I’m trying to decide on a new lens for my camera, either a Sigma 150-600 mm or a Tamron 150-600 mm.
Turns out that we have a lens rental place here in San Diego so I rented the Tamron yesterday.
Get to keep it for 7 days for just $60. Today it made a trip to the San Diego Zoo Safari Park.
So what does a 150-600 mm lens allow me to do that I can’t do with my 28-300 mm lens?
Notice that the bigger number on the new lens is twice as big as the bigger number on the old lens, 600 to 300. That basically allows me to get twice as close to something without moving my feet. If there’s a fence between me and my subject, moving myself to the other side of the fence without actually going to the other side of the fence can give me the opportunity to take beautiful pictures. In some cases, like if I’m at the zoo where some of the wildlife is in fenced enclosures, getting inside the enclosure without getting subsequently mauled to death lets me come home with a picture like this:
There are two southern bald eagles in the fenced enclosure, and the fencing is the mesh stuff with teeny tiny really really small holes, not chain-link with big holes. The smaller the fencing holes, the more difficult it is to get on the other side of it. My 28-300 mm lens doesn’t allow me to get into the enclosure with these eagles, so when I first got it seven years ago, I cheated by going where one is not supposed to go (and that’s all I’m going to say!) to get this picture:
In the first picture, the long focal length did a much better job of also blurring the background fence which you can make out in the second picture. And if you look very, very closely at the second picture, you can even see fence shadows on the eagle itself. Look at the two shoulders. I don’t have that problem in the first picture.
So, what’s my initial assessment of the Tamron 150-600 mm lens? Based just on the eagle picture, excellent. Based on that and the other 610 pictures I took this morning: Well, let’s just say that I drank a margarita to celebrate!