Wildlife lens or teleconverter combo?

I'm looking for a decent option to shoot wildlife and birds with. Currently I'm asking way too much from my 70-210 beercan. I find I'm almost continuously using it at 210mm where it obviously doesn't perform best and even then I need more reach. I need to stay under £1000 if at all possible as I'm on a budget (aren't we all?) but I'm not averse to second hand if I can get it. Currently I'm considering hiring and trying...

70-400mm 4-5.6 G SSM although I'm worried it may prove too heavy for being in the field all day. I'd rather avoid relying on a monopod if possible to keep myself fully mobile.

70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G SSM although I've read it can be a little soft at 300 which is where I'm likely to use it.

Thirdly I've debated about getting a teleconverter but I have little to no knowledge in how much impact they'd have on IQ or light as well as being less researched in what I could team it with for good results.

I'd really welcome some advice from those who have used or know these lenses as I'm currently going round in circles reading reviews that praise and slate them in equal measure!

Skip the TC unless you already have a G class prime lens. Wildlife photographers always lust for more reach. The 70-400mm G is probably the best Sony has to offer unless you really get into the big bucks and heavy weight. There is a new Tamron 150-600mm coming on the market sometime in the next few months that may be a good option for you. It will be around $1070 in the USA. Reviews look promising, but none are with the Sony mount.

The old Tamron 200-500mm is also a good lens for wildlife. It only weighs 3 pounds. The Sigma 150-500mm is a little more expensive and weighs a pound more.

300mm is enough for wildlife, but there will be times when you will wish for more reach. The Tamron 70-300mm is nearly as good as the Sony 70-300mm G and is far cheaper if you decide to go that route.

I have used the Beercan, the Big Beercan, the Bigma and the Sony 70-400mm G2. All are capable of taking very nice wildlife photos. The longer reach just makes it a little easier sometimes. I can say from experience, good technique is at least as important as focal length. Also, good post processing skills are as important as good photography skills.

Ed's advise is good, but I would advise spending slightly more and settle for the 70-400mm G1/G2 if you can! Great lens and worth every pence/penny!

You will regret getting the 70-300mm..........!

cheers

-M

I would recommend the 200-500 from what i have seen/read. I love wildlife photography and get by with an 100-300f4 for reach.

Many times i would love and almost need another 200mm. But also on the opposite end a fast 70-200 has been the best solution lens depending on speed/light/movement.

So figure into your decision how much range vs speed you need/want for what your mainly shooting. A sigma 100-300f4 maybe? The sony g isn't know for bokeh but it is for clarity/sharpness open. The tamrom is very well revered/regarded lens.. a bit lighter and comes with a 6 year warranty. -Good luck-brian




200mm 3.5






tokina 100-300atx another 100/200mm would/could have been sweet here*

.

I have an A65 for wildlife. I started with an SAL18250. It did "OK", but you really needed F8 to get a decent picture and the color contrast was not that great. So I went with a 70400G lens. Very nice lens with good reach, sharp, and good contrast. On the down side it was too heavy for hand held unless well braced and would often present harsh bokeh. I decided to try the 70300G. I really, really like this lens. It's light enough to walk around with. It is very sharp at f5.6 all the way to 300mm and has excellent color contrast. I feel more than compensated for the 100mm I lost on the 70400G.

.

.

This cooper hawk was 25 yards away and these are 50 percent crops. The squirrel was closer and was full frame. Both taken at 300mm. (450mm equivalent on the A65).

.

Fuzzwang said:

I'm looking for a decent option to shoot wildlife and birds with. Currently I'm asking way too much from my 70-210 beercan. I find I'm almost continuously using it at 210mm where it obviously doesn't perform best and even then I need more reach. I need to stay under £1000 if at all possible as I'm on a budget (aren't we all?) but I'm not averse to second hand if I can get it. Currently I'm considering hiring and trying...
70-400mm 4-5.6 G SSM although I'm worried it may prove too heavy for being in the field all day. I'd rather avoid relying on a monopod if possible to keep myself fully mobile.

Click to expand...

As has been mentioned Tamron has the new 150-600 tele coming out at a very attractive price within your budget. Look around and there are several threads on it which can lead to seeing samples of the images it can do. This lens is according to Tamron the direct replacement for the very old 200-500 who's basic design is several decades old. I do have a 200-500 and it can get very good images, but is lagging behind lenses like the Sony 70-400G which is what I use now and certainly is unlikely to keep up with the 150-600 which is what I have on pre order. I do also use the Sony 70-300G which works pretty well with things like butterflies, dragonflies and such like. And I also use the 100mm Minolta D macro lens a lot for wildflowers. Along with some shorter lenses like the Tamron 18-270 for walkabout shooting. Outdoor forays into natural areas can turn up a very wide range of subjects requiring several good lenses to cover them all.

Going out trying to use a long lens with poor support is really somewhat a waste of money. The budget for a long lens should always include good support. Monopod is only part way there, same with cheap tripods designed to support only shorter lenses. You can be mobile with a tripod. And it's what makes a quality long lens worth the money. But you need to go with tripods designed for long lens use. If going for the 150-600 then you probably need a high quality gimbal head as well as a heavy duty tripod under that. The two tripods I have that I'll be using with the 150-600 will be the Gitzo CF GT3541XLS or the GT5541LS and on them the Custom Brackets Gimbal head. When I got these I got them for way less than the list prices off ebay, and never regret having them. They are the levels that Gitzo recommends for long lenses. Yes, combined with the cost of the 150-600 you will exceed your budget, so hunting bargains and saving until you can afford them will be necessary.

For long lens support I also at times use a Kirk window mount on my Ranger, or a Shoulder mount, or just beanbags and found support out there. Each choice will have a different keeper rate, but all of those will beat handheld. Yes, I do handheld, even though a lot of the time it's a exercise in optimism even at 400mm let alone 600mm.

Fuzzwang said:

70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G SSM although I've read it can be a little soft at 300 which is where I'm likely to use it.
Thirdly I've debated about getting a teleconverter but I have little to no knowledge in how much impact they'd have on IQ or light as well as being less researched in what I could team it with for good results.
I'd really welcome some advice from those who have used or know these lenses as I'm currently going round in circles reading reviews that praise and slate them in equal measure!

Click to expand...

Teleconverters are kind like a lottery. You really don't know if a combo other than the manufacturer's expensive matched TC and lens will give you good images without trying the combo.

The idea of using a TC rather than a long tele, or cropping a lot on a shorter tele is generally going to add a lot of empty magnification which is not the way to get top images. If you are after the best images those come from using a quality long tele that gets you there without cropping or TC for most of your shots. Note that does not mean you have to spring for the way high priced single focal length primes in long tele. There are quality images coming out of zooms too.

While fieldcraft and luck can get you close to some wildlife there's lots more that are not going to be at all helpful getting close to them. I'm a field biologist and they don't give me any respect either though I've spent a lifetime learning fieldcraft.

I've used many long tele's, it's a major portion of my shooting along with macro. -- And it is true you can never have enough focal length. I do use 1.4x TC at times in combinations I know work reasonably well. Also long tele is where I've done the most moving from lens to lens as better ones show up. And I've been doing that since the MF film days, better stuff does appear from time to time even for folks like me who have no sales to support my habit. I expect the 150-600 won't be the last, but I hope it will keep me going for many years. Just like the 70-400G and the Tamron 200-500 did before. I expect that the 70-400G and 70-300G will still keep seeing a lot of use, the 150-600 really covers a different range.



If you think any of those are too heavy I also have and occasionally use a couple of excellent Tamron primes 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f4. And either of those exceeds 5 lbs. I can handhold their weight for only 10-15 minutes at a time but do get nice shots even with that limitation. They don't see a lot of use mostly because they are single focal length primes, not because of their weight.

Fuzzwang said:

I'm looking for a decent option to shoot wildlife and birds with. Currently I'm asking way too much from my 70-210 beercan. I find I'm almost continuously using it at 210mm where it obviously doesn't perform best and even then I need more reach. I need to stay under £1000 if at all possible as I'm on a budget (aren't we all?) but I'm not averse to second hand if I can get it. Currently I'm considering hiring and trying...
70-400mm 4-5.6 G SSM although I'm worried it may prove too heavy for being in the field all day. I'd rather avoid relying on a monopod if possible to keep myself fully mobile.

70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G SSM although I've read it can be a little soft at 300 which is where I'm likely to use it.
Thirdly I've debated about getting a teleconverter but I have little to no knowledge in how much impact they'd have on IQ or light as well as being less researched in what I could team it with for good results.
I'd really welcome some advice from those who have used or know these lenses as I'm currently going round in circles reading reviews that praise and slate them in equal measure!

Click to expand...

I have all these three lenses.

Using 70-400G is the only answer..it is inexpensive and it is very sharp

A lot of useful advice there, thank you for taking the time.

IM very lucky becaause I dont know what a good photograph looks like.

Good points from brian14478, Ed at Ridersite, WaltKnapp

I would like to add that the Beercan is not a great choice for contrasting scenes in wildlife due to the aberrations (lens issues) it has. I got the 70-300G because its not big like the 70-400G and was within my budget and zoom range.

I haven't used a TC with the 70-300G but that may be a good option for you. May be some one who has used the 70-300G with a TC can answer!

kartikjayaraman said:

Good points from brian14478, Ed at Ridersite, WaltKnapp

I would like to add that the Beercan is not a great choice for contrasting scenes in wildlife due to the aberrations (lens issues) it has. I got the 70-300G because its not big like the 70-400G and was within my budget and zoom range.

I haven't used a TC with the 70-300G but that may be a good option for you. May be some one who has used the 70-300G with a TC can answer!

Click to expand...

The 70-400G does fairly well with my Kenko 300 Pro 1.4x TC. Same magnification Minolta also does well but that shuts off any AF while the Kenko still keeps some AF.

The 70-300G does not do as well with my TC. Certainly stick with 1.4x TC if you are going to try that route. My Tamron 200-500 get's better images than using the TC with the 70-300G, but the 70-400G with the TC's above edges out the 200-500 for IQ.

Mark K said:

Using 70-400G is the only answer..it is inexpensive and it is very sharp

Click to expand...

It's looking like there may be another option coming along. The Tamron 150-600 when it's released for Sony will be cheaper than the 70-400G. And looking at early images shot mostly with Canon DSLRs the new Tamron may produce images in the same quality class as the 70-400G.

I do have the Tamron on pre order, want it as soon as I can get it. And I don't think I'm making a error going for it.

I do not expect it will in my system completely replace my 70-400G or even my 70-300G. More like it will add another option depending on exactly what I'm doing out in my outdoor forays. Each lens will be the optimum choice for different parts of the field. I go on forays with more than one lens ready to go on my a700 bodies. I do expect for unpredictable times the 70-400G will be less on a body and the 150-600 will be more likely ready to go, just for the longer range of reach.

It's supposed to cost about $1200 and initial tests are extremely positive.

Yeah I've been having to correct a lot of CA with my beercan in PP but I don't blame it. It performs wonderfully when I use it fairly, I'm just asking too much of it for what I'm trying to shoot. I'm finally at a point where I can realistically look at buying something more suitable.

tbcass said:

It's supposed to cost about $1200 and initial tests are extremely positive.

Click to expand...

Tamron has confirmed that all three versions will cost $1069, no about on it. And the Canon version that is shipping is at $1069.

Of course if you include sales tax, shipping and so on that might reach a total of $1200 but that's not the list price.

One of the sharpest long lenses is the Sigma 500mm f4.5. I had a search on ebay for two years before one came up but now there is another one. Not used for wildlife yet but this one taken as a test. The house is four miles away. Of course it is very heavy and really needs manual focus but just about usable for wildlife with a rifle grip.

Sigma 500mm f4.5 with A33 1/500 f10 ISO1600

While I am in the process of leaving Sony I do have considerable experience with the 70-300G and the 70-400 G as I owned both lenses. I had used both of them with a 1.4 Tamron SP Pro and a 2X Sony TC.

You are far better with the 70-400 G if you can afford it than anything else. A used one might well be a good idea (mine is sold). That said it is a big lens and you likely need a monopod if you are shooting for a day.

The 70-300 G is a very different lens. it was part of my light travel kit. It is easily handheld. It also is likely less than 1/2 the cost of a 70-400.

I would stay away from the TC's with zooms although they do give you extra reach fairly cheaply. I would suggest a Tamron or Kenko pro version 1.4 is the best way to start.

There are some older options as well - the Tamron 200-500 is decent as is the 170-500 Sigma (some of the older versions are fairly inexpensive although I think there is an issue with some of the older Sigma's with the newer Sony cameras). The 2x TC was really something on these two lenses on my A700 or my wife's A550.

Where a TC really shines is on a prime lens. I had a Minolta 200 2.8 that worked really well with both TC's. It was a small light combination and very easy to handle even in cramped quarters.

Another budget option is the Minolta 100-400 APO. It is easy to handhold and performs reasonably well. I sold mine when I bought the 70-400 G lens.

Good luck and have fun.

I am using the Sony 70-400mm but I have the Tamrom 150-600mm pre ordered. The Sony x2 teleconverter will not focus the 70-400mm on my a99 but I also have a Kenko x1.4 that will. I actually prefer it. The 70-400mm is not that heavy to me. With that it's much heavier than the 70-300mm.

I've been using my Sony 70-200 2.8 G with my Sony G series 2X TC. for 5 or 6 years before that I used my Minolta 80 -200 APO and Kenko 1.4 or 2.0 I am not that picky about the shots I've taken. I'm not disappointed by anything less than photographic excellence. The way I look at it, a fair photograph is much better than no photograph at all. I've seen hundreds of shots of Big foot and hundreds of shots of UFO's and I can tell you, any photo that I take is much better than any of those Big foot or UFO shots that have been published over the last 60 years.

I've even stacked two 2X TC together on my 70-200 G just for an experiments and guess what, I could make out what the shot actually was and Identify the bird. Even from 100 feet away.

I was about to buy the New 70-400 GII, but pulled back because, although the GI is a great lens, I held back because the GII was suppose to be weather sealed. Now the Tamron 150-600 is looming in the wings ( claims to have weather resistance ) and will indeed AF with a 1.4 TC. Birding is all about reach. So the 150-600 looks very promising especially if you are not a pixel peeper.

Bill aka EO