Canon 100 - 400 II or Tamron 150 - 600 G2 on a 7D mkII ?
Feb 19, 2017 09:34:55 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Ok I am going to purchase one of these 2 lenses by... (show quote)
I am sure the Tamron is a very good lens, but especially for extended handholding, and durability, the Canon !
Feb 19, 2017 09:36:03 #
imagemeister wrote:
I am sure the Tamron is a very good lens, but especially for extended handholding, and durability, the Canon !
Crop your way to 600 ......with pixel enlargement if necessary.
Feb 19, 2017 09:41:44 #
Feb 19, 2017 09:45:36 #
I have the 7DII, the Sigma 150-600 Sport, and the Canon 100-400 II (and 1.4 III). Primarily used for birds, wildlife. I have gotten great photos with the Sigma (usually with tripod, but occasionally handheld). The 100-400 is relatively new, but I can tell you (from an old guys perspective), it is over twice as easy to handhold, the IS is far superior to the Sigma, the IQ seems to be really good, and it has turned into my "on camera" lens of choice. You just have to recognize that you will give up a bit of distance; but knowing what I know now, I would go with the 100-400.
Feb 19, 2017 09:55:49 #
I have the 7DII and just traded the 100-400L series I for the Tamron 150-600 G2 and do not regret it. I spent the month of Jan. in Florida and got some fantastic shots of birds both still and in flight most handheld. Focus was fast on BIF and tracking was great. As for durability, my camera fell off my monopod onto the sidewalk and the only thing damaged was the "L" bracket. For the money I don't think the the Series II would benefit me as a lot of the images I got were tack sharp.
Feb 19, 2017 10:31:53 #
If you do not use a tripod, forget those long lenses. You will not be happy wit h the results.
Feb 19, 2017 10:33:47 #
cthahn wrote:
If you do not use a tripod, forget those long lenses. You will not be happy wit h the results.
B.S.
Feb 19, 2017 10:42:03 #
chaman wrote:
The Canon....and those images posted above greatly support why. Agree with the rest, is a no brainer.
I agree. I own the Canon II.
Feb 19, 2017 10:44:19 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
To my novice eye those images above look great what is wrong with them ?I'm still learning this stuff went from SX50 to 7DMKII 11months ago and still traveling the steep up side of the curve
They don't look sharp to me.
Feb 19, 2017 11:21:49 #
Feb 19, 2017 11:27:42 #
DSmith wrote:
Attached are a couple I took in Florida in Jan. Both hand held and both 50-100 yards out.
Look good to me hand held.
Feb 19, 2017 11:56:21 #
cthahn wrote:
If you do not use a tripod, forget those long lenses. You will not be happy wit h the results.
Not if you have/use IS/VR. I routinely shoot the 100-400 at full length + a 1.4 extender (560mm equivalent) handheld at 1/250 to 1/500 ( with IS on ) with no issues.
Feb 19, 2017 12:19:37 #
I personally feel sticking with lenses that are designed to function with what ever body is a good idea. If you want to see examples of great images produced with a 7DII, you should check out "Feathered Photography" by Ron Dudly. He posts daily with shots produced with his 7DII and 500mm IS plus extenders and 100/400 II. I don't think you can go wrong with the 100/400mm IS II.
Feb 19, 2017 12:46:13 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Ok I am going to purchase one of these 2 lenses by... (show quote)
I have the Canon 100-400 II and would highly recommend it for it's sharpness, very fast auto-focus, small size and lightness and able to focus down to 3 feet. I have the older version of the Tamron 150-600 and it is a very good lens, but not nearly as good as the Canon 100-400 II.
Feb 19, 2017 13:46:22 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.