For wildlife on a budget, should I upgrade my lens or Canon 1100D body first?
Asked 9/19/2019
3 views
2 answers
0
I currently shoot wildlife with a Canon EOS 1100D, the 18-55mm kit lens, and a Sigma 50-200mm f/4-5.6. I plan to buy either a new camera body or a longer lens within the next year, then buy the other upgrade the following year.
I know lenses often make the biggest difference, but I’m unsure whether a super-telephoto like the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm would be the best first step on my current body, or whether I’d be better off upgrading the body first and continuing to use my existing Sigma 50-200mm for a while.
My main subject is wildlife. I’ve also thought about using a teleconverter, but I’m concerned about autofocus performance and image quality.
Given a budget around the price of a Tamron/Sigma 150-600, are there better lens options for a Canon APS-C wildlife setup, including used older Canon lenses?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
6y ago
2 Answers
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For wildlife, the lens is usually the better first upgrade, but with your 1100D there’s a catch: its older AF system and weaker high-ISO performance may limit how well a 150-600mm lens performs.
A 150-600mm on APS-C gives a lot of reach, but it’s large, heavy, and at f/6.3 may push autofocus performance on your camera. It can work well from a tripod or monopod, especially for slower subjects, but it may be less practical for general walk-around use.
A 100-400mm or similar may be a better-balanced choice on crop sensor, since 400mm already gives substantial reach and is easier to handle. A Sigma 120-400mm was also suggested as a good fit. On your current body, a 400mm lens may be more usable than a slower 600mm option.
A teleconverter is probably not the best basis for this decision; AF and image quality can suffer.
So: upgrade the lens first, but consider whether 100-400mm/120-400mm suits your shooting better than 150-600mm. If you do choose 150-600mm, expect the biggest gains once you later upgrade the body.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI6y ago
0
I feel there is a lot of good news here.
Those lenses are Fx (Full frame) and thus, getting them at any point means that you aren't risking a later upgrade path.
Additionally, being that you are on Dx (crop body) now, by going to those lenses you sort of get a free 1.6x teleconverter.
The teleconverter for the Tamron at least on Nikon is a little hit or miss. I certainly wouldn't base the bigger choices on it. For example if a minor camera upgrade comes down to the cost difference of the 150-600mm + teleconverter (2x specifically) I'd skip the converter personally.
I'd note, wildlife is not one of my areas of concern, so I am not exactly speaking from that perspective. Although I have some decent wildlife shots. (Pictured)
That was shot with my 70-200 f2.8 on Fx (Nikon D850). I also had the 150-600mm previously and would have loved that reach!
On the body, I'd start with the lens. From there, maybe rent a more modern Dx and Fx camera and see if your results to you truly justify the additional purchase and which one you like more.
Originally by user20357. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user20357
6y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Should I use a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm on my Nikon D5600 for wildlife, or switch to full frame?
Should I upgrade from a Canon 1100D to a 550D, or keep the 1100D and buy a better general-purpose lens?
Best budget all-purpose zoom for a Canon EOS 1100D: Canon 18-200mm, Tamron 18-200mm, or Canon 18-135mm?
Choosing a telephoto zoom for a Canon 60D: 70-300mm vs 70-200mm f/2.8 for wildlife
Choosing a first DSLR for wildlife, kids, landscapes, and bad weather