canon 100-400mmL ISII usm lens vs Tamron 150-600mm lense
Apr 4, 2015 15:23:59 #
For those of you using these lenses primarily for birding photos as Regis etc which lens would you favor over the other and why? Give the pros and cons of each lens.
Apr 4, 2015 16:13:10 #
600mm or 400mm? Hmmm, 50% more reach for shooting small birds. Not hard at all to make that decision, especially at half the price with 6X the warranty.
Apr 5, 2015 08:44:36 #
Canon L lens quality is what you pay for. I just got the 100-400 II to replace the original 100-400 and use it primarily for wildlife and on a 7DII. I have a friend who got the other lens you mentioned for his Nikon and seems to like it although it is tough to hand hold.
Apr 5, 2015 09:10:41 #
redfordl wrote:
For those of you using these lenses primarily for birding photos as Regis etc which lens would you favor over the other and why? Give the pros and cons of each lens.
For either of these lenses, you should have a camera body that supports micro focus adjusting of some sort.
With either of the new Sigma 150-600 lenses and the docking feature, you can micro focus adjust at several focal lengths and distances on ANY camera body ...
Because the resolution of the new Canon II lens at 400mm is slightly better than the Tammy at 400mm, It can be argued that with good cropping/pixel enlargement techniques on a good ( high pixel density) sensor that you can crop your way from 400 to 600mm ( a 1.5X jump) and get image quality equal to or better than the native 600mm of the Tammy.
AF speed and accuracy will ALWAYS be better on a f5.6 lens vs a 6.3 lens.
The lighter weight and smaller Canon lens is easier to manage and is more hand-holdable. If you are a smaller female or an older person, this can be significant.
When shooting static subjects at slower shutter speeds, the IS of the Canon may have a slight advantage.
Apr 5, 2015 09:31:31 #
With the 100-400 L II on my 7DII focusing is lightning fast and IQ is excellent. I have never shot the 100-600 but I prefer the 100-400 to the Sigma 150-500 that I had, even though it was lighter. From everything I have read about the 100-600, it is an excellent lens. There are some points to consider though. The Canon's max aperture is from 4.5 to 5.6. The Sig's is 5 to 6.3. The Sig is 6.3 lbs vs 3.5 lbs for the Canon. The Sig is also considerably longer and bulkier. Minimum focus distance for the Sig is 102". For the Canon it is 43". The Sig, of course, has a 600mm focal length vs 400mm and is said to have excellent IQ, as does the Canon.
Apr 5, 2015 09:48:20 #
LFingar wrote:
With the 100-400 L II on my 7DII focusing is light... (show quote)
Have the same setup. Agree.
Apr 5, 2015 10:03:09 #
LFingar wrote:
With the 100-400 L II on my 7DII focusing is light... (show quote)
I just realized that the OP was asking about the Tamron, not the Sig. Sorry for any confusion. All I can say is that when I posted my response I had only had one cup of coffee! I am now working on my 2nd one and things are a bit clearer! :lol:
Apr 5, 2015 10:07:11 #
LFingar wrote:
I just realized that the OP was asking about the Tamron, not the Sig. Sorry for any confusion. All I can say is that when I posted my response I had only had one cup of coffee! I am now working on my 2nd one and things are a bit clearer! :lol:
:thumbup:
Apr 5, 2015 10:11:59 #
LFingar wrote:
I just realized that the OP was asking about the Tamron, not the Sig. Sorry for any confusion. All I can say is that when I posted my response I had only had one cup of coffee! I am now working on my 2nd one and things are a bit clearer! :lol:
Oddly enough, when the 100-400L II is cropped to the same FOV as the Tammy at 600mm, sharpness goes to the Canon, but it comes with a higher price.
It's worthy what Roger Cicala at LensRentals has to say about the Canon.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever
Apr 5, 2015 10:14:45 #
I had both,i sold the canon and went to the Tamron so i could get 600mm, the new 100-400 is a nice lens but if you need that extra 200mm go with the tamron, for 1069 you cant BEAT IT
Apr 5, 2015 10:21:10 #
imagemeister thanks for your tips on these two lenses.I have a canon t4i which which has no microadjust feature for focus. If I were to get the canon lens is there any software out there where I can microadjust this lens for the t4i. Yes, one of the disadvantages of the tamron lens is its weight and the ability to get non blurry images when hand holding,but I would most likely use a tripod most of the time with such a heavy lens.Thanks Again and have a Great Easter!!
Apr 5, 2015 10:25:49 #
rstrick2 thanks for your comments on the tamron as the price of 2300$ for the new canon 100-400mm is out of reach for me. Yes I think the 600mm reach makes it a nice birding lens. Have you had any success with handholding this lens or do you use it mainly on a tripod. Happy Holiday!!
Apr 5, 2015 10:40:51 #
redfordl wrote:
rstrick2 thanks for your comments on the tamron as the price of 2300$ for the new canon 100-400mm is out of reach for me. Yes I think the 600mm reach makes it a nice birding lens. Have you had any success with handholding this lens or do you use it mainly on a tripod. Happy Holiday!!
The new Sigma Contemporary in Canon mount is now shipping for $1089 .......
Apr 5, 2015 16:15:56 #
redfordl wrote:
imagemeister thanks for your tips on these two lenses.I have a canon t4i which which has no microadjust feature for focus. If I were to get the canon lens is there any software out there where I can microadjust this lens for the t4i. Yes, one of the disadvantages of the tamron lens is its weight and the ability to get non blurry images when hand holding,but I would most likely use a tripod most of the time with such a heavy lens.Thanks Again and have a Great Easter!!
I can tell you that my 100-400 L II required very little microadjusting, especially on the long end. As I recall, it was front focusing very slightly. The Sigma 150-500 I used to have required much more. I don't know if that is just my 100-400 or if that holds true for all of those lenses. All of my lenses are Canon L's and none have required very much in the way of adjustment. Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe that is part of the reason why they are priced so high.
Apr 5, 2015 17:38:37 #
LFingar wrote:
I can tell you that my 100-400 L II required very little microadjusting, especially on the long end. As I recall, it was front focusing very slightly. The Sigma 150-500 I used to have required much more. I don't know if that is just my 100-400 or if that holds true for all of those lenses. All of my lenses are Canon L's and none have required very much in the way of adjustment. Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe that is part of the reason why they are priced so high.
You are "lucky" .... New Canon lenses generally will have small adjustments - used Canon lenses - more ! Third party lenses - more ! I believe the new Sigmas adjust at 4 focal lengths and several distances ......among focus speed adjustments also.
The adjustment for my used 300 2.8 is +13 on a 50D. Your particular body also plays a significant role in the adjustment !
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.