bob1912

Does anyone know anything about the new Tamron 100-400? It has been previewed at shows but is not available yet. Santa said she would consider the Canon 100-400 but the cost is a bit prohibited for someone who is just beginning photography. I have the Tamron 18-400, but was wondering if the Tam 100-400 is going to be worth buying. Thank you in advanced for your thoughts. Bob1912

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Welcome to the forum. The Tamron 100-400mm lens is upcoming soon. The Tamron 18-400mm, designed for a crop sensor camera, is a highly mentioned lens on this forum. It has high praise with uhh members. The Tamron 100-400mm on the other hand, is a full frame designed zoom lens. Surprisingly it is affordable at $800. A better option than paying $2000 for a Canon 100-400mm. Is it as sharp as the Canon? I would say not. But the price is certainly right.

bob1912

Thank you mas24 - happy thanksgiving!

Chefneil

I await the coming reviews of this lens, too. If it is as good as every other Tamron lens that I have used...It will be be in my kit ASAP!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Well, the Sigma 100-400 IS available now. Using Imatest numbers, the Sigma is just a tick under the Canon - like 1600 vs 1500 - that close- ( in the center @400mm) ! No tripod collar for the Sigma tho 8-( .....! The Sigma and the Tamron, as far as we know = same price. The Sigma may also be smaller/lighter.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Don't know about the Tamron, but a friend of mine get's great wildlife photos using the Canon 100-400mm VRII. Ofc, she has outstanding venues that she visits several times a week and has done so for several years. I've had the privilege of watching her photographic skills improve as she has done nothing but shoot, shoot, shoot.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If I already have the 18-400mm, I'd stick with that.

Some reviews -

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS716US717&ei=sLgWWrv1Ie2A_QaOuZKgBw&q=tamron+100-400mm+review&oq=Tamron+100-400&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i71k1l4.0.0.0.4530.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.RJFGFARXAw8

UncleBuck Loc: Malvern, Arkansas

Dustin Abbott recently reviewed this lens and the results were very favorable, I've included the link to his review below.

http://www.photonews.ca/index.php/tamron-100-400mm-review/

WesIam Loc: Phoenixville, Pa

I am looking for the brown truck tomorrow to drop off my Tamron 100-400,waited for it about a month.Planing on using it on my D500 for birding and other wildlife.So far the lens has gotten some good reviews.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You're going to have a hard time finding out very much about the Tamron 100-400mm. It's been announced but is not yet available, so almost no one has seen or used it. Pretty hard to get useful comparisons of a lens that, for all practical purposes, "doesn't exist" yet!

About all we DO know for certain is what we see "on paper": That Tamron will be asking $800 for it (vs $2000 for the Canon). That they will be offering an optional tripod mounting ring for it. In my opinion, that $129 accessory would be absolutely mandatory and appears to be a neat design with an Arca-quick-release-compatible dovetail built-in. That the Tamron will be a little "slower" than the Canon (f/6.3 versus f/5.6 at 400mm, probably also smaller at shorter focal lengths). That appears to allow it to be about 1 lb. lighter than the Canon (2.5 lb. vs 3.5 lb.... though I think the Tamron's weight doesn't incl. the t'pod ring, while the Canon's does) and uses a smaller filter (67mm vs. 77mm).

There also is the Sigma 100-400mm OS HSM lens. It's been available for a while and there are a number of reviews online. With similar specs to the Tamron, my main gripe is that the Sigma doesn't even have an option to fit a tripod ring. IMO, that's a mistake. I wouldn't consider it, for that reason alone. Also a 2.5 lb. lens, it would get pretty heavy during long shooting sessions I do with this type of lens. And it would be pretty poorly balanced - "nose heavy" - if used with tripod/monopod via the the camera's 1/4" mounting socket.

I DO have and use the Canon 100-400mm "II" and can tell you it's a superb lens: Sharp throughout the zoom range (in some part thanks to using a fluorite element, which Canon does with a lot of their zooms, but Tamron and Sigma don't). It's also quite fast focusing, very close focusing and has excellent Image Stabilization. And it's very well built! The guys at Lensrentals.com love to take things apart just to see what's inside and when they did a teardown of the Canon 100-400mm "II" they called it "the best-built zoom they'd ever seen".

I did not have and use the original Canon 100-400mm merely because I'm not a fan of push-pull zooms. But a lot of other people used and really like it... some even still prefer it for things like birds in flight and air shows, where the somewhat unusual push/pull design is very fast acting. It's also a fine lens (and uses fluorite) and is still widely available both used and new (at significant discount)... might be worth consideration. One thing I'd note, though, is that the original 100-400mm uses an older type of IS that MUST be manually turned off if the lens is locked down on a tripod. That type of IS can go haywire when there's no movement to stabilize, sort of like a feedback loop, where it actually creates shake/movement when there is none for IS to counteract. A few other (four, actually) Canon IS lenses are known to do this, too... mostly older designs. Most of the other 25 or so Canon IS lenses automatically turn it off when they sense no movement at all, and then reactivate IS when movement does start to occur again. One other thing.. .the original 100-400mm doesn't "play well" with filters. Even a high quality filter will "soften" images made with that lens. A lot of users were stunned how good their 100-400mm was, when they finally removed the "protection" filter that they'd had on it "from new". I honestly can't tell you if the "II" is better in this regard, because after using it for a year to make many thousands of shots I still haven't had occasion to put any filter on it. (I use filters very sparingly on all my lenses... But these telephoto lenses' deep hoods to a better job protecting them, than any thin piece of glass ever could.) I do know the 100-400 II is considered better with teleconverters (primarily a 1.4X, since a 2X on it would make for no autofocus and a dim viewfinder)... though once again it's not something I've tested myself.

All these 100-400mm are NOT "internal zooming". That means they grow longer when zoomed to the longer focal lengths (all Canon 70-200mm and their 200-400mm 1.4X are internal zooming designs... while none of the 70/75-300 nor the 55-250mm are.) This changes balance slightly, though not a lot. The Canon lens is still quite usable on a gimbal mount (where internal focusing/internal zooming lenses are ideal because they maintain equilibrium, once it's set).

The Canon 100-400 II's tripod mounting ring also is not completely removable (the way it is on the original Canon and appears to be on the Tamron). On the "II", only the "foot" of the tripod ring can be removed. Which brings me to another minor "gripe". That OEM foot is "stylish"... but it doesn't work well with Arca-compatible QR lens plates! It also relies upon a thumb screw to fasten it, which I felt was prone to loosening. There are several third party manufacturers (Kirk, RRS and Hejnar Photo) making custom replacement feet specifically for the 100-400 "II", one of which I installed both for it's built-in Arca-style dovetail design AND for more security. It's been on there over a year now and hasn't loosened, thanks to a hex head bolt fastener, to which I added a dab of blue Locktite, for safety's sake.

At f/5.6 (300mm an up with the Canon "II") or f/6.3 with the two third party versions, these lenses are not able to strongly blur down backgrounds the way f/2.8 or even f/4 telephotos are able to. They also may come up a little short in more challenging lighting conditions. Personally I have 300mm f/4 and 300mm f/2.8 primes for situations where "faster" is necessary... but of course those aren't as versatile as the zoom, so I use it whenever I can. I shoot a lot of sports with two cameras (currently a pair of 7DII), and when using the 100-400 II on one, I'll usually fit the other with either a 24-70mm or a 28-135mm. Then I am using a 300mm prime (sometimes with a 1.4X), I often fit the second camera with a 70-200. Occasionally I use them together, but I find 70-200 and 100-400 to be pretty redundant.

If it were me, I'd sell off that 18-400mm, after purchasing any of the above (to be fair... I have a long-standing and intense dislike for "do everything" zooms... IMO they just compromise too much). Replace it with a more practical and most likely superior "walk around" lens such as the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM, EF-S 15-85mm IS USM or EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans

New video on the Tamron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=4DRxQobKDMI