LENS SELECTION

Ok guys I am fairly new to photography but I jumped right in. I bought a Canon 6d Mark 2. The Sigma 150-600mm lens, Sigma macro 105mm lens and a Canon 17-40mm f4 L series lens. I love the sigma telephoto but it's a little big for a hiking or walk around. I'm gonna purchase a canon 90d as a backup camera and to have the option of a crop sensor. Maybe I'm stupid I don't know but for long trips that I invest a lot of money in I'd like to have a backup.
I'm looking for a walk around lens for wildlife and hiking. I looked at the cannon 24-105mm f4 L series but I feel that it won't have the reach that I want for wildlife. Now if I want to take a scenic picture I feel I would use my 17-40 mm cannon and the 24-105 mm would not be used much. I keep looking at the cannon 70-200 mm or the Canon 70- 300 mm l-series lenses. I can get them both used in good shape for around $1,000 which is my limit for my other lens. My wife is getting upset with my new hobby. So my question is which lend would you choose or is there another lens you would look at for my purpose. I thought if I bought the 70 - 300 it would work good on the crop sensor and still be usable on the 6D. I figured it would give me plenty of reach for most wildlife shots in the woods. I also like how the 70-300 mm is a shorter lens but the 7-200mm can be bought with a f2.8. And I thought if I bought the 70- 200 mm I could always buy the extender for magnification or it would still be a middle ground lens for just all-around use.

Hi Mr .308,

"A" single lens for hiking that includes wildlife is always a trick. I understand you mention two bodies, but I am assuming you are looking for 1 lens for 1 body for the hiking part?

Personally, I'd remove 70-200mm from the list for this use. I find that focal range to be the worst of both worlds for a "walk around lens. Not long enough on the long end for wildlife, and not wide enough on the wide end for a lot of scenic work. A 24mm and 300mm prime would be more useful.

For me, I like to have 400mm, so I'd be looking at the Tamron and SIGMA 100-400mm f/6.3 lenses.
We had the SIGMA and took it to Africa in 2018, and it was a great flexible and portable choice. The Tamron is slightly newer design and may be even better for AF according to those that have shot both.

If I was relegating myself to one body, but seriously considering wildlife as subject matter still, I would have one of those 400mm zooms. For wide work, I'd have a small wide prime in my pocket, like a 24mm or 28mm.

With your walk about criteria I would choose the canon 100-400 II. If I found the 400mm limiting I would pick up the 1.4x III teleconverter. On the wide end you could go with a 24-105 which is a great general purpose focal length or a 24mm prime if you want to go lighter.

I have trekked for months in the Himalayas where I carried everything myself. Weight was at a premium and I was shooting both landscapes and wildlife. The kit I carried was the Canon EF 24-70 II and 70-200 f4 IS with a single 5d III. The 70-200 f4 was not ideal, but I made it work by focusing on not filling the frame and showing the animals in their habitat.

My point being you will always have to compromise when photographing wildlife. Figure out where you’re willing to lose out and learn to work around those situations. Then forget the gear and focus on photography.

I began hiking and could only walk 1/2 mile no equipment.
Hiking all by itself is boring.
I began hiking with my camera equipment.
Four months later me body adapted to the activities.
I'm walking 1.5 - 3 miles with camera equipment 6D II and Tamron 150-600 G2
A comfortable camera strap and bag may be all you need.
I have the Canon 6DII and 150-600mm G2 Tamron and use a peak design slide camera strap and a Camdapter plate screwed the lens tripod collar.
Its very comfortable to walk or hike 2-3 hours and that's with hip arthritis.
I flew to Hawaii in 1989 with one 35mm camera and a hard pelican case.
Get a light tan off brand hard case.
Backup batteries Yes.
A zippered Lowepro camera lens bag Yes.
Hiking with an extra camera and lens would be too much for me.
The lens weights are similar plus or minus a few ounces.
When I think about all purpose or carry lenses and spending money.
I do my best to get faster lenses for both indoors and outdoors.
Stopped down a little I read somewhere that the image sharpen some.
Its not just the weight or length of the lenses thats important.
What miracles will the new lens perform?
All are approximate weights.
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 3.28lbs.
Canon 100-400 3.6lbs.
Sigma 150-600 4.25lbs
Tamron 150-600mm 4.43lbs
Not really enough weight difference in my opinion to make it worth spending more money. Ask her opinion. (joking lol)
It depends what lenses you need for the activities and subjects.
If you are indoors more than outdoors get a faster lens for indoors.
Sports a Canon 70-200 f2.8
The Tamron f2.8 70-200mm G2 has good reviews too.
Crowded parks full of trees, bicycles and joggers. My wide range 28-135mm zoom is nice. But it can fell short on power for a bird portrait. A 70-200 would have been better that trip.
Selecting a lens may be tricky because of the lens minimum focusing distance.
Wide open areas with lots of land, easily spooked wildlife, water prevent getting closer to the subject.
Just take the 150-600mm like it or not and get in close.

Thanks for all the input everyone. First off if I buy a second camera it is to have a spare on long trips and not to necessarily carry both in the field. My hikes will mostly be just day hikes. I live in Indiana and do alot of deer, coyote and squirrel hunting. I've found that I have been carrying my 150-600 sigma and when I see game that I don't want to take I photograph. I'm having a blast and learning alot. I'm also planning a trip to smokey mountains early next summer. I've been hiking through, yellowstone, glacier, rocky mountains, zion grand canyons and badlands. Loved it all. Planning on going back as my children get older and can do more. Hopefully in a few years I'll be out there every year somewhere for a couple weeks.
Now on lenses. I'm impressed with my canon 17-40mm f4L and my sigma 150-600. My sigma macro 105mm f2.8 has a loud focus. It's seems to work ok but for whatever reason I've not been super impressed with it. Seems that everyone always talks up the Canon L series lenses which is why I looked at them. Sigma lenses for the most part seem to get good reviews. I have no experience with Tamron but reading reviews it seems like I hear more people are happy switching from Tamron to the Sigma versus Tamron owners liking the Tamron better than any sigmas they tried. If that makes sense. They're always exceptions and not everybody is always happy with each brand. My question is is Tamron a serious competitor for a quality lens. I try to buy decent stuff but I can't buy the most expensive. I would like to keep a full frame lens when I choose to buy whichever lens it is just for the fact that I can always put it on a crop or a full-frame camera.

I will make a suggestion, since you mention "walk around". I have the Canon 100-400 II and it is a brilliant lens. But it is fairly big and heavy. I had previously purchased the Canon 7-300 f4-5.6 IS II and it is a really nice lens, especially for the money. About 1/4 the cost of the 100-400. And it is a EF lens, so compatible with your FF body as well.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …_70_300mm_f_4_5​_6_is.html

Slightly related, if you are going to hike with a long wildlife lens look at something like the cotton carrier harness.

Ya I've looked at those. Looks like a good idea just didn't know how much this community actually used them. Do you have experience with them? If so I may wait to see if they do a black friday sale.

I'll take a look at it. I've considered lenses in that focal length just because if I get a crop sensor 90d as well for a backup it also gives me 480mm with that lens on the crop camera which should be decent for a walk around wildlife lens in wooded areas. I've walked around with my sigma 150-600 in the area and left it on 480 one day with my 6d mark ii and it appeared to be a sufficient zoom length for wildlife and a wooded area here in Indiana where I'm at.which I assume should be good for any other wooded areas in these national parks that I would be hiking. I like the 150 to 600 for the open areas but would like they have a little more reach yet. I'm debating whether I should get a 1.4 teleconverter for the Sigma. Or just save up for a year and buy a better Canon L series like a 100-400mm and then put a teleconverter on that.

Precision308 wrote in post #19144430
Ya I've looked at those. Looks like a good idea just didn't know how much this community actually used them. Do you have experience with them? If so I may wait to see if they do a black friday sale.

I got one early in the covid lockdown when I was doing a lot of hiking here in the Rocky Mountains. If you want to have your camera accessible rather than in a backpack its a solid option. You can also pair it with a day pack for other hiking accessories. I don't know whether they do black Friday sales but they do offer a discount code via Facebook and I think I have a referral code you can use if wish.

If I’m going to walk a few miles and wildlife are a possibility, I carry a 100-400 on my camera, and have a RX100 in my pocket for non- telephoto work. I use a BlackRapid shoulder strap to make things easier on my neck (similar brands would do fine I’m sure).

Precision308 wrote in post #19142846
..Sigma lenses for the most part seem to get good reviews. I have no experience with Tamron but reading reviews it seems like I hear more people are happy switching from Tamron to the Sigma versus Tamron owners liking the Tamron better than any sigmas they tried. If that makes sense. They're always exceptions and not everybody is always happy with each brand. My question is is Tamron a serious competitor for a quality lens. I try to buy decent stuff but I can't buy the most expensive. I would like to keep a full frame lens when I choose to buy whichever lens it is just for the fact that I can always put it on a crop or a full-frame camera.

Coming to this late, but the short answer is very much YES.

As for the brand ownership/loyalty impact on opinions, sure, but let me tell you my own P.O.V.

For years as a wildlife performance shooter, Tamron had absolutely no interest for me. They made good glass to a good value, but SIGMA was the only game in town for 3rd party. Why? SIGMA was the first 3rd party lens to incorporate a silent fast AF system their "HSM" HyperSonic Focus was the system that could even begin to compete with Canon's USM focus. So 70-200mm, 50-500mm, 500mm primes, and even bread and butter 24-70mm, if you wanted fast auto-focus. SIGMA. I therfore got in the habit of completely ignoring TAMRON for over a decade.

A few years back I sold off my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and 24-70mm f/2.8L as I just never used them for the wildlife I shoot. At some point thereafter I started needing to shoot in dark theatres again, but the ISO noise levels of digital bodies had gotten much better so f/1.8 etc. was no longer required. f/2.8 zooms were back to being a great option. TAMRON had just come out with the first 24-70mm with image stabilization, "VC" . This lens was getting rave reviews, it's IQ was better than the Canon I had sold a few years earlier, it had the VC, AND TAMRON had finally developed a truly outstanding FAST "USD" AF technology similar to Canon's USM and SIGMA's HSM. This lens was amazing and truly bettert than the Canon I had sold. The success I was having with better sensors and this f/2.8 zoom in dark theatres lead me to also find a used TAMRON 70-200mm F/2.8 USD VC. Another great lens at least as good, likely better than the Canon I had sold.

I now shoot with the TAMRON 24-70 G2, and 70-200mm G2 as well as the oddball TAMRON 35-150mm for all my indoor dark theatre work. (well, except for the 135mm f/2L )

SIGMA has a long tradition of excellent long telephotos, but for most of the bread and butter lenses I feel the TAMRONs are superior. I've not shot the Tamron versions of the 100-400mm or 150-600mm, but almost all reviews and comparisons I have read put the TAMRON G2 version above the SIGMA counterpart in AF.

I have the Tamron 70-200 G2 and have shot with a borrowed Canon 70-200 f2.8 II and I can't tell the difference in IQ or performance in my amateur hands.