Canon or Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 lens on an EOS Rebel XSI - Advice?

[LaneW]

My only camera, coming from the film days, now is a little Rebel XSI kit setup. I want to upgrade to a good telephoto for wildlife, birds, etc and am looking at the Canon and Tamron 70-200 for the fixed aperture and focal length - would probably add a 1.4 converter.

Is it a silly idea to ad an good lens like these to this little camera? Which is recommended?

Thanks

[Waddizzle]

---

@LaneW wrote:

Thanks for the great info.... big help.  I am looking at both the Tamron and Canon 100 - 400 options mentioned. I guess I'm a little stuck on the idea of the fixed aperture and the f 2.8 speed which is appealing on the 70-200. But then I am also finding that speed is not a critical as it was when I was shooting film. Should I be concerned about f 4.5 - 5.6 for armateur work? 

---

If you want the 70-200, then go for it.  Just be aware that you lose a whole stop of with a 1.4x, and not every extender works with every lens.  Also, using a 1.4x with the Canon 100-400mm will most likely mean that you will lose the ability to autofocus, because the minimum aperture will be stoppped down to f/8.

[RobertTheFat]

One more point: The way to shoot birds with a lens that's too short is to persuade the birds to come closer. Many photographers have succeeded by setting up a bird feeder and waiting for the birds to notice that it's there. Once they get comfortable with the location, they won't mind if you take their pictures.

[ebiggs1]

The problem with the 70-200mm zoom is, it doesn't have enough FL for birds.  A small bird will be a small bird in your photos.

A rule of thimb is 300mm minimum for birds. On your Rebel you do get the fact of a tele boost to make the 70-200mm equate to a 320mm lens. But again we are talking "minimum" required. A small bird will still be pretty small in the photo. The only solution for this is to get closer to the bird.  Sounds easy enough but not so much in reality.

So, another option is to add a 1.4x tel-con.  But this isn't without its own issues. It will cost you one stop so that f2.8 lens is now a f4 lens. The AF will slow, too and on a XSi that is not a good thing.

Let's still examine the other lens solutions. First the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens. It 400mm is pretty good. Your crop advantage makes it act like a 640mm lens. Nice! If you add the Canon Extender EF 1.4X III, you are in to some serious FL. So, what's the down side? Your 400mm zoom has become a f8 lens and wil suffer from slower AF. Plus this combo is fairly expensive, $1800 for the lens and $400 for the extender.

The Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 for Canon. Not nearly the build of the Canon. But is offers a native 600mm, 960mm on your Rebel. No f-stop penalty. I think they are selling for $1300.

"...does this Rebel XSi have the capabiltly of using the IS capability of any of the Canon lenses and VC in the Tamrons?"

I have not tried it personally on a XSi but I see no reason why either lens woul dnot work as advertized.  IS/VC is in the lens not the camera. I have ued these type lenses on an XTi and they worked.

"Should I really be looking at a little more camera?"

Yes, of course.  You always want, need, the latest, greatest, don't you? Upgrade your level a but and check out the EOS 80D. It's a great camera. The Canon EOS 80D DSLR Camera is around $900.

Let me know what you decide!

[Uzmas]

The question really is would you prefer 3rd party over Canon. From my experience using both that Canon still has a much better glass.

[ebiggs1]

"...would you prefer 3rd party over Canon."

Oh, yes, I totally agree. Stay Canon unless there is a valid reason not to. In this case there is. Canon does not see fit to make a 600mm lens that the average guy can buy.  They have rumored for several years that one was coming but as of today it is not.

"...Canon still has a much better glass."

In years past this was probably true.  But currently, today, the IQ between some Tamron and Sigma lenses and some Canon lenses the difference has closed to nearly indistinguishable. Certinaly, out side of the lab, where most of us use these lenses, the difference is nill.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...would you prefer 3rd party over Canon."

Oh, yes, I totally agree. Stay Canon unless there is a valid reason not to. In this case there is. Canon does not see fit to make a 600mm lens that the average guy can buy.  They have rumored for several years that one was coming but as of today it is not.

"...Canon still has a much better glass."

In years past this was probably true.  But currently, today, the IQ between some Tamron and Sigma lenses and some Canon lenses the difference has closed to nearly indistinguishable. Certinaly, out side of the lab, where most of us use these lenses, the difference is nill.

---

"...would you prefer 3rd party over Canon."

I agree with the above good advice.  You are better off with a Canon lens, unless you need a lens that Canon does not make.  Another good reason to stick with Canon is your post processing software.  The free DPP software from Canon will only perform lens correction on Canon lenses.  If you have a third party lens, then you will need post processing software made by a third party.  

"...Canon still has a much better glass."

The Canon 100-400mm lens is a much better lens than Tamron 100-400mm lens.  This is a fact, not an opinion.

[LaneW]

Lots of varying views on this, which is actually valuable. I am now considering the 100 - 400, and also the 150 - 600, which Canon does not make. I am seeing a lot of reviews claiming that Tamron lenses of these ranges are very, very close in quality to  Canon and, while I"m a long time Canon fan, I don't know that the cost makes sense for me.

[Uzmas]

Really hope Canon does realise that competitors are catching up. I am sure they will come up with the new lens.

[ebiggs1]

"... hope Canon does realise that competitors are catching up..."

When you make a lens like the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens, which is the best lens in its class and as good as it already is, improvement is difficult. In some or even most off brand lenses the ability to improve was more easily possible. Some or even most of them has done so and have narrowed the gap. For instance the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon is considered by most to be the sharpest 50mm made.  

I am sure some of the reviewers you read and folks that bought a more to very more expensive lenses will try to justify that purchase. They tend to come out with reviews and statements that validate that. It is a good feeling to know you have the best. However, in real everyday use in situations like all of us do, is it all that better or any better? Yeah , you can shoot lab charts that prove it but few of us shoot lab charts.

Again having a good reason to not buy all Canon gear is wise. I agree.  However, for instance the best lens or camera or whatever that you can't afford is pretty worthless to you. I would love to own several of the big great white teles, I have one, and I can't justify or even afford to buy several of them.  What to do? You go off brand, it is that simple.

I currently own and constantly use two off brand lenses. The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon and the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens for Canon. Neither is really cheap but Canon does not make a similar lens like either of these.

[LaneW]

OK, well now you've done it. Before buying a lens I am going to upgrade my camera from my little xsi. ebiggs1 had mentioned the 80D as a good option, maybe a bit pricy for me but do-able.  Other suggestions for a mid range Canon?