Prime vs telephoto and wildlife photography

[peterk123]

As we get more and more into wildlife photography we are wondering what we should be using for lenses, and not go broke. Our most used lense right now is a tamaron 150-600mm with an adapter for our nikon z6. It takes great pics. But 99% of the time it is used at 600mm. I have also been using my Kowa spotter and phone, and getting some very good results. But at the end of the day, nothing beats a camera. The tamaron does a great job, and it is way more capable than we are with the camera. But we are getting better every day.

My question to you all is, are any of you shooting with just a prime lens, say a 500mm or 600mm? What are the advantages? Thx Pete

 

[Newtosavage]

You're better off with that 150-600 than you may realize.

I've shot the 150-600's since the first gen Tamron that started that class of lenses. I look back now, 7-8 years later and many of my best wildlife and nature images were taken with that lens. I replaced it with the gen 2 but didn't like the ergonomics as much. Then I went to a 200-500 Nikon which was sharp but heavy and clunky in the hand, then to the Sigma 150-600C, which is an amazingly sharp lens for the money. I added a 600 f/4 prime Nikon AF-S last year. It's an older lens but still very good. It weighs 11 lbs., fits literally nowhere, and always needs support of some kind which means it is very limited in use. The images from that prime 600 f/4 are barely sharper than my 150-600 Sigma and often the Sigma images are sharper because it has image stabilization and my 600 f/4 does not.

The real advantage of the prime is being able to shoot it wide open at f/4 and compress the background to isolate the subject. Nothing but a large aperture prime can do that. What you gain in image characteristics, you pay for in weight, space and the fact that you also need support.

Many days I'd be better off just carrying that 150-600. I should sell the 600 f/4 but I can't bring myself to because every now and then I get to use it and I appreciate what it can do. But day in and day out, that 150-600 still amazes me. I take it places I would literally NEVER take the 600 prime.

If you want to spend the money, there are now new primes with fresnel lenses that are compact and lightweight, but none of them have an f/4 aperture either.

I paid about $3k for my 600 f/4 AF-S and now that I've had it a year or so, I would never pay $10k or more for a new 600 f/4 lens. I don't take photographs for a living and it would be pure vanity for me to do so.

Hope that helps.

 

[wesfromky]

I have owned a 300 2.8 and 400 2.8. along with renting 500 f4 and 600 f4 a couple times, all newer, IS versions. If I was going to buy another prime for wildlife, it would probably be the 300 2.8 as it is the most manageable hand held or with a monopod. Add a 1.4tc and you are at 420 f4 and still super sharp. One of the better wildlife photographers I follow shoots mostly with a 400 2.8.

As mentioned above - the 400, 500, 600 all really do best with pretty heavy tripods and gimbal heads. The exception would be if it was trying to photograph small birds, or if I knew I was always going to be pretty far away and shooting from a car/road (like most yellowstone photographers). Then the extra effort for those lenses might be worth it.

 

[wesfromky]

And, as a bit of a follow up - seems like a lot of wildlife photographers do pretty well with a 100-400 as well. I was shooting canon when I had the big primes, but now that I am shooting Fuji, I have fewer options if I want to do more wildlife. Almost bought the 150-600 the other day, but looking at the 100-400 as well. And, really, I want to buy the 200 f2, as with a 1.4tc, that is pretty close to the 300 2.8. And those zooms are all nice and high quality, but they just can't get that look of a high end prime. Plus the extra stops of light can be super nice when shooting early or late.

You can rent some lens from a few places, so might be worth doing that before committing to one of the super primes.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

Pushing focal length to silly extremes is sometimes a habit left over from 35mm SLR days (BITD eh?) when the film grain resolution was relatively horrible even with low ISO films

Now, some of the newer digital sensors have enough resolution (like 61Mp!) that you could enlarge to 24"x36" before a printer would show any grain. The manufacturers openly admit that the extra resolution is there to provide for editing in post.

So how about stay with the lenses your have, upgrade your body, then crop.

Currently using a 70-200 f2.8.

 

[charliebravo77]

The biggest advantage to a prime lens is that it's (usually) going to be faster than a superzoom telephoto like the Tamron and Sigma 150-600s. I use the Tamron G2 150-600 with my Canon 80D and R7, both of which are crop sensors, and get great results. On a full frame like the Z6 the lens and resulting images would look even better (without the extra reach of the crop factor). That said, there's no replacement for the light gathering and silky bokeh and background blur that you'll get from something like a 600/f4 or 400/f2.8 vs the 5.0-6.3 aperture on the Tamron. On the high end you've got about a stop and a half extra light available on the 600/f4 vs the 150-600mm zoomed in and at f6.3. The quality of the glass in a prime telephoto is going to be way higher than a superzoom telephoto and you have fewer moving parts to introduce issues with alignment, focus, sharpness, degradation in quality, etc.

They're just better tools for the job if you are shooting wildlife, sports or other subjects where you need the reach and can't sacrifice quality. New, though, they cost about what a decent used car does often and that's just not attainable for amateurs or even semi-professionals (used will be a better deal and often you can find examples that are in great condition for a fraction of new pricing).

I do disagree with the comment that you should upgrade your body, though. A fairly recent full frame mirrorless camera is not going to suffer from any sort of quality concerns using the Tamron. The Z6 is two years newer than my 80D and a full frame body, so you should be able to get great images form that combo. Those pursuing photography as a serious hobby or career are better suited purchasing quality lenses and mediocre bodies than the other way around.

Yes, there will be some noise and you can only crop so far unless you are shooting some absurd 40mp+ full frame body but software like Topaz DeNoiseAI and others can really perform magic on grainy images. That said, they are only as good as the image you start with - some can be just too far gone.

Tamron G2 150-600 80D and R7 Examples:

Short-Eared Owl by charliebravo77, on Flickr

CO/SD/WY 2019 by charliebravo77, on Flickr

The Tamron G2 70-200/f2.8 is probably my favorite lens to shoot wildlife with if I can get close enough, due to the fast aperture, low light abilities and tack sharpness. Examples:

Suffice it to say that unless you are shooting photos for profit the Z6 and Tamron is an excellent combo and if you don't already have one, the Tamron 70-200/f2.8 would be a great addition.

 

[peterk123]

The biggest advantage to a prime lens is that it's (usually) going to be faster than a superzoom telephoto like the Tamron and Sigma 150-600s. I use the Tamron G2 150-600 with my Canon 80D and R7, both of which are crop sensors, and get great results. On a full frame like the Z6 the lens and resulting images would look even better (without the extra reach of the crop factor). That said, there's no replacement for the light gathering and silky bokeh and background blur that you'll get from something like a 600/f4 or 400/f2.8 vs the 5.0-6.3 aperture on the Tamron. On the high end you've got about a stop and a half extra light available on the 600/f4 vs the 150-600mm zoomed in and at f6.3. The quality of the glass in a prime telephoto is going to be way higher than a superzoom telephoto and you have fewer moving parts to introduce issues with alignment, focus, sharpness, degradation in quality, etc.

They're just better tools for the job if you are shooting wildlife, sports or other subjects where you need the reach and can't sacrifice quality. New, though, they cost about what a decent used car does often and that's just not attainable for amateurs or even semi-professionals (used will be a better deal and often you can find examples that are in great condition for a fraction of new pricing).

I do disagree with the comment that you should upgrade your body, though. A fairly recent full frame mirrorless camera is not going to suffer from any sort of quality concerns using the Tamron. The Z6 is two years newer than my 80D and a full frame body, so you should be able to get great images form that combo. Those pursuing photography as a serious hobby or career are better suited purchasing quality lenses and mediocre bodies than the other way around.

Yes, there will be some noise and you can only crop so far unless you are shooting some absurd 40mp+ full frame body but software like Topaz DeNoiseAI and others can really perform magic on grainy images. That said, they are only as good as the image you start with - some can be just too far gone.

Tamron G2 150-600 80D and R7 Examples:

Short-Eared Owl by charliebravo77, on Flickr

CO/SD/WY 2019 by charliebravo77, on Flickr

The Tamron G2 70-200/f2.8 is probably my favorite lens to shoot wildlife with if I can get close enough, due to the fast aperture, low light abilities and tack sharpness. Examples:

Suffice it to say that unless you are shooting photos for profit the Z6 and Tamron is an excellent combo and if you don't already have one, the Tamron 70-200/f2.8 would be a great addition.

Thank you. This was so helpful! Pete

 

[charliebravo77]

Thank you. This was so helpful! Pete

No problem! I'd suggest to keep shooting with what you have and if you reach a point where you can articulate how and why an upgrade in either lens or body is necessary then maybe it's time to consider that 600/f4

 

[Frosty82]

I agree with the couple gents above, I have the G2 Tamron 150-600 and it's a great lens. I use it on my Canon 5DM4 and 7DM2. It's my go-to lens for wildlife photos, I'd say I use it 90-95% of the time. It can take a beating as well, up and down mountains in AK chasing sheep, getting wet on cruises out of Valdez, and the past 4 years it's been all over AZ. The other few percent I use a Canon 70-200 or my Canon 800. I'd like to add a prime 500 or 600 at some point but I do this for fun and that 800 was steep even buying it used.

I say, if you have the money you might as well splurge. Otherwise, the Tamron is a great lens!

Few examples:

 

[insanelupus]

I think y'all just sold me on saving pennies for a G2 Tamron 150-600 for my Canon 7D!

Still trying to figure out what i want for those early and late daylight hours with a wider aperture for wildlife.

If i was a pro, spending coin on lenses would be an easier decision. As a rank amateur that occasionally captures a decent photo I'm still trying to figure out how to make it pay for itself or at the very least be less costly. Lol.

 

[peterk123]

I think y'all just sold me on saving pennies for a G2 Tamron 150-600 for my Canon 7D!

Still trying to figure out what i want for those early and late daylight hours with a wider aperture for wildlife.

If i was a pro, spending coin on lenses would be an easier decision. As a rank amateur that occasionally captures a decent photo I'm still trying to figure out how to make it pay for itself or at the very least be less costly. Lol.

It's like buying more guns.

 

[mtmiller]

I bought a Nikon 500 f4G in 2014 IIRC and it has been fantastic for me. It is heavy and I only use it off a tripod or monopod, but it works well when I am am shooting close to the vehicle (elk, swift fox, lekking grouse, etc). That being said, I have loaded it up in the Metcalf and trekked in several miles for moose. This lens is worth more to me than what I could sell it for and I don't have the pennies for new Z 400 2.8 w/ TC. Having fast glass for low light on grouse helps a ton.

Here are a couple shots from this summer. Click on pics to see better detail.

A few months ago I was able to pick up a 100-400 4.5-5.6 and have been very pleased with it when light is decent. Much lighter and I can just strap it to my shoulder strap and head out.

I shot this guy at 250mm and thought it turned out pretty good. Obviously it would have been a completely different shot if my only option was the 500.

Another shot at 400mm. Very happy with this lens as well.

So to answer your question, it depends. Do you need a fast lens or is it more important to have a light weight system?

I would like to only have native glass, but from the examples above, there are some quality third party lenses out there.

 

[Newtosavage]

I think y'all just sold me on saving pennies for a G2 Tamron 150-600 for my Canon 7D!

Still trying to figure out what i want for those early and late daylight hours with a wider aperture for wildlife.

If i was a pro, spending coin on lenses would be an easier decision. As a rank amateur that occasionally captures a decent photo I'm still trying to figure out how to make it pay for itself or at the very least be less costly. Lol.

It really comes down to what you intend to do with the images. If you are serious about publishing or seeing your images in magazines or websites, regardless of whether you are being paid for them, then you may want to add the large aperture prime. If you are, like me, just happy taking the images and sharing them with your friends and family (and occasionally donating them to good causes when asked) then today's 150-600's with a good body are all you'll ever need.

I just boxed up my 600 f/4 Nikon after realizing it's sat on a shelf for six months. Not sure whether I'll keep it but I'll make that decision after my move. I hope to have more use for it where I'm going, but the size and especially the weight really, really limit the places I take that lens. If I get a mirrorless body with image stabilization, I'll be more inclined to keep it but I'm still on the fence about whether I need it or not. The truth is I probably don't.

The thing I love about those 150-600 zooms is that they are great all-around nature photography lenses. I use them all the time for wildflowers as you can really isolate a specific flower or compress a background with those longer focal lengths, plus I can zoom to crop what I want. Can't do that with a prime.

 

[Roy_H]

I have the Tamron and for the last two years te Nikon 500mm PF. As stated, I found I am always reach limited and while the images are comparable, when the subject is large in the frame, the prime is significantly better wen making aggressive crops. The detail captured, along with the ability to push the image for colors is really impressive!

 

[Stevek]

I own an older Canon 100-400mm, newer Sigma Sport 150-600mm and an older Canon 500mm 4.0 lens. All 3 are used on an older Canon 7D or my newer Canon 90D. All 3 have their place but for me when shooting wildlife(mainly deer) I am dealing with low light conditions. The older Canon 500mm I have owned since 2008 is preferred. It just takes better photos at lower light than the other two for me. When I first bought the 150-600 Sigma Sport and tried it I did not like it. I watched a lot of reviews on it with the Canon 90D and it took some amazing photos but most all of those were in great lighting conditions.
With 2 of my lenses being very old and about worn out....I am thinking about buying a new 500mm in either Canon or Sigma. There is about a $3000 difference in price and for what I do as an amature and self taught, the Sigma would serve me well paired with 150-600 Sigma Sport. I have learned to use the 150-600 Sigma Sport much better now and enjoy using it. For me the low light capabilities of the faster lens is very important. I would consider a 400mm 2.8 if I were more serious about photography. I have a friend who owns one and likes it a lot more than the 500mm 4.0 since he can crop photos a lot more aggressively with the faster lens.
This photo was taken about 18 yrs ago now early one morning with the Canon 100-400mm and a Canon 20D.


This photo was taken with the 150-600mm and Canon 90D early in the morning.
These photos were taken with the Canon 500mm 4.0 and either older Canon 7D or the newer 90D.

 

[D River Runner]

Very helpful thread for me as I am considering purchase of the Canon 100-400.

 

[Jeff338]

Nothing beats a big prime The 600F4 has been the go to lens for wildlife photography for many pro. There's no way i would want be without my RF600 and now with Mirrorless cameras the 1.4/2X TCs work great!!!!