What zoom to buy?

[Norm53]

I put up a bird feed at the edge of a woods about 80 feet from my lunch table behind a french door. My Canon EOS Rebel T3i with EF 75-300 mm 1:4-5.6 will not bring into focus the birds, large and small.

What lens do I need to buy that will do the job? Cost is no object.

Thanks, Norm

[Norm53]

You: There is really only two options for you in lenses right now. One is the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF.  And two is the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon.  Both are a little under $1100 bucks.

Me: Beautiful shots. Dont want to move outside. Best I select one of the above if I don't  receive any better advice in the meantime.

Norm

[Norm53]

"There is really only two options for you in lenses right now. One is the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF.  And two is the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon.  Both are a little under $1100 bucks."

Ratings were the same (4.7) at google. Pros: Basically, unbeatable for the price. Cons: heavy. Both price at $879 online. Everyone here agreed that either would work as well with my Canon T3i?

Thanks to all posters for their valuable help.

Norm

[ebiggs1]

"Both price at $879 online."

There is something wrong!  Do not buy that lens at that price.  It needs to be further scrutinized because something is wrong.

The two lenses mentioned are so close to each other they could be brothers.  Your choice.

Take whatever ratings and reviews you read with a grain of salt.  Neither of these lenses is heavy.  Unless you are comparing them to a kit lens or a tiny 50mm prime.

The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon EF lens is heavy.  Maybe you read a review of it by mistake.  It is a far better, higher quality lens that either of the afore mentioned lenses.  But it is $2000.

I have all these three lenses.  Well I did but I sold the C model Sigma in prefference of the S model.

This is my set up.

 It is the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens mounted on a 1D Mk IV body.  My tripod is a Manfrotto 3046.  A good tripod is absolutely a necessity.

Good luck and don't buy that cheaply priced lens with out checking it out.

[Norm53]

"Good luck and don't buy that cheaply priced lens with out checking it out."

I'll take your seasoned advice and buy at B&H for $200 more to be sure I'm not stuck with a lemon.

One final question: Most of the specs are identical for both cameras, but Sigma has Aperture Range: f/5-6.3 to 22 and Tamron has Aperture Range: f/5 to f/40. Do these differences have any practical value considering my setup: 80 feet away at a lunch table behind a french door? (Can't use a tripod because it limits my shooting flexibility and I don't want to move closer outside.) IOW, knowing nothing about how these focal numbers relate to resolution or magnification, if I leave them on camera default, will my shots be of maximum quality?

Norm

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Norm53 wrote:

"Good luck and don't buy that cheaply priced lens with out checking it out."

I'll take your seasoned advice and buy at B&H for $200 more to be sure I'm not stuck with a lemon.

One final question: Most of the specs are identical for both cameras, but Sigma has Aperture Range: f/5-6.3 to 22 and Tamron has Aperture Range: f/5 to f/40. Do these differences have any practical value considering my setup: 80 feet away at a lunch table behind a french door? (Can't use a tripod because it limits my shooting flexibility and I don't want to move closer outside.) IOW, knowing nothing about how these focal numbers relate to resolution or magnification, if I leave them on camera default, will my shots be of maximum quality?

Norm

---

There is no practical value in the higher f-number. Remember that it's the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. So the higher the f-number, the less light gets in and the longer the exposure required. Without a tripod, you'd never be able to get anywhere close to f/40.

[Norm53]

Thanks for the education. I infer from it that because the camera will be hand-held, then the smallest f-no. is best. I just will have to remember to use the camera in full light, not twilight.

Norm

[ebiggs1]

"...  then the smallest f-no. is best."

Not necessarily.  The best f-stop is usually one or two down from wide open.  Example, the 150-600mm from either company has a max f-ratio of f5.  I have found the best IQ for either is f8.  And then you must realize the f-ratio changes as you zoom.  So this will only be possible (f5) at a 150mm focal length.  At 600mm the max if f6.3, however, f8 still seems to be very good.

A good strategy is to use the camera's Av mode and set it to f8.

The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens has much better center IQ than either of the other two.  Not to mention quicker AF.  It can be used at f5 but it is better at f8, too.  It is just not that much better then the other two when all are set to f8.

Warning: The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens is very heavy.  It is a tripod or monopod only lens.  Unless you are a pro weight lifter.  And if you weren't you will be after using this lens hand held for any length of time.

[Norm53]

"At 600mm the max is f6.3, however, f8 still seems to be very good. A good strategy is to use the camera's Av mode and set it to f8."

Just learned from wiki that the f-no. is used to control the depth of field, the larger the number, the less fuzziness in the background and foreground. I'll start with Av @ f8, as you suggest, and then play around with it later to see what results I get.

Norm

Never underestimate a squirrel's determination.

[Waddizzle]

Ernie wrote " A good tripod is absolutely a necessity."

He took the words out of my mouth.  🙂  Your original post said that your pictures are not focused, and tripod was the first thing that came to mind.  While the lens you mentioned in your original post is not the best of lenses, it should still at least achieve focus.

If you do not have a very sturdy tripod, then invest in one.  Like your lenses, a tripod is an investment where you do not want to skimp.  Ernie did not mention the load capacity of his setup, but I would bet that it is at least 4-5 times the weight of his worst case camera/lens combination.

A better camera can also achieve better focus because of better focusing systems.  As far as a lens goes, pretty much all of the bases have been covered.  Birds are fast creatures, and faster lenses will capture better images.

[Norm53]

"Your original post said that your pictures are not focused, and tripod was the first thing that came to mind.  While the lens you mentioned in your original post is not the best of lenses, it should still at least achieve focus."

I think that "magnified" would have been a better word than "focused" - maybe it's a combination of both. Could not clearly see what I shot at 80' using my 300mm. Blowing up the image on an editor did not help.

I already explained why a tripod won't work with my setup: - 80 feet away at a lunch table behind a french door: I need the flexibility to shoot at the 6' high feeders and the ground feeders and to shoot at birds perched high in the trees or on the wing, although I admit that the first 2 scenes will comprise 95% of my shooting. A tripod with a 600mm would not view both the feeders and the ground, 6' below, simultaneously. I could not shoot the last 2 scenes; would have to use another camera for those.

Your comment about lens quality provokes another question: Suppose I started from scratch. What camera and lens will get all 4 scenes done best?

Norm