Working as a Nature Photographer definitely has its benefits. Among them are traveling, spending time outdoors and being able to study and watch wildlife. There is not a lot of difference in photographing wildlife vs. hunting wildlife in the way you prepare. You have to scout, find the right location and use the right equipment to get the shot. I have found a great quality lens that is very affordable that allows me to capture my wildlife photos. The Tamron 200-500mm lens .
The lens is lightweight at 43 ounces and under 9 inches in length. The lens has a tripod collar that allows you to mount it to a tripod or monopod for better balance when shooting. As with all Tamron lenses, the lens hood is included also. The lens fits full frame DSLRs as well as APS-C sensor cameras and will work with traditional 35mm film SLRs. The glass is LD, which is Tamron�s designation for Low Dispersion Glass, perfect for capturing sharp images. The lens has internal focusing which allows for closer minimum focus distance throughout the zoom range. It is also a benefit when using a polarizer on the lens as the front element does not rotate as you focus.
What does all of this mean? The photographer is able to capture great wildlife images while carrying a lightweight and inexpensive lens. It is capable of producing extremely sharp images throughout the zoom range. I use it for birding, mammals and even for some portraiture work. I have it from a really good source right now that Camera Land is throwing in a monopod with the purchase of the lens from them.

is the vignetting in the first shot a result of lens/sensor combo or was it done in PP, ie. Lightroom etc?

The vignetting was all done during post processingin PS CS5. I wanted more emphasis on the white horse.

Chris, another thing, you can usually tell in camera vignetting vs. post processing by the amount of "feathering" that is present. Most people that add it during the processing will feather it so it falls off more gradually. With in camera, you tend to have a harder vignette especially as you work your way through the apertures. You can also tell by the amount of detail in the vignetted area. In processing you are simply darkening the edges, where in camera it is actually an optical cause and detail gets lost. Thanks again.

It would be nice if someone had two of the same bodies and put one of these lenses on one body and a canon L lens on the other body. Mounted them on a bar on the same tripod, and used one hand to release one camera and the other hand to release the other camera, at the same time.

(kind of like checking to see if one boot is warmer than the other. Put one brand on one foot and the other brand on the other foot, and go out walking)

That would be interesting to see. The above images were shot at 500mm and f8. One thing to consider though is neither Canon or Nikon make a lens in this range. For Canon they make a 100-400mm and 1.4x tele-converter. Nikon makes a 200-400mm and a 1.4x tele-converter. You won't be using IR or VR because you are on a tripod. For the Canon you are looking $2000, the Nikon $7,000-$8,000. Now granted there might be situations where the VR will come in handy and that makes a difference possibly. The Tamron is substantially less. I shot these with the D-700 and have blown the horse image up to 30-40inches in a print. I am very pleased with the sharpness.
I would still love to see the side by side test though.

Does Tamron makea lens that big with IR/VR? I find that I get in to quite a few situations were there isn't time for the tripod (if I even have one with me) and the VR is a handy feature hand holding heavy lenses like a 200-400. But as you mentioned- you pay a hefty price for them.

Example: these were shot at or near 400mm free hand.





RC

Currently the longest lens with VC (their designation for vibration compensation) is the 70-300mm VC PZD. I use a monopod most of the time when I am "working" wildlife. Both images I posted earlier are off of a monopod.
Nice images by the way!

I'm heading to Africa this summer, and been contemplating a long range telephoto zoom. I currently have the Canon 100-400mm, but was thinking a little bit more range would be nice.

Obviously I don't have deep enough pockets for the Canon L Primes (500mm f/4 ; 600mm f/4), and besides, they're a little too heavy and unwieldy.

In addition to the Tamron 200-500mm, I'm considering these two:

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO
Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO

Both are heavier than the Tamron, but I've been lead to believe that either Sigma lens are optically better than the Tamron, plus they have the added bonus of having stabilization.

Appreciate feedback and advice.

I guess I'll have to figure out what I did with my monopod!

RC

FOsteology, I will try the best I can but there are a lot of variables involved. Are you shooting full frame or APS-C. With APS-C you get the benefit of narrowing your angle of view and have roughly a 540mm with your 100-400mm. With another lens you will have an 800mm roughly. Another variable is where your trip is at in Africa and is it with a photography tour or general tour? On a photography tour the vehicles you will travel in are designed to shoot through a stand up roof. Plus on photo trips they will turn off the engine to reduce vibration also. A tripod or monopod probably is not a possibility but a bean bag may be.
This is the trip of a lifetime possibly so taking the right equipment is obviously important. I obviously have seen and used the Tamron. I have seen images from the 150-500mm, they are good. I have not seen the 50-500mm however. On a photo specific trip non VC (VR) would probably be fine, but I would not recommend missing a shot because of movement. I can't honestly imagine the Sigma lenses being optically better but if the security of knowing you can get the shot is there, I would recommend the 150-500mm. A cost saving alternative could also be to get a 1.4x tele-converter for the 100-400mm.
I hope this has helped a little bit. Camera Land offers several versions of the 1.4x tele converter starting as low as $229. You will lose only a stop of light with the converter which is only a half stop at the maximum range vs. the Sigma. If you have any other questions please let me know. I look forward to some great images from Africa!

Shooting a Canon 7D (APS-C) and I'll shoot with and without a monopod (depending on circumstances) as this will be a hunting safari with my youngest son.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe I would loose AF with a TC on the Canon 100-400mm. Interesting enough, I've read that with good light, the Tamron 200-500mm with a Kenco 1.4x will still AF (albeit slow). I just wonder how much it would need to be stopped down, and at what ISO to get sharp pictures.

The weight of the Tamron is a plus, but pictures I've seen online show the lens looking like a bazooka fully extended! How well does it balance??

It is very lightweight. Bazooka...they should use that in their ads! The lens hood is a good part of that though. The Sigma is about the same. I would think though you would not even need a tele converter with the 500mm though. You are effectively looking at 800mm on the long end. I haven't heard about the loss of AF on the Canon. With the 7D you should pick up a few stops with the ISO if needed too. Beyond early morning and late evening, lighting should not be an issue. A monopod will make a huge difference. It balances great especially with the tripod collar.

Fost,

For your Africa trip, IS/VR is your friend! If you do a photo drive in Kruger, you are basically not allowed to leave the vehicle. So tripods/monopods are of little use(not to mention a pain to transport on the flight. What I got the most use of, is a Bush Hawk shoulder stock, and a bean bag. As with a rifle, if you rest the shoulder stock on something, coupled with IS/VR, you can get some really sharp shots with long glass. Take an empty bean bag, and fill it over there. Set on wound down car window, and rest your lens just like a rifle on sandbags...works really well. If you use 3 legged shooting sticks, they make a passable support for a long lens, in a pinch! You'll definitely want your 100-400 at least. If you can go longer do it.

Also take a full compliment of gleaning gear. A good dust bulb is a must, and it would be a real good idea to have a means to clean your sensor. It can be damn dusty.

We're going back in 2 weeks and can't wait! Hope you have a great trip!

Jeff

Jeff makes some great points. Another thing to check out is if you are using a shooting stick, a lot of them have forks that will unscrew on the stick. The screw is typically a 1/4 x20, which happens to be the threads in a tripod collar. Since it is hunting trip getting multi use out of some of your equipment is a bonus. Taking a couple of old empty pillow cases works great to cover your equipment during travel and then fill them as a bean bag. Jeff's idea of the rifle stock is really a great way of shooting long lenses.
Jeff, are you going on a photo tour or hunt. I look forward to seeing some great shots! You should take a photo of your set up over there as a demo.

We'll be hunting with both rifles and cameras. Probably spend more time with a camera this time. It's a target rich environment for both!

Jeff

Appreciate the input.

The more I think about it, seems I would probably be best served by keeping and using the Canon 100-400 and enlarge/crop if necessary.

Too bad Canon doesn't have an affordable 500mm Prime like they do with the 300mm and 400mm.

While I'm a Nikon user, and have never used a 100-400 IS, I think it will make a great lens for handheld or improvised support. Take lots of memory cards!!!

Jeff

FOsteology,
I've got a Bigma (Sigma 50-500). I haven't shot with it much, but I could try shooting it handheld, and off a monopod with my crop sensor 30D if you think it would help you.
Chris.

Hey Bob,
Did you ever get the Osa Mauser?
As far as AF goes with a 1.4x TC you may want to research that as some of the aftermarket TC's like the Kenko or Tammy may not report and so your AF will work. You can also tape the left three pins so your your 100-400 will AF with the 1.4x. I have done this with the 100-400 several times. However this is something you want to test with your lens in advance as the AF can be slower.
Instead of just focusing on FL I'd suggest you give aperture some thought as well. The 100-400 is already f5.6 @ 400mm and you loose another stop with the TC.
You may want to consider looking for a used Canon 300 f2.8. You could use it then re-sell it after your trip and have use of the lens for little more than the cost of freight. This is far more cost effective than renting if the purchase is an option. This way you would have 300 2.8 and 420 f4IS with the TC at a fraction of the cost of the 500 f4IS.
Either way the 100-400L is a great piece of glass for your trip that offers a lot of flexibility.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=29503

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"!