[crewl1]

If you only use the 70-200 for the football field then the screw noise of the Tamron should not be an issue.

[savoche]

Lots of sensible advice here.

For birds you will want the longest lens you can get. And for Scandinavian wildlife, too. Not easy to get close to much of anything around here...

An African driving safari in a well visited national park is very different. Lots of animals getting quite close to the vehicle. The 60-250 would be great for that. A DA*300 would be too long a lot of the time so you'd want to bring an extra camera But (most of) the birds are still small and require a long lens.

And again, a walking safari means more distance to the animals. A 500mm zoom would be wonderful for its reach, but no way will I carry that much all day! I find the 55-300 a good compromise between reach, quality, and weight. A 60-250 might be OK, too, but it's still quite heavy IMO.

[Miguel]

.occasionally the 300 is enough but in the end whatever you use you will come to the realization that your lens is not long enough

That is a core truth when it comes to shooting birds, especially smaller songbirds. Focal length is just about an insatiable resource, countered only by weight and budget. It's a shame that Tamron's 150-600mm f5-6.3 isn't available in K-mount as it's been tons of fun on my 7D.

M

[-wikstrom-]

If you only use the 70-200 for the football field then the screw noise of the Tamron should not be an issue.

That is true but if you would like to shoot anything in for example a church, the 70-200 from Tamron could make too much noise if you want to be discrete.

[crewl1]

That is true but if you would like to shoot anything in for example a church, the 70-200 from Tamron could make too much noise if you want to be discrete.

Ah, a third priority surfaces!

Yes if you plan to do weddings/theater work/etc., then it is a consideration but some users will tell you it is a non-issue.
If this would be a rare occurrence for your, then switching to manual eliminates all AF noise.

BTW I do own a Sigma 70-200OS and it is an awesome lens, worth keeping an eye out in the used market if retail stock has dried up.

[-wikstrom-]

Lots of sensible advice here.

For birds you will want the longest lens you can get. And for Scandinavian wildlife, too. Not easy to get close to much of anything around here...

An African driving safari in a well visited national park is very different. Lots of animals getting quite close to the vehicle. The 60-250 would be great for that. A DA*300 would be too long a lot of the time so you'd want to bring an extra camera But (most of) the birds are still small and require a long lens.

And again, a walking safari means more distance to the animals. A 500mm zoom would be wonderful for its reach, but no way will I carry that much all day! I find the 55-300 a good compromise between reach, quality, and weight. A 60-250 might be OK, too, but it's still quite heavy IMO.

I'm most likely to shoot wildlife and birds here in Sweden so the longer, the better, right? To be able to get close to a deer is difficult around here, nonetheless birds.

[btnapa]

I'm most likely to shoot wildlife and birds here in Sweden so the longer, the better, right? To be able to get close to a deer is difficult around here, nonetheless birds.

You know how in the computer world they say you can never have enough RAM. In bird photography you can never have long enough lens. The longer the better. Zoom is even more useful.

[lesmore49]

I'm most likely to shoot wildlife and birds here in Sweden so the longer, the better, right? To be able to get close to a deer is difficult around here, nonetheless birds.

I didn't realize you were in Sweden. I'm in Western Canada , about 90 miles (about 145 kms.) from the Canadian Shield, which is similar to Sweden I would guess. Our temps out here in the winter are about - 10 to -25 C, also some days -30 to -35 C. Winters go 5 to 5.5 months....rarely any thaws. When the snow comes in late October, early November, it's pretty well here unchanged till early April.

.I have a sense that your Swedish wildlife is similar to our Canadian wildlife....considering both countries are cold, snowy and in the northern hemisphere.

Here's some ideas for photographing Canadian wildlife that may work for you in Sweden.

I do a lot of winter shooting, particularly raptors. I find for example the Snowy White Owls are hard to approach. I find my Sigma 150-500 gives me more distance between the bird and camera, than my 55-300.



There are other wild birds like Northern Hawk Owls, Great Gray Owls, Great Horned Owls , over wintering Bald Eagles ......I can approach a bit closer. In these situations, I find my 55-300 @ 300mm good...but again the further away I am, the less likely the raptor will take mediated flight.

For raptors, I'm always looking upward in the trees.

I generally come across White Tailed Deer, when I'm walking down forest trails. As with birds, not much time to compose a photo before they bolt. So being prepared and ready ...camera wise is essential.

I have come across other wildlife such as moose, black bear, timber wolf....and just once a wolverine....but unfortunately either did not have a camera close at hand....or was in a canoe or car. With these animals, I do not want to be on foot around them and even a 500mm lens, IMO...is still too close.

Through hard experience I've found that it pays to have my camera settings ready to go...so all I need do, is switch the on button ...on.

My experience with both lenses has been good. The 55-300 is lightweight, has very good resolution. The 150 - 500 Sigma also has very good resolution and can take some excellent photos, if the photographer knows how to use it.

The big Sigma is heavy and very large. It can get tiring to carry around, I find about 45 -60 minutes is my limit and I'm fairly big....6'3", 240 lbs. I generally swap my K-5/150-500 combo from hand to hand every few minutes to spread the load. I use the Sigma handle to carry it. It's an excellent grip.

Les