Looking for recommendations for distance wildlife pics with Canon T7i.

Have Tamron 18-200 that is excellent for general use, but doesn't cut it when trying to catch eagles flying around the bluffs or on the other side of the lake.

Thinking a 600mm will be enough, and a lens that big might need a mount to support lens-camera combo? Thoughts?

Tameron makes a 150-600 or something. If you have the budget a 400 prime with a telecoverter might be the way to go

The Tamron is a fine lens.  I've got a 1.4 teleconverter, and I've used it exactly once.  You'll lose one stop of aperture, and no matter how good the TC is, it's going to have a negative effect on sharpness and distortion.

I'd rather have a sharp 500 mm frame than a soft 700 mm frame.

On the lens support, any big long lens is going to need a foot; you hold the camera by the lens or the foot and not the camera body.  Very similar to shooting a rifle.  If you lens needs a foot it should come with one from the manufacturer.

Here's a Kirk aftermarket collar and foot for my Nikon 200-500.  I ditched the factory Nikon foot because it needs an ARCA plate for tripod use (the Kirk is machined for ARCA) and that's just one more point of failure.  The Kirk is also machined with a QD socket, so you can use your rifle sling on your camera!

And it still boggles my mind that lens manufacturers don't machine in ARCA grooves.  It's a travesty.

Kirk Collar_Foot by FredMan, on Flickr

Kirk Collar_Foot by FredMan, on Flickr

Thanks, I'll look into the 500 to 700 mm range for options. I appreciate the education on the foot too!

I have the canon ef 70-300 with image stabilizer, it’s an ok lens. But not enough reach for birds at distance really.

I plan on buying the sigma 150-600, it has excellent reviews and it’s very affordable.



Here’s a photo from my t7i and the 70-300

I have the Tamron 150-600 and it works alright.   I wish I had more reach, but anything longer than 600mm the price tag goes from hefty to "i could have bought a UTV instead".

The original Tamron had some softness issues with certain specimens; the one I got was a very sharp example.  The G2 version is supposed to have corrected a lot of that.

Heron On Piling by FredMan, on Flickr

But I still like the Nikon 200-500 better; it's a bit sharper, and it's got a fixed max aperture (f/5.6) regardless of zoom, instead of the max 6.3 the Tamron has at 600mm.  Plus I found I had to stop down to f/9 to optimize the Tamron's sharpness; the Nikon is sharper at f/5.6 than the Tamron ever was at f/9.  And on my D500 the autofocus is much faster than the Tamron.

For me, that extra 100mm of zoom I lost is outweighed by the quality of the Nikon.

Hover by FredMan, on Flickr

Interesting.  Sigma 150-600 will be something I check out.

Combined with the Canon review, and the Nikon to Tamron comparison, it sounds like an interesting option.

600mm seems to be the jumping off point. I'm not wealthy, but I would like to save up and "buy once, cry once". What lenses do you all use (or want) that are bigger than 600mm?

Another thought just came to me, is there a specific type of tripod that would work better for catching an eagle in flight with that much zoom? Manfrotto with ball head?

Well, I messed up but learned a lot. Turns out the lens we have is 18-400, not 18-200 as I initially posted.

We took the knowledge you all gave and called our camera shop. They have a Tamron 150-600 to rent, and a Tamron 2x teleconverter.

We're giving them both a try, but now have a new problem. I want to try a teleconverter for the 18-400, and can't find one. Anyone know what model teleconverter will work with the 18-400 and more importantly where to buy one?

I tried the 2x converter with my 150-600 G2 a few years and was sorely disappointed,   autofocus was non-existent even in great lighting and everything was soft at any reasonable difference.   The only thing it was good for oddly was macro photos lol.

20180801_001 by Carl Peters, on Flickr

That USA cool pic of the grasshopper.

save your lunch money. The Canon 100-400 Mk2 is so worth it. It was/is fantastic on my T6i and 90D

I have this one. Sadly, I've not used it on a while.

Sigma 150-500

I've been looking for the similar 150-600 with Nikon mount. Or Tamron also has a 150-600 with the same aperture.

600mm isn't a jumping off point, it's pretty close to the end of the path.  Nobody's making an affordable (for the hobbyist) super-tele beyond the 600mm limit; past that you start getting into primes and second mortgage country.

The Nikon 600mm f/4 will cost you about $12,000

The Nikon 800mm f/5.6 will cost you about $16,000

You can always get a teleconverter, but be sure to check compatibility with your lens(es), in some lenses the rear element may extend past the back of the lens housing as it zooms or focuses, and that's going to be a glass-on-glass crash with the TC.  I've said it before, but I don't like TCs because I'm losing at least a  stop and probably introducing some distortion/reduction in sharpness.

As a rule, the lower the TC power the less impact on image quality (i.e. a 1.4x won't degrade as much as a 2x)

If you REALLY need longer than 600mm (and virtually nobody does) I'd suggest you start looking at telescopes.

I don't think that the 18-400 is compatible with any TC due to the issues I mentioned above.

Now, I've got a good-condition used Nikon TC 14 II laying around we could talk about, but it won't do you any good with what you already have.

He already has a 400 and is wanting more reach.

I have that lens in the L ii, great lens - but mostly use it with the canon 1.4 TC to get the reach I want for wildlife, and this is on a 7dii.  I've been looking hard at the Sigma 150-600 but I don't really think it would be much of an improvement over what I am currently using.

I emailed Tamron to ask about teleconverters. They replied that no TC will work with our 18-400.

We've been out taking pics with the rented 150-600 and TC.  We're finding that it's too much for most of the pics we want.  We have a niche for these long distance bird and nature pics, but my daughter almost seems annoyed at the thought of not only switching lenses, but also moving the tripod or monopod from the camera to the big lens, then back.

It's been too rainy/cloudy for moon and star pics, but that's the last thing we need to test before our rental ends.  

Part of me wants to invest in the 150-600 and the TC, just because.  The other part wants to invest in other things like neutral density and tinted filters, a super-wide angle lens, fish eye lens, and other things to expand the majority of photography she already does.

Thanks for all the comments! You all have really helped guide us and we appreciate it.

Sounds like you really don’t need the tc if the 150-600 is too much.

If your not a fan of switching lenses often, it sounds like the 18-400 you have is a great all around lens for you, it’s a huge zoom range and handles everything but the absolute widest angles. A fixed 400 would get you better quality photos for sure over the do it all zoom lens you have.

Wide angle - canon makes the efs in 10-18 and 10-22. The 10-18 is newer, cheaper, smaller, lighter, has image stabilization. They say the quality is about as good as the more expensive 10-22, but the 22 has a huge front glass element and faster 3.5 f stop for low light but no image stabilization, and I’m going to say better build quality. You can’t go wrong with either. I have the 10-22 and it’s awesome.

If her main subject matter is wildlife, that 150-600mm is a very nice bit of kit that is likely to get significant use.

In my experience shooting wildlife, keeping the 150-600mm on the camera for the duration of the shoot is more ideal than not and provides MUCH better quality images than "superzoom" lenses. If she wants the flexibility of capturing images closer to her position or wider shots of the location, having a second body with, say, a 24-70mm is the better option. That would avoid unnecessary movement that may startle the subject and makes it faster to employ the gear to capture a particular moment or fast-moving subject.

Also, using a tripod head with an Arca Swiss (A-S) mount combined with an L-bracket on the camera and an Arca Swiss foot on the lens makes it easy to mount the gear to fit the needs of the shot. As mentioned earlier, it is highly recommended to mount heavy lenses like the 150-600mm via the lens foot rather than have that weight on the lens mount of the camera. Having the L-bracket on the camera allows using smaller lenses in either landscape or portrait orientation within the few seconds it takes to connect to the A-S head. Even faster with quick-connect heads. I realize that rental equipment may not provide A-S mounts, so it may be more frustrating during the period of rental evaluation, but it should be easy enough to imagine the future convenience of having A-S mounts on relevant gear.

Lastly, you asked about ideas for tripod heads for capturing birds. Most of the birders I know use a gimbal mount to provide maximum mobility of the lens while transferring all the weight to the tripod (rather than the photographer's arms). Wimberley probably has the best reputation for this option and I've heard good feedback on gimbals from Sirui and Benro.

Those all sound like solid options. I think it's time to look into some dedicated tripod and monopod systems with the quick connect mounts.  I haven't heard of that brand, so I'll check them out.

I'll talk to the family about renting the 10-18 and 10-22 if they are available.

Thanks!

I'm sure Canon has an equivalent.

I run a D7200 70-200 VRII and a TE 1.7 teleconverter.  Good results.  Not great.

I lose two stops using the teleconverter.  Down to f4.8 fixed.  

I have Canon's 17-40L and really enjoy it. It covers the wide angle range very well.
I can also recommend either the 24-70L or the 24-105L for walk around lenses.

I have the Tamron 18-400 sitting on my desk right now (not in my camera bag).  

A couple of things about it.  First, it's a crop sensor lens.  It will work on a full frame body but you will get bad vignette at the wide end.  Second, it's inescapably soft.  I have the Tap-In Console for programming the lens and making focus corrections, but it's just a soft lens.  Even when using sensor focusing (DPAF) with the mirror up, it still is disappointingly soft.  I've tried tuning the focus using special targets and angled scales, etc.  No dice. I just can't get a picture from it that is sharp enough to make me happy.  A cheap ass Canon EF-S 55-250 takes much sharper pics.  I plan to send it back one day but have been too busy.  Probably will miss the warranty window.