Talk me out of this....

I'm obviously new here. Been using a Nikon 70-300mm VR. I have been seriously shooting now for 4 years, and focused on 'nature' for much less time. Still finding my way, but realize I really love nature photography the most, followed by landscape.

I'm looking to upgrade to a good wildlife lens. Have gotten the usual 'get the Nikon 300mm f/4 & TC, can't beat it for price' advice.

Want something in that price range that I can hand hold or use without Wimberly type head.

Question is: Should I even consider the new Tamron 150-600mm? It's gotten a few good initial reviews (for Canon). I'm a little hung up on the 600mm for just over $1k carrot.

Everyone here has been great and supportive. I love this network.
Thanks,
Alan LaFaver
www.bttsphoto.com

Hi Alan, I go by this very wise saying that always proves correct: Get the very best glass for the shooting you do even if it means eating Ramen Noodles for lunch until 2017. I've owned so many lenses from different manufacturers throughout my life I've lost count, but the same thing holds true: Image quality is directly related to lens quality which price does dictate in most cases, especially at the 300mm+ level. The high end Canon lenses I've purchased always "wow" with image quality which a lot has to do with resolving power. These insane light-sucking vacuums we call sensors in our cameras need to be fed with the best light possible, and fast primes are highly suggested for wildlife. When I shot with the 400mm f2.8 for the week I had it (on loan from Canon) I really understood the quality of the big fast primes, and why sports and wildlife shooters would want them. As a Nikon shooter, I wouldn't put anything else on my camera except a Nikon lens, their glass is no short of stunning at that level. It's funny, there's an intangible quality to the flagship lenses that you just need to see. I shot with a Canon 85mm f1.8 on my 5D Mark III, it's a $400 fast portrait lens, and the image quality was great. When I shot with the Canon 85mm f1.2 which costs $2199 when not on rebate, my jaw hit the floor just looking through the viewfinder, and especially after seeing the images shot at f1.2 which is why you'd buy that lens. Was it worth 5x the price? ABSOLUTELY. I do plan on adding that to my arsenal in time. If you want ultimately image amazingness, look towards the real deal. This is just my $.02, and others may hop on and say NO WAY, that Tamron is truly amazing. If so, do heed that, because we have a TON of talented shooters on NPN that give it straight from the hip. Please avoid the reviews on Amazon and even B&H or Adorama where they say "love this product, gives me crisp clear pictures all the time". I'm blown away when I see that kind of ambiguity on a high end lens, even the Tamron and Sigma zooms. Makes you wonder if they are even real reviews or paid plants.

Basically ditto what Paul said. If you really want to get into long lens photography, then you very well may have to eat PB&J for a while to get that first big lens. I've never owned the Tamron, but a friend had the 150-500 (I think that was the range) on a Nikon. Focusing was slow, imaqe quality was fine, but nothing stellar. In teaching workshops with long lenses I see a ton of lenses. Everything from the super tele's from the manufacturers to really bad long lenses and everything in between. Guess who is having the most fun and getting the killer sharp shots?

I agree about the quality of camera manufacturer long primes, and if you are really sure this is the Life for You then save until you can get there best (or maybe save a few bucks on a gently used one).

But if your Plan is to use a 600mm optic hand held then I'm not sure you'll see the image quality benefits of a $7-10K lens over a $1K lens. You won't find a lot of avian shooters here who regularly use a 600/4 lens hand held (outside of an occasional flight shot).

A friend is on the waiting list to rent the Tamron 150-600 to see if he really wants to own one. He referenced this test.

I've been using a Sigma 150-500 OS for the last several years, and while its shortcomings do become apparent at the 500 end of the range, it will produce acceptably sharp images given decent light and good technique. More important to me, though, is the zoom capability. I find this incredibly useful when shooting larger birds, allowing a variety of compositions and scales on a single photo op. However, if your primary goal is shooting passerines, probably you'll be using all of the focal length all the time, and the long prime is almost certainly your best choice.

I shoot with Canon, not Nikon, but I was in the same boat as you a few years ago, and had been shooting with exactly your lens, actually (used to use Nikon). **I would vote for the 300mm f4 + TC.** It's my current setup now on my 7D, and the results when using this gear can be amazing.

I've rented all kinds/brands of zoom lenses. I didn't find one that gave the IQ that a good prime will. I would also encourage you to rent or borrow the two lenses you are considering, if you haven't already. Nothing like having them in hand and comparing your results with them side-by-side. (Lensrentals.com is great.)

Also remember to add any crop factor based on your sensor to determine the real "reach" of your lens+TC setup.

Everything everyone has said. And if a diet of PBJs for three years doesn't appeal, consider buying a refurbished prime lens instead. They usually are 60% or so of new, and, in the case of Canon at least, indistinguishable from new. I use a Canon 500mm f4 IS II for bird photos, purchased for a *lot* less than a new lens, and am completely satisfied with image quality.

Thanks for all the input! As I plan on doing this for a looong time, I know what the right choice really is. I will go for the Nikon 300mm f/4 ASAP.

Alan, one thing to consider if you are going to be handholding a lot is the Nikon 300F4 does not have vibration reduction/image stabilization. If you are quite steady and will be photographing in adequate light it may not be a big issue. In addition to my Canon 500F4 and 300F4 lenses, I have a Sigma 150-500 that while not quite as sharp as the Canon 300F4 does give more range and does very well as long as I stop down to F8 or more and that new version is optically stabilized. There seems to be more of a range of quality in these zoom lenses, you can get a great copy or a bad copy, so I would say whatever lens you buy, make sure you have a return period in which you can test it out.

"... the Nikon 300F4 does not have vibration reduction/image stabilization." Are you kidding me??

Time to make the switch to Canon, Alan! 7D here you come.

Alan, I have been shooting with a Nikon D7000 and the nikkor 300 f4 with a 1.4 TC for years and I am very happy with this walk around combination. I also have the 70-300 and found the image quality is much better with a prime lens. At one point I was thinking about getting the Tamron 150-600mm but I have become spoiled with the high quality images from my current setup. Sometime in the next couple of years I will probably get the Nikkor 300 f2.8 with the 2.0 III TC to get me at the 600 range. If you have the time view my website to see what you can get with proper shooting technique without VR.
Regards,
Jim