Buying my first DSLR – Any Nikon D3100/3200 Users?

[sp3ctre]

Tom what do you think of the Canon 70-200 F4 IS?

Im looking for a new lens for mine and not sure what to get

I currently have:

A Canon EF 28-135 (which i will replace long term)
A Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM

I have bought a Canon EOS 5d MK2 recently after trading in my 500d with 18-55 & 55-250 lenses.

Ash

Am sure Tom will respond shortly, but I'll throw in my two penneth in the meantime...

All depends on what you want it for really. If you are after the extra reach then it's a really good lens, providing you have plenty of light to work with. If you will be shooting in lower light or at fast moving subjects you will wish you had the 2.8. Like all things there are pros and cons... it's cheaper than the 2.8, lighter than the 2.8, but you have to accept it's limitations.

... and I know the 2.8 wasn't previously mentioned, but I know a few folks who bought the f4 as a substitute to the 2.8, and while it's a cracking lens (v.sharp from what I've seen of it) it won't do the same work as the 2.8.

 

[tomscott]

The 70-200mm F4 is a stellar lens, optically it is excellent, great handling but its quite large and it doesn't really have a great range, great for portraits but other than that I think you will find it short.

Ive never actually used the F4 I always go for the 2.8s because I love the depth of field of F2.8 and its so much better in low light, the 70-200mm MKII is one of the best zoom lenses ever made. You can also put the 2x converter on it making it a 140-400mm F5.6 which is near enough on par with the 100-400mm but focuses a little slower, I find it very useful and I use that combo for all my motorsport as I can whip off the converter and have 2.8 again and not take two big lenses. Great IQ but its big and heavy.

Lotus 77, John Player Special, #56, driven by Nick Padmore, Historic Formula One, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

What I do own is the 70-300mm L, if I were you I would go for this instead. The image quality is on par with the 100-400mm MKII and the 70-200mm F4. Although the lens is a variable aperture so it will change through the zoom range. But it is much smaller gives an extra 100mm of reach and has a better and newer IS system. 70-200 is great but its range is limited, its quite big and you can only add a 1.4x tele converter on it to get the same sort of reach.

I took the 70-300mm traveling and its great because it will fit in any bag upright because its so small, although I found it short for the wildlife I was shooting for everything else it is excellent, very versatile. I have also used it for motorsport and its a fantastic lens because it has a IS mode 2 for panning.

The results are stellar from it. Heres a couple of images

Statue of Liberty, Liberty Island, NYC at sunset by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Misty Empire State Building, lit for the AFL and NFL championship games, Sunday 18th January 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Red Tailed Hawk, Cades Cove, Smoky Mountains by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Deer in golden light, Mammoth cave national park by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Winter Wren in the snow, Cades Cove, Smokey Mountains,Tennessee by Tom Scott, on Flickr

 

[hopz121]

Thanks for the replies guys,

I had not really thought about the 70-300 to be honest but it actually looks like a great lens and looks fairly compact. my original thought was the 70-200mm with a 1.4 extender eventually.

I plain on changing my 28-135 lens in the long term as well for something like a 24-105 F/4.0 L IS or a 24-70 F/4.0L IS as the 28-135 is an old lens now and i keep hear good things about the L series lenses.

What lens do you use the majority of the time on your SLR Tom?

Thanks

Ash

 

[tomscott]

What Jim said above!

The 2.8 is an incredible lens, its a staple in a pros kit and the best you can buy but its quite niche too for people that don't shoot events, weddings or portraits. There are other lenses that are a lot cheaper that can do a larger range of things like the 70-300mm L it wouldn't be my first choice for portraits but for everything else its amazing, travel, sports etc etc. I bought mine second hand and paid about £600 for it, bargain!

Its not a bad idea the 70-200 with a 1.4 but if you were to do that I would buy the F2.8 its more flexible. The 70-300mm covers all the above is cheaper than the 70-200 F4 with a 1.4 and it will focus faster. When you put a converter on a lens it usually reduces the af speed by 50% and a 2x can reduce it by 80% according to Canon, but from my testing its not all that bad. Maybe 30-50% max.

I have a fair amount of gear but my staples are:
5DMKIII, 24-105mm - I love this lens it has a bad rep for poor image quality but mine seems to be a great copy. I think its one of canons most versatile lenses, for day to day I keep this on 90% of the time.

I have 24-70mm F2.8 L, 70-200mm F2.8 MKII L and 16-35mm F2.8 MKII L which I use for all my professional work and its pretty much all I need for 90% of things really good combo and its whats called the holy trinity. There are a couple of them now in F2.8 and F4 both are great the F4s are now a great choice if you don't need low light capabilities and they are much lighter, great travel alternatives.

I also have 70-300mm L, 100mm F2.8 L Macro, 70-300mm DO, 17-55mm F2.8 EF-s, 50mm F1.8, 2x Extender MKII, Tamron 150-600mm, 580EX Flash.

TBH the 28-135mm was a good lens and it will serve a purpose, but its getting old now and the newer ones are much better. If I were you I would save some money and buy the 24-105mm over the 24-70 F4. It has more range and very similar image quality, the trick the 24-70 has is the macro ability but you have to be a few cm away from the subject so if its an insect its pointless but if you like to get close to other still life subjects without needing a macro lens its a good hybrid. You can buy the 24-105mm new white box (white box are lenses that come with camera kits that people didn't want with the kit) for super cheap now like £300-400 and in my mind I find the image quality really good, not as good as the newer MKII versions of the lenses but its focal range and constant F4 is amazing. Its also built like a tank, great buy.

 

[tomscott]

Talking of new toys this just arrived

Its massive!

 

[tomscott]

Little comparison

Tamron 150-600mm, Canon 70-200mm MKII, Canon 70-300mm, Canon 70-300mm DO

Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Excuse the girlfriends hand the 70-300mm DO struggles from zoom creep.

 

[hopz121]

Thanks for the advice Tom,

Maybe ill start with a 24-105 L series and then progress from there, i could also trade in my 28-135 to help fund it as well.

What is the Canon 70-300mm DO like? I saw this on my search earlier but didnt know much about it.
It seems alot smaller than the L series and USM version but claims to have th esame zoom is this correct?

Sorry for the thread high jack OP.

Ash

 

[tomscott]

Ye its a great choice. The thing with glass is that its something you can add over time my collection has grown over a 10 year period.

The 70-300mm is a great size its tiny, but the image quality and IS is not great and its very very expensive still around £1250 new. You can buy them for around £600 pre owned £400 if your lucky.

Its wasn't a well received lens and is still pretty rare. For the ultimate traveller I would say, but i would rather carry a little more weight than a poor quality lens.

Its the only Diffractive element zoom lens in the world. Diffractive elements are a lot more condensed than standard elements but they tend to give very soft smooth results everything has a halo round the outside. It didn't bother me much until I got my original 70-200mm F2.8 L (first non IS version) then i couldn't go back to it. I like to keep my gear and its useful when I want to travel really light and the images aren't for commercial use.

This is an image I took with it

Lowther Lambs, Lowther Castle, Penrith, Canon 70-300mm DO by Tom Scott, on Flickr

The image looks good but it needed a huge amount of selective sharpening and it just takes much longer to process. If you look at the image carefully it is still pretty soft and you can see the halo effect it has with the subject being back lit.

For the price its not a good lens if you can get one for £300-400 then its a great lens but the image quality for £1250 is really poor the 70-300mm L destroys it but its twice the size and weight but much cheaper.

Theres some decent info about it here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[buzyg]

Well having had my new Nikon Coolpix P610 for two weeks today and having driven the length of England and back in the same period, here are a few of my favorite phots from the past few days, just for comparison. Tom I know your going to have fun here. Obviously when you crop these really close they are nothing like the quality of a DSLR, with a dedicated lens. But I can get the camera in my pocket at a push. :wink:



Plymouth Smeatons Tower



Random Insect Crosby Seafront



Thrush Crosby Seafront



Zed on Thirlmere Dam



Flower Somewhere in North Wales



PortMeirion Gates



Portmeirion



Portmeirion Ship

 

[tomscott]

Excellent stuff buzyg! Just goes to show how capable these new cameras are!

 

[sp3ctre]

Excellent stuff buzyg! Just goes to show how capable these new cameras are!

On a side-note Tom, my Dad just bought one of these...

http://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Compact-Cameras/Leica-V-Lux-Typ-114

From the results I've seen so far, pretty impressive!

 

[buzyg]

Excellent stuff buzyg! Just goes to show how capable these new cameras are!

Cheers Tom I'll take an excellent from you all day long.

Absolutely delighted with the quality of the images. Having used an OM10 with all the trimmings, for25 years. I bought an Olympus SP560UZ in 2008 and was a little underwhelmed with the world of digital Photography. The new Camera has got me clicking again it's so much better.

 

[tomscott]

Excellent stuff buzyg! Just goes to show how capable these new cameras are!

On a side-note Tom, my Dad just bought one of these...

http://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Compact-Cameras/Leica-V-Lux-Typ-114

From the results I've seen so far, pretty impressive!

Wow that looks quite the camera! 400mm on a 1" sensor!! I think 1" sensors give you a 2.7x crop factor… 1080mm!!! makes the tammy look a bit poor really haha

Looks like you can get some really nice depth of field too

Really impressive for such a small camera good price too.

 

[tomscott]

Excellent stuff buzyg! Just goes to show how capable these new cameras are!

Cheers Tom I'll take an excellent from you all day long.

Absolutely delighted with the quality of the images. Having used an OM10 with all the trimmings, for25 years. I bought an Olympus SP560UZ in 2008 and was a little underwhelmed with the world of digital Photography. The new Camera has got me clicking again it's so much better.

Its a classic the OM10, we had a couple of the older versions of the Olympus SP560UZ around 2006 at school. I remember them being pretty good at the time, but I hadn't really been exposed to any type of cameras really.

I seem to remember 2004-06 being sort of the time when digital started to replace film but it was still pretty prominent pros hadn't moved 100% from film. I only really got into photography at the end of GCSE start of A level, had a big interest in art but more the digital side but my art teacher gave me a film camera and then showed me how to use a dark room. The first time I saw the negative being exposed then the image appearing in this magical watery developer it was like magic and I was hooked.

I don't think serious amateur digital photography took off until the 300D came out in 2003 at the first fully fledged DSLR under £800 camera that could use the full EF lens system with instant shooting turns on and ready to shoot and there was no lag between pressing the button and the image being taken. You could make an A3 print! Revelation!

At the time all DSLRs were silly expensive I seem to remember the 10D being £1500 which at the time was a lot of money as film SLRs were £150-600. This is why Canon has such a following in the Digital market as the XXXD market was the benchmark for most amateurs to start serious digital photography.

My first DSLR was the 350D it was a revelation in learning as I could see instantly what I was shooting. Think I got that in 2006, since then I bought a 40D and then another one, then went straight to a 5DMKII when I started shooting weddings professionally and that took a dip in ullswater pretty soon after I bought it then with the insurance money bought a 5DMKIII. Just 4 cameras in 10 years lol! Eagerly awaiting the 5DMKIV but if it doesn't show I fancy a 7DMKII or a 1DX depending if the prices come down when the new one comes out. Probably a 7DMKII.

At the moment it seems like everyone in the industry is innovating away from DSLRs apart Canon and Nikon which is a real shame. But for what they do the cameras they produce are probably the best in the industry but they are becoming niche now that people want miniaturisation and all this incredible digital tech that comes with it.

 

[Juiceloose]

Tom,

Thanks again for the wealth of information on the two lenses and for the sample photographs. I for one don't get bored with the detail and information you post in the forum as I'd rather learn from someone who knows what they are talking about than just read magazine reviews.

I have no plans to upgrade to a full frame camera as I don't think I've yet got anywhere near the limitations of my 70D.

I have a few more questions for you:

1. I've today been looking at the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM. Any views on it as it's quite a bit cheaper than the others I was considering;

2. In your landscape photograph you took it at F2.8 which allowed pretty much everything to be in focus. As the Canon 10-18 only stops down to F4.5 does this mean I could not achieve a landscape shot similar to yours;

3. Do you do any post processing of your shots once taken with photoshop or similar as the colours in your shots always look so vibrant;

4. Would you recommend using a polarizing filter for landscape and water shots?

 

[bony_13]

Thanks for all who have posted in this thread, I've found it incredibly helpfull.

Going on honeymoon next year so a good camera is on my list for my 30th next month. I'm a complete novice (I don't even own a compact point+click!) and this thread has introduced me to bridge cameras, csc's as great alternatives to a mainstream SLR which I would have gone for.

We're off to the Italian Lakes so I want a camera thats not too bulky but can take a decent landscape shot.

 

[dalecan]

I think Tom is the man to listen to here. I bought my first dslr last year, a Nikon d7100 and I love it. The picture quality is amazing.

 

[tomscott]

Tom,

Thanks again for the wealth of information on the two lenses and for the sample photographs. I for one don't get bored with the detail and information you post in the forum as I'd rather learn from someone who knows what they are talking about than just read magazine reviews.

I have no plans to upgrade to a full frame camera as I don't think I've yet got anywhere near the limitations of my 70D.

I have a few more questions for you:

1. I've today been looking at the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM. Any views on it as it's quite a bit cheaper than the others I was considering;

2. In your landscape photograph you took it at F2.8 which allowed pretty much everything to be in focus. As the Canon 10-18 only stops down to F4.5 does this mean I could not achieve a landscape shot similar to yours;

3. Do you do any post processing of your shots once taken with photoshop or similar as the colours in your shots always look so vibrant;

4. Would you recommend using a polarizing filter for landscape and water shots?

Thanks Juiceloose

Ok well there is no reason to worry about buying all full frame lenses.

1. The 10-18mm is a more budget conscious lens to get people into a wide angle. From what I have seen it seems like it is about on par in terms of quality to the 10-22mm but has a slower aperture value. It has IS which is a great addition. The rule with focal length/shutterspeed is that you shoot at the same speed as the focal length so if its 200mm you shoot at 1/200th or faster to ensure a sharp image. But the wider you go the slower you can shoot so at 10mm you can technically shoot at 1/10th which is very slow, like above wide angle lenses have a few benefits to telephoto lenses in the fact you get more depth of field from smaller apertures and you can hand hold much slower shutter speeds.

With image stabilisation it usually allows you to shoot between 2 and 4 stops slower than the above rule (depending on the IS system) as long as the subject isn't moving. Most people use wide angles for landscapes and because landscapes are quite static people look for some sort of movement to make the image feel more dynamic. So in this case if you can shoot at 1/10 without IS 4 extra stops means you could in theory hand hold the camera for a 1 second exposure. This obviously is difficult and I'm not saying you can shoot sharp pictures every time but if you shoot a burst of 3-4 images and use the correct technique it is very possible that you can hand hold the camera for an exposure of a second.

In many situations and for experienced photographers this can negate the need for a tripod or it can open up much more creative ability in other areas, like city scenes etc and you don't need to carry a heavy tripod.

That being said if you want to achieve a nice result you often need more than 1 second and you might find getting good results difficult but its an option which the photography world is raving about at the moment.

Couple of examples of what I mean.

Untitled by Tom Scott, on Flickr

This one is a shot I took at Iguazu Falls in Argentina, its not the best example as it was so bright it was very difficult to get a slow shutterspeed and there was spray everywhere which is why there are circles all over the pic, but I still like the image. I have the 16-35mm F2.8 and it doesn't have IS so 1/20th was about as far as I wanted to go but you can see the effect of the moving water and everything else is sharp.

instead of freezing the action like this image

Untitled by Tom Scott, on Flickr

This is a more extreme version with the shutter being open for about 4 minutes on a tripod but shows the dynamism I was talking about, silky water, moving sky and the rest static.

Thirlmere Reservoir, Allerdale, Lake District, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Back on topic. The problem with the 10-18 is that you only get 8mm of focal length so I don't think its one that you will get that much use of, the 10-22mm on the other hand has 12mm which doesn't sound much more but its 50% more and its more useful. The 10-18mm also has STM which is a stepping motor which is great for video with your 70D. The 70D has the dual pixel AF which allows constant AF during video. The STM motors allows silent autofocus which really is great in practise. If the majority of time you shoot stills then take then the 10-22mm as it has the ultrasonic motor which is still very quiet but it can be heard on the video audio, but its faster than STM for stills. The 10-22mm is built better too and it has a the benefit of being F3.5 at 10mm instead of F4.5 allowing more light in. It also has a 77mm filter thread which is pretty standard across all of canons higher end lenses so if you have a 77mm circular polariser etc you don't need to buy a second one specifically for this lens.

If it were my money I would probably get the 10-22mm, I loved that lens and took a lot of my favourite images with it. It is personal and if your on a budget and you think IS will be beneficial it then the 10-18 will also be a great lens.

BMW E46 M3 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Conison Water Feb 2012 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

2. For the second question. I may not have made myself very clear. So the smaller the number the wider the aperture.



Generally if you want to isolate a subject you use a wider aperture like F2.8. But in the case of this image.

Moonlit Haweswater Reservoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

It was shot at 12pm at night with only the moon for light. For this image I wanted to ensure I had stars in the image, but also allow enough light to expose the scene properly. There is a mathematical formula to shoot stars and ensure they are sharp but to simplify the wider the lens and the faster the lens the longer you can shoot and not get trails on the stars (render them sharp) so in this case at F2.8 and at 16mm I could use a shutter speed of 37.5 seconds. The moon was at its lowest point of the year and very bright so I shot this at 25 seconds I technically could have used as smaller aperture but as a personal rule I always shoot at 20 seconds at F2.8 at 16mm just seems to work. So the way I got around having enough depth of field in the scene is to use another rule which is called hyper focal distance.

Again a mathematical formula to get the most depth of field out of any given aperture. But to simplify if you focus a third of the way into the image you generally get the most depth of field from that aperture and using the rule of thirds to compose usually gives you what you want in focus while making the most of the depth of field. If you zoomed right into 100% you would see the mountains in the background aren't as sharp as they look but its a trade off.

So to answer the question when you are shooting landscapes the only time this lens will be slower is in the above situation, but you can get round that as its only a stop slower so by increasing the ISO one stop will give you the same result. Generally with landscapes you ideally want to be at F8 through F16 with F11 being the sweetspot, as the smaller the aperture the more depth of field you get or more of the landscape is in focus. Obviously the smaller the aperture the less light it lets through so it takes longer to expose the image. If I had shot the above image at F8 it probably would have been a 2 minute exposure and the stars would have started trailing and at that sort of time it wouldn't look real, more like hundreds of shooting stars. Similar to this



Whereas if I would want to do it properly I would have done this



These images aren't mine just examples.

3. Yes I always post process to get the most out of my images I shoot RAW and use lightroom to process them and I would highly recommend lightroom. Post processing is another art in itself and again is personal.

4. I would definitely recommend a polariser. Polarisers only work when the sun is at your back, but they cut reflection and increase colour and vibrancy in the images. They also cut light so you can get longer exposures during the day. They are also great for Cars as they cut reflections in body work and bring out that nice oil looking colours in headlights.

Haweswater Resevoir, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Hope that long winded answer helps

 

[buzyg]

Enjoying every syllable of this thread. Tom you should be charging a Tutor's fee. :wink:

 

[tomscott]

So I thought I would do a quick review of the Tammy 150-600mm as I went out this weekend to shoot some images.

I was pretty happy when it arrived… but this will sort of give you an idea of how big it is :rofl: :rofl:

I did some quick test shots and could tell the lens focus was a bit out. So i first set up a target and I did some AFMA (auto focus micro adjust) on the lens and It was out a touch, -10 on the long end and -5 at the short end. Dialled it in and wow! Really impressed with the sharpness.

So I went to South Lakes Safari Zoo in Cumbria this weekend. Really great zoo they only have the big animals caged and the rest sort of wander around which means no gates to worry about and they are really tame so you can close and get some really nice images and keep backgrounds looking natural.

Little bit on the handling. From everything that I have read and reviews I've watched on Youtube, all I've heard is how heavy it is, cumbersome, not that sharp at 600mm, not that well built etc. Well I disagree with most points.

If you have any experience with a 70-200mm F2.8 MKII IS then you will be right at home with this lens. Its about the same weight and the same size except when zoomed. The lens was a joy to use, I don't use straps so had it in my hands all day its very very well balanced with my 5DMKIII and the tripod mount makes a great carrying handle. Im used to using my 70-200mm from shooting weddings etc and it felt very similar. Its not front heavy or back heavy feels very at home with the 5DMKIII. It is big no doubt but if your used to bigger lenses then this will feel surprisingly versatile.

In terms of sharpness I found similar to the reviews at 400mm very sharp even wide open at 500 a little less and at 600 a little less again but it didint stop me from shooting there at all, in fact I was at 600mm most of the day (check the images below). If you are used to 400mm then 600mm does take a little bit of getting used to… framing and speed of changing direction you can get lost in the viewfinder but its all practise not a lens problem.

In terms of build I was happy to see it has a rear gasket and although it isn't L series build it feels very durable nice plastic not cheap at all. If you are worried about that I wouldn't be. Feels substantial and very nice to use, the manual focus ring is very smooth and a joy to use. I have to say I'm not keen on the reverse zoom and I tended to zoom in instead of out as I'm used to the Canon lenses. In terms of weather sealing I don't think I would be as happy being out in the rain with it like I am with the L lenses but I will no doubt test it when it arrises.

The image stabiliser especially at 600mm doesn't seem as good as the Canons the viewfinder does float around with it on at 600mm, you can't help it with the lens size its hard to keep it still (I haven't got any experience with the canon 600mm just a 70-200mm with a 2x on a crop body roughly 640mm equivalent) I found it maybe gave me 2 stops 3 at a push but more like 2, I didn't get any blurry images but I was ensuring I was shooting at over 1/1000th of a second so the IS was more to keep the viewfinder still and didn't really aid in image taking. Its also, for me, a little disappointing that the IS doesn't have a panning mode although its supposed to auto change it would be nice to have the ability to change it yourself. I find Auto to be exactly that, when you want it it doesn't necessarily change when you need it to. I haven't done any panning yet tho, but as I shoot motorsport I will test that out but I think 600mm will be a bit overkill.

In terms of aperture, theres no doubt its slow F6.3 to F8 is where your at most the time but because of the field of view it still renders background nice and out of focus, if your shooting wildlife you want to be in that sort of F stop anyway on FF because of the small DOF. It does mean your shooting in the higher ISO range. I was shooting from 200-2500 which is no problem on the 5DMKIII so I'm not too worried about that although it was a very bright day so we will see.

The AF was very good, not quite L series but it locked on and stayed on subject, all my images were sharp I only had a couple of OOF frames which is amazing first time out with the lens and over 1250 images. I only had two times where the lens hunted but a quick move of the MF ring solved that and was a really joy to use. It seems to track well I was testing the baboons running around, both toward and away.

Anyway enough talk here are some images and also some 100% crops for you to look at. Im very impressed anyway but your comments are very welcome.

here is the full album
https://www.flickr.com/gp/tomscottphotography/1gxs3w

Emu, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1250th 1250 iso

Rhea, 100% Crop, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1250th 1250 iso

Ring Tailed Lemur, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1000th 800 iso

Capybara, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1000th 640 iso

Cabybara 100% Crop, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1000th 640 iso

Inca Tern, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/800th 640 iso

Parrots, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
500mm F8 1/800th 640 iso

Jaguar, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
500mm F8 1/800th 640 iso

Lion, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
200mm F7.1 1/800th 800 iso

Black Vulture, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F6.3 1/1000th 1000 iso

Black Vulture, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1000th 640 iso

Pigmy Hippo, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/640th 640 iso

Sumatran Tiger, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
500mm F7.1 1/800th 1000 iso

Sumatran Tiger 100% Crop, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
500mm F7.1 1/800th 1000 iso

Hamadryad Baboon, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F6.3 1/1250th 800 iso

Hamadryad Baboon, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1250th 800 iso

Hamadryad Baboon, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
329mm F8 1/800th 800 iso

Giraffe, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
450mm F8 1/640th 800 iso

Giraffe 100% crop, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
450mm F8 1/640th 800 iso

Arctic Wolf, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1000th 200 iso

Arctic Wolf, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1000th 640 iso

Rhino, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
600mm F8 1/1000th 2500 iso

Hamadryad Baboon, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
350mm F8 1/1000th 2000 iso

Black and White Ruffed Lemur, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
552mm F8 1/1000th 1600 iso

Black and White Ruffed Lemur 100% Crop, South Lakes Safari Zoo, Tamron 150-600mm by Tom Scott, on Flickr
552mm F8 1/1000th 1600 iso

To summarise.

Im very happy with my purchase, cost wasn't really an issue in this case more focal length and I'm very happy I got this over the 100-400mm. I paid UK £750 new from Park Cameras in a bank holiday sale. The lens isn't L series quality but as you can see from the above its damn close. Very very impressed its only my second third party lens tending to stray away as my first was awful.

The 3rd parties have certainly stepped up the game making much better products these days. Its a very interesting concept, huge range - small cost (relatively compared to other native lenses) to get 600mm on a full frame camera the cheapest way of doing it and keeping AF is to buy a 300mm with a 2x converter, buy a 600mm or use a crop camera with a 70-200mm F2.8 and 2x converter. I love my 5DMKIII and don't really want to take two cameras with me so I ruled that out. The primes are both better options but cost is stratospheric, much heavier and difficult to use and less useful, 150-600 is a great range. Were talking between £6-8000 if you go the above route so its coming in at nearly a 10th the price but your getting a couple of stops less light. Everything a trade off but a £7250 trade off is worth it in my mind.

The weight was a non issue for me and I like handling larger lenses feels right. Im a pretty average built bloke and had no issue carrying it around without a strap all day. doesn't feel that heavy tbh but if your not used to FF cameras with heavy lenses like the 70-200mm then you might think its like a tank and unusable milage will vary depending on how you shoot and what gear your used to.

600mm is the softest part of the lens but at F8 it seems to be a good improvement at 6.3 its still really impressive. As the images above show I wouldn't have any problem sending any of those for publication. You have to see it as new territory on full frame thats not been available to us normal photographers as a definite option without renting, having it is better than not. A little sharpening works wonders in post, all the images above were sharpened in lightroom by 60 points with a radius of 1.5 detail at 10 and masking at 30. Its the difference between filling the frame and not with larger animals in a safari situation.

One thing I did find weird was the lens tended to throw the exposure a touch with a tad of overexposure never experienced that with my Canon lenses. It was easy to sort and when I got home it was nothing to worry about just a note.

With that in mind its a steal, its worth buying one to fill the range imo. The IQ is great, more than acceptable, its a little slow but unless you buy primes they all other zooms will be F8s with tele converters. Im also not worried about it, at the cost if something happens to it buying another isn't an issue because its much cheaper than the competition.

So ye… its a great compromise! Really enjoyed using it and can't wait to get on the Savannah with it.