will be for sale very soon.

But I've been thinking about the "reach" niche and wanted to get everyone's thoughts. While I am assessing my kit, I think the more interesting question is general: What is the best way to get into the supertelephoto range in light of what has been recently released or announced?

Combinations I've been considering:

• Crop bodies with the "potential" 1.6x reach on the existing 100-400L (ok, this is specific to my kit, but others may already have the 400 f/5.6):
  
  • 7DII ($1,799)
  • 70D ($999)
  
  
• Combined with the 5DIII:
  
  • 100-400L II ($2,199) plus 1.4 TC ($449)
  • Tamron 150-600 ($1,069 B&H--but $1,289 on Amazon???)
  • Sigma 150-600S ($1,999)
  • Sigma 150-600C (announced not released)

The more I think about it, the ideal lens for me may be the 400 DO II, if it comes in as expected, plus TCs. But, that is much more expensive. For awhile I have said I eventually want a Big White lens. Given how I currently shoot, I would probably only use a Big White 2-3 times per year. So that has waned a bit for me and would prefer something that would travel better which could double or triple it's use.

I know we still need to see reviews on several of these new releases. And I will likely change my opinion based on those reviews. But, for a reasonable investment, what is the best way to get into the supertelephoto range?

[sambisu]

I really want to see the 100-400L II (with and without 1.4 TC) compared to the Sigma 150-600. One of those will definitely make its way into my kit in the next couple years. I have borrowed the 100-400L and used it with my T2i and was pretty happy with the results for shooting wildlife, which is my main interest for these lenses.

[HDNitehawk]

Buy my 300mm F/2.8 L IS (version I) (or some other persons)
It will out perform any of the lenses you listed.
It performs well with a 1.4x.
To me it is not much different than carrying the 70-200mm F/2.8.
It would be as portable as the new 400mm DO at about 60% of the money.

[neuroanatomist]

I think it mainly comes down to cost vs. performance (optical and AF). At the bottom end is the Opteka/Bower/etc. 650mm manual lens that comes with a 2x TC; it's a fully manual fixed f/8 (1300mm f/16 with the 2x) and costs $250. The Tamron is arguably the most cost effective way to get to 600mm with decent IQ, although the lens isn't at its best at the long end wide open. The Sigma 150-600S appears to deliver much better IQ, but it's creeping up in size/weight. Pending some actual reviews, the 400/4 DO II is looking like an excellent option, with the 1.4xIII you have 560mm f/5.6 and the IQ should be excellent based on the MTF charts (but reviews will show things like bokeh, etc.). The DO is also significantly more expensive.

The 300/2.8L IS II with the 2xIII also delivers an excellent 600mm f/5.6 in a comparatively small/light package...but also a costly one. That's the way I'll likely go, but mainly because I already have a 600/4 so the 400/4 DO II is less interesting than having the option of f/2.8 for indoor sports along with a 'small and light' (compared to the 600/4) 600mm lens.

The other option that I'd be considering is the 100-400 II + 1.4xIII. You lose 2/3 of a stop compared to the Sigma 150-600, but the MTF is pretty impressive for the combo. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the Sigma option, for me a truly portable lens (like the 100-400) would tip the decision if the IQ was not too different.

[Joel Eade]

What is the subject matter that interests you in a super-tele? In my case, birds. To really be happy I wanted as much focal length as possible with the highest resolving power possible. I wanted to see feather detail. I started with a 70-200 f/2.8 then went to a 300 f/2.8 and ultimately to a 500 f/4. I really love my 500 but I definitely want to upgrade to the Version II 600 or possibly the 800mm f/5.6 .... I can almost always use more focal length in bird photography.

If you are into other wildlife, like large mammals or sports photography you probably will be happy with a high quality 400mm lens. I have shot a lot of baseball, soccer and football games....500mm is way too much.

I would recommend you get the best glass in whatever focal length you thinks suits you even if you have to save a while....you won't be sorry!

[Kayaker72]

Buy my 300mm F/2.8 L IS (version I) (or some other persons)
It will out perform any of the lenses you listed.
It performs well with a 1.4x.
To me it is not much different than carrying the 70-200mm F/2.8.
It would be as portable as the new 400mm DO at about 60% of the money.

I hadn't focused on the Mk I, but have been looking at the Mk II. The MK I seems to take a reasonable hit with the 2x TC to get up to 600 mm and is running $3-3.5K on ebay. But, it'll stay in the discussion. I've very much considered the MK II. I've seen refurbs for sale at ~$5,700. The benefit to me is less about super tele reach, but more the f/2.8 @ 300 mm.

.....100-400 II + 1.4xIII. You lose 2/3 of a stop compared to the Sigma 150-600...... if the IQ was not too different.

Exactly. This option is tempting me and almost caused me to cancel my Sigma pre-order. But, I think there is a pretty reasonable chance that the 150-600S does have better IQ at 560 mm and will have a 2/3 stop advantage. At that point, it would be IQ vs size/weight.

What is the subject matter that interests you in a super-tele? In my case, birds. .......I would recommend you get the best glass in whatever focal length you thinks suits you even if you have to save a while....you won't be sorry!

Thanks Joel. For what I shoot now, this lens will mostly be for birds. But most of the birds will be through travel or from a kayak. For example:

• In December I will have a chance to shoot eagles in Idaho when I visit family (annual event).
• January I will be down in Orlando for a week with a good amount of time for me to maybe chase birds there (this looks like it may become an annual event. My wife has a conference she likes to attend and, with my new job, I can work from there).
• I will be shooting eagles on the Merrimack (Mass).
• GBH rookeries in Spring
• Loons from a kayak
• Other birds while kayaking.

Travel and shots from a kayak will be the majority of my use. Not the classic Big White on a tripod. I am considering something like your back yard set up. But I am not there yet (I really do want some cardinals). While I know big whites can travel, I have to consider the rest of my kit in that the 24-70 and 70-200 will likely also be coming along, maybe with a few other specialty lenses.

My biggest issue with the 100-400 II is that I already own the 100-400 MK 1 and know I would like a more reach. Granted, I think that is always the case. Also, when I can fill the frame, really the MK 1 is a good lens. My issues have been that I am usually cropping. I did try the MK 1 with a 1.4TC. I have seen good images taken with that combo, but lets just say I am not sure I have the sharpest MK1.

So, that is my specific need.

But, I am really marveling at the influx of good options. There will always be the 800 f/5.6, 500/600 f/4s for the best IQ. But, beneath that, there seem to be an increasing number of good options. While this doesn't get the reach beyond 400 mm (ff equiv) I want, I have also marveled at the optics/cost of the 55-250 STM. But a potential great lens for those not wanting to invest in L glass.

[neuroanatomist]

Agreed that the new options are great.

I went with the 600/4 for best IQ, but I'm not sure I'll do much traveling with it, if any. For that purpose, the 100-400 II + 1.4x would likely be better than any of the 150-600mm options.

As you say, Brant, the main draw for the 300/2.8 is the f/2.8. But doubling as a smaller 600/5.6 than the 150-600 options is a nice bonus.

[Joel Eade]

This is a costly option but has very high IQ.....what about the Canon 200-400? It has the built in 1.4X TC AND you can add another external 1.4X TC. That gives you a range out beyond 600mm with excellent quality. Very costly however. Probably heavier than the 150-600mm options too. I suspect it is hand holdable for short intervals.

[HDNitehawk]

This is a costly option but has very high IQ.....what about the Canon 200-400? It has the built in 1.4X TC AND you can add another external 1.4X TC. That gives you a range out beyond 600mm with excellent quality. Very costly however.

If he is going to that expense possibly he should be considering a used 500mm F/4 as well.
Or the poor mans 600mm F/4 II a 7D II with a 400mm DXO.

As you say, Brant, the main draw for the 300/2.8 is the f/2.8.

Owning the old version I wouldn't say this. The main draw for me is resolution and IQ this lens and I am sure the new II version provides. The F/2.8 is an added bonus. Of course with a 2X it is not that great. Of course the old version isn't going to get him an acceptable 600mm in my opinion.

By my standards I don't think the Tamron or Sigma's at 600mm would suffice. The way I have always looked at it I would prefer the best at whatever focal length I could afford. I would take whichever big white prime I could afford, whether it be 300, 400 or 500 then accept and acknowledge its limitations and be comfortable with knowing that when framed right I have the best of the best to work with.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks everyone. Definitely things to consider. The 150-600S arrives Monday (expedited shipping???). I'll see if it is what I am looking for or not. It will also be interesting to see reviews of the more recently announced lenses.

I'll use this thread to post my impressions of the 150-600S.