New member needs help

[lurechunker]

I am new to the forum and asking for help. Our granddaughter plays basketball and I would like to photograph her. I kayak and would like to photograph birds. Is the EOS 760D the camera for me? Other? What lens or lenses? How can I protect my equipment form damage from saltwater? Thank you.

[Waddizzle · Accepted solution]

---

@lurechunker wrote:
My 80D with 18-55 from Canon store will arrive tomorrow. I think I made a mistake by not getting the 28-135. Should I leave the 18-55 in the box and send it back? I'd like to start with an "all-round" lens and one long enough for back yard birds.

---

Do you mean 18-135, instead of 28-135?  The 18-135 lenses are pretty good.  BUT, they will likely cast a shadow when you try to use the flash.  I know that older 18-135mm lenses cast a major shadow on a T5, so I would expect a shadow on an 80D.  The 18-55mm lens has a 35mm equivalent of 29-88mm, which is pretty close to 24-70mm that is very popular for use with full frame camera bodies.

The  STM version of the 18-55mm is a really good lens.  I would hang on to it.  I can guarantee you that whatever plans you have for using the camera, you will find new scenarios to use it.  I would keep the 18-55mm, and pass on buying a 18-135, so that you can budget more money towards your birding lens.  If you can afford to do all of the above, then by all means, buy all of the lenses you want.

[ebiggs1]

You know you really don't need either. Sidekick, Wimberly or divorce!  You can get a very serviceable and preferred by some pan head for about a hundred bucks.

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

Thanks for the idea of adding mass to lower the CG and increase stability. The globetrotter has an attach point for additional (rocks) weight. The sidekick costs about $300 with the additional plate. A full Wimberly gimbal head goes for $595. I'm leaning toward the former in order to avoid a costly divorce. 

---

You should look at the Benro and Induro gimbals, if you're dead set on a gimbal.  A Wimberly gimbal head is not a good match for your triood.  If the gimbal head isn't balanced, then twisting and turning it will only further unbalance the setup.

I think that a high quality pan/tilt can do the job far better than an unbalanced Sidekick, and do it for about one third the price.  I like Ernie's suggested head.  Shop around.  There are others just as good as the Manfortto, but for less cost.  

Whatever you choose, you will almost certainly need leg weights with the 150-600mm.  Lock it at 600mm, I say 500mm, and use it like a prime.

[lurechunker]

Should I add a 2.8 70-200? Any opinions on the Tamron? It is $600 less expensive than Canon.

[ebiggs1]

The 70-200mm zoom is a mainstay.  Almost every serious photographer will have at least one of them.  Opting for the f2.8 models is even a better idea and way more useful.

Here is how my favs stack up;

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens is the best.  Maybe the best lens made, period.

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens for Canon in second place in the IQ department but not as well built but it is  adequate.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Canon. Good choice and quite serviceable.  Not as good as the above two but absolutely no slouch.

IMHO, got the coin go for the real deal Canon.  You will not be disappointed.  Otherwise go for the Tamron.  See a good deal you can't pass up, you will love the Siggy, too.

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

Should I add a 2.8 70-200? Any opinions on the Tamron? It is $600 less expensive than Canon.

---

When I bought my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM, I was uncertain as to when or how I would use it with my 6D.  Yes, it filled a hole between my 24-105mm and a 150-600 lens.  I don't know anything about using the Tamron, or the Sigma, just the Canon top of the line lens.

I have since discovered that it is a great lens for shooting people going about their everyday lives, and that it can take really good portraits, too.  By portraits, I mean casual shots at social events, for example, and not necessarily shots where the subjects are posing..  I'm no portrait photographer.

The first thing I noticed about images when using the lens was the amount of detail that can be captured.  Maybe it's my imagination, but others who have seen some of my shots say the same thing, which is many photos almost seem to have a 3D presence to them.  

I do not know if the lower priced Canon 70-200mm lenses can do that, too, but I definitely wonder about the non-IS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8.  I went for the IS version because of the much higher degree of weather sealing, which the non-IS has to a lesser degree.  

My f/2.8L lenses seem to focus better under low light conditions than slower lenses.  I think this is by design with certain camera bodies, with the 6D and the 7D2 being the least expensive camera bodes to take advantage of this feature.  I do not know if the 80D can take advantage of the f/2.8 lenses, but I would not be surprised if it did.  All Rebels seem to be excluded from this behavior.  Likewise, I would be surprised if the new 77D is compatible, either.

[lurechunker]

I need longer reach for birds. Should I go with Tamron 150-600 G2 or the Canon 1.4 teleconverter for my 100-400 ll L? I have the 80D.

[ebiggs1]

IMHO, I always prefer native focal length over converted.  So I recommend the Tamron 150-600 G2. I really don't like lenses that are slower than f2.8 or certainly f4 for converter use.  Canon is supposed to be developing a 200-600mm non-L to compete with the Tamron and Sigma offerings.  Who knows when is the question?

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

I need longer reach for birds. Should I go with Tamron 150-600 G2 or the Canon 1.4 teleconverter for my 100-400 ll L? I have the 80D.

---

Longer reach?  Maybe.  Birding reminds me a whole LOT of fishing.  You have to know your prey.  It pays to be quiet when fishing, and even more so when birding.  You have to know when and where to go, and sometimes you have to wait it out.

One can never have too much reach.  If you buy a teleconverter for your Canon lens, then buy a Canon teleconverter, and make sure the teleconverter is compatible with the new lens.  It will slow down AF speed, which could have a negative impact on your frame rate, depending upon your settings.  Image quality with a teleconverter. I will leave that subject for others.

As far as needling more reach goes, what size of bird, and how far are you form the bird?

[lurechunker]

I am very happy with my 80D and 100-400 L. I probably would have liked the 18-135 better than my 18-55. Live and learn. My thanks to all who have posted. I am hooked on photography. Next purchase will probably be a Tamron 150-600 G2. Need to rob a 7-11 first. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

I am very happy with my 80D and 100-400 L. I probably would have liked the 18-135 better than my 18-55. Live and learn. My thanks to all who have posted. I am hooked on photography. Next purchase will probably be a Tamron 150-600 G2. Need to rob a 7-11 first. 

---

Birding can be expensive.  You might consider the Canon EF 1.4x III extender, and/or a 70-200mm.  

I understand the Tamron is brand new, and supposedly improved over the original.  I doubt if I will ever use one, seeing that I have a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens, which has been a great lens until I get out to 600mm, where it seems to get soft.  Even when I manually focused at the Moon, it always seemed a bit soft.

However, I just recently installed a firmware update via the Sigma Dock.  The update was supposed to be a completely new AF algorithm, which supposedly allows for faster, quieter, and more accurate focusing.  Did it do all of that?  I do not know.  

A couple dozen of shots of birds pecking at the grass shows that my in lens micro-adjustments are off, so I need to clear them out.  I will also point out that what used to be front focusing, and corrected with AFMA ....

... is now back focusing.  In other words,  If I reset the front focus adjustment [+2] to zero, it just might be spot on at ZERO.

The lens does focus with less noise.  The lens does focus faster.  It does re-acquire lost focus faster, too.  Whatever Sigma did in their firmware, so far they seem to have got it right.  How they can make these improvements through firmware is a mystery, to me.

Judging from the rocks, the lens is back focusing.  It took months to set up these AFMA settings, so now I need start all over from the beginning.  So far, it doesn't look like much will be needed.