Long lenses on holiday

[rayparlour88]

Hi there,

 

I will head over to Alaska in the Summer (bear watching, boat trips etc.), and looking into a safari to Africa next year. I am looking for a "lightweight" solution to take a longer AF lens with me.

 

The long zoom lenses options (Sigma 150-600mm C with mc-11, or the Tamron 150-600mm with LAEA3), are almost 2kg/4.3lbs each. 

Shorter, native alternatives FE70-200 F4 and FE70-300, are lighter but miss the reach.

Canon 300mm F4 or 400mm F5.6 with Metabones IV lack the versability

Canon 100-400mm with Metabones IV is the worst AF performer of the bunch?

 

I currently own the 55F1.8 and the 28F2, which for me is enough to play around <100mm

 

Any advise would be helpful,

 

Ray

[alasdairmac]

It's not the fastest lens on the market, but when weight and luggage space are at a premium I turn to my Tamron 18-270. If you keep away from the very bottom and top ends of it's range, it gives excellent results and weighs in at about 0.6 kilos. It tends to live on my camera in these situations.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rayparlour]

Thanks, not a big fan of superzoom. Hope to have a bit more quality on my trips. 

[Lescatalpas]

The FE70-300 is quite ok for nature shots, certainly if you have an A7II or R or RII full frame.  There is a Flickr group,  https://www.flickr.com/groups/3016530@N22/ , on this lens, where you can see many results, including nature shots.

The stabilizer works great and you don't need an adapter.

[JimmyD]

+1 for the FE 70-300 suggestion, particularly if you can pair it with an A6500 or A6300 which gives you 450mm.  The lens is plenty sharp at 300mm.  There is also the Sony A mount 70-400mm, which will work with the Sony adapter, but this lens isn't any lighter than the Tamron 150-600.  Given your fantastic destinations, I would be inclined to grin and bear the weight and take the Tamron 150-600mm.  I have the first version of this lens and use it with the LA3 adapter with great results (just don't go all the way to 600mm--the lens is very sharp up to about 550mm), and I understand the new version of this lens is even a tad better optically.

[steve of stonehenge]

In November last year I was on a barrier island of North Carolina (which we call the Outer Banks).  This island was protected and the only inhabitants were "wild horses".  These horses have been DNA tested and are related to Spanish horses.  They are descendants of horses that  most likely escaped from a Spanish explorer ship wreck in the 15th century.

 

A little TMI but wanted to give some background info.  So I got 50 to 100 feet away and got some great shots.  I used the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS and the Zeiss Batis 85.  Shots below.  But these lenses will not work with bears or lions!!!  If it were me, get a lens much longer than 200MM.

 

First image A7 ii body Canon 70-200 f4L shot at 200mm, 1/2000 sec, F4, ISO 200

 

Second image A7 ii Batis 85 shot at f4, 1/2500 sec, ISO 200

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[JimmyD]

Exactly--200mm not enough; 300mm really not long enough either unless you are using on one of the crop bodies.  This is why I suggested the 150-600 Tamron.

[Username]

My brother's house if full of safari pix, printed about 30" 

wide, all shot with an M-Leica which means the longest

lens is 135mm. The safari vehicles get much closer to 

animals than you might expect. The various safari tour

companies all use the same trails, and the animals all 

get rather used to the presence of the vehicles. One of 

everybody's fave shots is of a cheetah on the hood of 

the vehicle, shot across the windscreen with a P&S :-)   

   

Similar situation in Hudson's Bay, visiting polar bears, 

altho with those white grizzly bears, and arctic weather, 

you don't use wide open vehicles. You don't even lean 

out of an open window. The African wildlife is waaaay 

less wild than the bears ! Maybe it's the climate. You 

can actually step out of your safari vehicle to answer 

nature's call ... with carnivorous wildlife rather close. If 

you hang your arm out of a stopped arctic tour vehicle, 

you may very likely lose that arm, or even worse. 

[rayparlour]

Thanks guys, most in favour of the Tamron. Would you prefer the tamron with LAEA3 over the Sigma 150-600 C with mc-11 on the A7ii. The Sigma will be easier to re-sell later due to the canon mount.

[Lescatalpas]

If you plan to re-sell your long lens after your adventures, why don't you rent one?

[rayparlour88]

I'm not saying I will sell the lens afterwards, it is just an option. I am just not used to such long lenses and do not miss it currently for my style of shooting (landscape/street). The zoo is closeby, and the airport as well, so I might endevour in some of these trips and see if I enjoy them. But, if it turns out that I will only use the lens on holidays, I will sell.

Renting is rather expensive here in the Netherlands. Buying and selling should be cheaper, especially buying second hand (which is an option for the Tamron).

[tizeye]

+1 for the FE 70-300 suggestion, particularly if you can pair it with an A6500 or A6300 which gives you 450mm.  The lens is plenty sharp at 300mm.  There is also the Sony A mount 70-400mm, which will work with the Sony adapter, but this lens isn't any lighter than the Tamron 150-600.  Given your fantastic destinations, I would be inclined to grin and bear the weight and take the Tamron 150-600mm.  I have the first version of this lens and use it with the LA3 adapter with great results (just don't go all the way to 600mm--the lens is very sharp up to about 550mm), and I understand the new version of this lens is even a tad better optically.

 

The Sony 70-400 isn't any lighter than the Tamron 150-600???? Ignoring adapter weight which would be used on all variations, it is about a lb lighter with both Tamron and Sigma 4.3lb/1.95kg vs Sony 3.31 lb/1.5kg. It is also more compact taking a 77mm filter vs 95mm and brighter f4.5-5.6 vs f5-6.3. Unfortunately, the Sony costs twice as much at over $2000 and the reason I am hoping Sony DOESN'T create an FE version with the similar price, but a competitor to the new $1400 Nikon noted below.

 

If price is no issue, an interesting native FE mount is the 70-200 f2.8 Gmaster (3.26lb and $2500) with the 2x Converter designed for that lens (7 oz and $500) creating a 140-400 f5.6 lens which would also be very useful without the converter.

 

Finally, unfortunately there is no decent/reliable Nikon converter and one in particular has reports of frying the electronics (destroying) Sony cameras. But, that $1395 Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (fixed aperture) would be ideal! It, like the Tamron and Sigma, is quite heavy at 4.6lb/2.09kg and 95mm filter.

[rayparlour88]

I think the Nikon 200-500 would be ideal (but unfortunately no AF possibilities). Would the 70-400mm Version I be a good option? I have found one second hand for a decent price. Just not sure about the AF speed of the 70-400 V.1 vs the Tamron 150-600mm with the LAEA3 on the A7ii

[JimmyD]

I do not have experience with the A7II, but in decent light the autofocus speed of the Tamron 150-600 with the LAEA3 is just fine on the A7RII.