Canon 100 - 400 II or Tamron 150 - 600 G2 on a 7D mkII ?
Feb 18, 2017 16:07:11 #
Ok I am going to purchase one of these 2 lenses by the end of the week, I have looked at the tech comparisons and searched the archives here still having trouble deciding . 95% of my shooting is hand held while hiking with the dog so hand held we walk every day I have off of work so weather is always changing here in Wisconsin. My most frequent subjects would be birds from Hummers to Herons. I need the longer reach for Eagles and Loons etc.
Seeing as I will have to be happy with which ever lens I buy for a long time (wife says years) Image Quality is probably most important factor followed by build quality/durability . I would be most interested in hearing from anyone who has used both. but welcome input from everyone
Seeing as I will have to be happy with which ever lens I buy for a long time (wife says years) Image Quality is probably most important factor followed by build quality/durability . I would be most interested in hearing from anyone who has used both. but welcome input from everyone
Feb 18, 2017 16:27:50 #
No brainer to me given you already shoot a 7DII: 100-400L II, then add the 1.4x III for more reach when you have the light and / or the approval to spend more funds.
Feb 18, 2017 16:28:54 #
I have had the 100-400 first edition and it was a great lens. Got some unforgettable shots in Denali. I have a sigma now and like it but still wonder if I should have bought the 100-400 II. I'd go with the Canon
Feb 18, 2017 16:32:53 #
I have never used the Tamron, but I have both the 100-400 L II and 7DII, plus the EF 1.4x III extender. With or without the extender the 100-400 produces excellent results. IQ is outstanding. Auto focus is lightning fast, spot on, and silent. Build quality is excellent. Two other points to consider since you will be using it handheld while hiking: Stabilization of the 100-400 is excellent and it weighs almost a pound less then the Tamron.
Feb 18, 2017 16:33:45 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Ok I am going to purchase one of these 2 lenses by... (show quote)
The attached image is a Juvenile Bald Eagle, shot on a cloudy overcast day along the Gunnison River in Colorado, I am guessing @ 65-70 yards hand held, FL 600 mm, ISO 640, Tv 1/1250, Av 6.3 with the Tamron 150-600 G2 and the Canon 7D mkll. The IQ is satisfactory for me. May not be acceptable for you or someone else. I do a lot of birding with this setup and for me it performs great.
As you can see from the Sparrow, works great for small close birds also.
Feb 18, 2017 16:34:44 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
No brainer to me given you already shoot a 7DII: 100-400L II, then add the 1.4x III for more reach when you have the light and / or the approval to spend more funds.
Completely agree. 👍👍 I have the older version (MK1) and use with a 1.4x MKII, and it is plenty sharp, even at high ISO (6,400 - 10,000) and 16x24 prints, handheld (with IS). The MKII with the MKIII 1.4 extender is even better, is easy to handle and will provide plenty of reach with your 7D2. Build quality is excellent, and the IS is very effective.
Feb 18, 2017 17:57:08 #
LFingar wrote:
100-400 is excellent and it weighs almost a pound less then the Tamron.
until you add the 1/2 pound for the extender
Feb 18, 2017 18:00:50 #
Feb 19, 2017 01:10:36 #
The Canon....and those images posted above greatly support why. Agree with the rest, is a no brainer.
Feb 19, 2017 01:34:50 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Ok I am going to purchase one of these 2 lenses by... (show quote)
Norman, I've never even seen a Tamron lens, so with that said, just keep in mind that Canon has probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in R&D to be sure that the combo you mention works flawlessly in every aspect and will continue to do so as well as wrk with all future cameras also into the years to come.
I'm sure the Canon costs more but it's resale in ten years will certainly be higher also.
Personally I'd go with the Canon and either get closer or give up the long shots! Good luck with whatever you go with!!
SS
Feb 19, 2017 06:17:35 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Ok I am going to purchase one of these 2 lenses by... (show quote)
I am not even a Canon guy and I can answer this one. BUY CANON. Many of my friends here in Florida shoot Canon and there lens of choice for wildlife is the Canon 100-400 II. It is hands down, not even close. Last week a photo club come into Green Cay, they ALL had Canon and were shooting either the I or II version. Most had the II version cause they say it is much better than the I version. One lonely guy had a sigma lens, I felt sorry for him. Yes, this is an unscientific assessment, but, the Canon lens is that good. In fact, this Nikon guy of 46 years almost went to the white side when that lens came out. Fortunately the Nikon 200-500 came out and I was saved by the bell. Good luck.
Feb 19, 2017 08:06:59 #
chaman wrote:
The Canon....and those images posted above greatly support why. Agree with the rest, is a no brainer.
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
Feb 19, 2017 08:57:47 #
BooIsMyCat
Loc: Somewhere
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
I wouldn't pay much attention to that comment. When one makes such a comment w/o clarifying why, they're nothing but a troll.
Rather than asking for an explanation, I would ask the guy to provide "his results" under the same conditions that were identified in the photos he put down.
I have the Tamron (older version) and am in the same predicament you face... If it hasn't occurred to you... maybe renting both would allow you to answer your own question. For the price of the Canon lens, you can get the Tamron, the docking station AND a teleconverter. I can tell you that the Canon II will focus much faster than the Tamron. For BIF, that can be something you may want to consider.
Feb 19, 2017 09:06:23 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Ok I am going to purchase one of these 2 lenses by... (show quote)
Norman, I had the Tamron 150-600mm (version 1) and just traded for the Canon 100-400 IS lens (again first version). This is my second Canon L lens and even though the lens is 200mm smaller I can get the same bird photos with I believe a better IQ. I know it is just an opinion, but I would not make a trade in the opposite direction. The camera store I do business with gave me all they could on the Tamron in the trade but it still took dollars. I have many bird photos posted on the Close Up section on UHH with the new lens being the most recent.
Greg
Feb 19, 2017 09:13:05 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Ok I am going to purchase one of these 2 lenses by... (show quote)
The Canon is so far superior optically and construction wise that I am surprised you are even asking the question.
If you go with anything else you will regret it and then have to buy the Canon anyway wasting the money on the first purchase.
It is hyper fast in the focus, the IS is great and for 400mm is not that heavy. Also if you do get an opportunity to get close it focuses to a little under 3' which at 400mm is almost like having a macro lens. Try getting that close with ANY other lens at any price including the vaunted Canon 70-200mm f2.8.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.