Home Forums Gear Photography The Tamron 200-500mm lens for wildlife

IMO, dropping a bunch of cash on a 300/2.8 w/1.4x, to gain only 20mm of focal length, and one stop of light, is a waste of money. The 100-400 you already own, will work just fine, and if you need another stop, crank up your ISO. The only meaningful step up, would be to a 400/2.8 or a 500/4. Both of which are very heavy, and very expensive.

I'd also forget about trying to use a teleconverter on a f5.6 lens for wildlife. Under ideal conditions, sure it will work, albeit slowly. Shooting in the morning/evening, on moving game(and most African game is always moving), it will give you fits. If you're going to be in the bushveld, your auto-focus will be challenged enough, trying to focus on a subject that doesn't contrast greatly with the background, in addition to being obscured by grass/brush. Couple that with trying to make it work at f8(f/5.6 lens w/1.4x), and you'll frustrate yourself.

Unless you're cool with sinking a ton of money on a long prime, just practice with your 100-400 off of improvised rests, and have a ball! That's JMO, of course.

Jeff

The gain in AF speed on the 300 2.8 Vs the 100-400 is substantial. Even with a TC on the prime.
The 300 2.8 has second generation IS Vs the first generation IS on the 100-400.
With the 100-400 you must turn off the IS on any rest. That's a major disadvantage.
The 300 2.8 is one of the few lens's that excels with the 2x TC offering a LOT more reach.
Canon lens prices are climbing rapidly and the new 300 2.8 MKII is going to send used MK1 prices higher.
There is almost no chance at all a buyer will loose money on a used MK1 right now which is why I suggest it as an option.
Buy it, use it, sell it.
Cranking up the ISO is the last resort from my perspective.
Either way the 100-400L is still a great piece of glass.

I think we are all agreeing, there are a lot of variables that are going to make it an interesting trip to say the least! All the points are valid, lots of movement, chance of low light, dust, shooting from a vehicle, additional cost of fast glass. I think in the end, I would imagine you want to get the best shots possible to record a great trip. Expense is the key factor. I think we should all take a trip over there and put all of the theories into practice to be able to give the best advice the next time this question comes up. Now if we can just convince FOsteology to foot the bill....

Was not aware of the 100-400IS AF/IS shortcomings...certainly worth considering. I'd still take it. For shots from a vehicle on a game drive, having a zoom to quickly compose a shot is a huge advantage. Adding/swapping TC's on a prime, in a game car full of people, and dust, is slow, and a PITA to me. In that situation, a big zoom is tough to beat. I'm spoiled with my 200-400/f4. Just about as good a all around critter lens that I've found. Canon would be wise to copy/compete with it.

Jeff

What did we do before IS? It seems so long ago!!! I guess I am still a dinosaur, I am sticking with my sharp, lightweight Tamron 200-500mm(and all the cash I am saving).

Good points Jeff. I'll never let my 100-400 go because I get the reach and flexibility of a zoom. A great lens for the $$$. Sadly I Doubt Canon will ever update this lens with the new 200-400L that was supposed to be available later this year, prior to the disaster in Japan.
The new 200-400 has a built in 1.4x TC so you avoid all of the valid concerns Jeff noted about swapping TC's/lenses in the field.
It's going to be a great piece of glass for those who pony up.
That lens is expected to have a MSRP around 10k and sell for roughly $8,000.
As an aside Jeff is shooting a Nikon and currently (IMO) Nikon is handling high ISO noise better than Canon.
On the 7D I prefer to stay 400 or lower but find images clean up nicely all the way to 1600.

Appreciate the additional info. and feedback.

Although it's an option (read up on taping pins) I have no plans/intentions to utilize a TC on my 100-400. Because of the dust and other considered factors, I won't be swapping lenses either. I'll have a couple other camera's along as well (GH2 and E-PL1).

By all accounts the 300 f/2.8 lens is phenomenal. Comes with a HUGE price tag and added weight too. If I were to be able to scrounge up that kind of scratch, I'd be inclined to purchase the 500mm f/4 instead.

The most common set up I see that goes to Africa from Canon;
500 f4 IS
100-400L
24-70 2.8.

I'd love to have a 500 f4 myself but right now that's an apples and oranges deal. A used 300 2.8 MKI in great shape is running right around $3,600 give or take $100.
A 500 is a solid 2k more used and a few pounds heavier.
I'd venture a guess that by this time next year both of these in MK1 form will be selling for a good bit more.
Either way If I was only taking one lens it wouldn't be a prime.

FOsteology, you just made things really simple and didn't realize it!!! The EPL-1 has image stabilization built into the sensor. I often shoot my Pens with my Tamron 200-500mm. Doing so gives you effectively a 400-1000mm lens with IS! If you go to the earlier posts about "Moon Shots" you will see an image I did of the Super Moon using that set up. All you need to do is pick up the adapter that allows you to mount the Tamron to micro 4/3. The GH2 is the same also with the IS. That lens is easy to use with the Pen because it still has an aperture ring and can be shot wide open easily enough.

The 100-400 is a lens I wish Nikon made! Probably one of the best focal length per ounce packages to be found. Nikon makes a 80-400, but I'm not impressed. It uses the old "drive shaft" off the body to drive the auto focus, which is slow, as well as a battery hog. Were it a internal focus, they might have something. Hadn't seen Canon's 200-400L. The built in TC sounds like a cool idea!

Jeff

That's a HUMONGOUS lens for that itty bitty camera!

What did David Brenner used to say? "I don't have a big nose, just a small face"!