Tammy 100-400 F4.5 vs Canon version L II
Oct 17, 2019 18:55:16 #
I have a limited need for this lens. Interested in real-world awareness regarding these two. Will shoot on 5D Sr and RP, probably at night hs fb games. There is a significant diff in cost, and I’m not crazy abt spending Canon money for a lens that would see so little shooting. I have read a couple comparos, and other than build quality and focus dist, the diff is not that great. Other opinions based on experience?
If you know of what you speak, pls advise. Tia.
If you know of what you speak, pls advise. Tia.
Oct 17, 2019 19:00:12 #
DeanS wrote:
I have a limited need for this lens. Interested in real-world awareness regarding these two. Will shoot on 5D Sr and RP, probably at night hs fb games. There is a significant diff in cost, and I’m not crazy abt spending Canon money for a lens that would see so little shooting. I have read a couple comparos, and other than build quality and focus dist, the diff is not that great.
If you know of what you speak, pls advise. Tia.
If you know of what you speak, pls advise. Tia.
Then get the Tamron.
Oct 17, 2019 19:08:09 #
DeanS wrote:
I have a limited need for this lens. Interested in real-world awareness regarding these two. Will shoot on 5D Sr and RP, probably at night hs fb games. There is a significant diff in cost, and I’m not crazy abt spending Canon money for a lens that would see so little shooting. I have read a couple comparos, and other than build quality and focus dist, the diff is not that great.
If you know of what you speak, pls advise. Tia.
If you know of what you speak, pls advise. Tia.
I have the Tamron on a 6D Mark II and like you I could not justify the price difference.
I have been quite impressed with this lens and am happy that the results.
Would purchase again if needed.
Oct 17, 2019 19:10:22 #
irishrover61 wrote:
I have the Tamron on a 6D Mark II and like you I could not justify the price difference.
I have been quite impressed with this lens and am happy that the results.
Would purchase again if needed.
I have been quite impressed with this lens and am happy that the results.
Would purchase again if needed.
Thanks, the kind of comment hoped for.
Oct 17, 2019 19:14:13 #
If you are shooting night HS football games (and you can deal with the weight), I would instead buy an early non-IS Canon EF 300 f2.8L, a monopod (if you don’t already have one) and consider adding a Canon EF 1.4x MK II or MK III extender for those times you don’t want to crop. This lens can be had in the $1300 range, weighs almost 6lbs and is built like a tank, but is the gold standard for night football (unless you can afford the 400, 500 or 600mm L series). If you want to see what this lens can deliver, take a look at the recent football pics posted and shot at ISO 20,000) on a recent thread (https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-614446-1.html). You need speed for night sports, and this lens is multiple stops faster than what you’re considering (and if it takes ISO 20,000 to produce these results, just think where you’d need to be at f4.5 or f5.6)
Oct 17, 2019 19:20:04 #
Thanks, took a look at the Canon 100-400 L II, and that wgt was more than I wanted to contend with. Understand the need for faster lens, but would attempt to compensate with higher ISO.
Oct 17, 2019 19:51:48 #
DeanS wrote:
Thanks, took a look at the Canon 100-400 L II, and that wgt was more than I wanted to contend with. Understand the need for faster lens, but would attempt to compensate with higher ISO.
Canon's 300 f/2.8's have a long history of being extra special, however they are expensive. I have one and with the 2X extender it out performed my 500/4 and pretty easy to use handheld.
Oct 17, 2019 20:02:02 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Canon's 300 f/2.8's have a long history of being extra special, however they are expensive. I have one and with the 2X extender it out performed my 500/4 and pretty easy to use handheld.
As pointed out earlier, it is really heavy at abt 6 lbs. Too much for me.
Oct 17, 2019 20:19:05 #
DeanS wrote:
As pointed out earlier, it is really heavy at abt 6 lbs. Too much for me.
I truly understand that. My son recently bought this lens, and having used it, it IS a beast (twice the weight of the 100-400), hence the reason I suggest (and most pros use) a monopod. BUT, neither the Tammy or the Canon 100-400 (which I own and is f5.6 on the long end) is fast enough for this application - already tried it.
Oct 17, 2019 20:30:53 #
DeanS wrote:
Thanks, took a look at the Canon 100-400 L II, and that wgt was more than I wanted to contend with. Understand the need for faster lens, but would attempt to compensate with higher ISO.
If you consider “weight to be an issue” with your 5D SR attached to less than 3.5 lbs of EF 100-400 L IS II, then I suggest that you also won’t be happy with the weight of any of the cheaper, inferior products?
I understand your original comment that you probably wouldn’t shoot enough to justify the expense of the professional grade Canon lens. I just don’t understand the weight statement; once you hang any long telephoto zoom off that 5D body, balance will be much more important to you than a few extra ounces in the lens.
I can confirm that my 5D Mk IV & 100-400 L IS II combos are so physically well-balanced that this has become my walkabout combo. I’m happy to wander 10 miles or more each day, carrying this combo, without needing tripod or monopod.
Oct 17, 2019 20:32:14 #
TriX wrote:
I truly understand that. My son recently bought this lens, and having used it, it IS a beast (twice the weight of the 100-400), hence the reason I suggest (and most pros use) a monopod. BUT, neither the Tammy or the Canon 100-400 (which I own and is f5.6 on the long end) is fast enough for this application - already tried it.
👍
As sports photographers, we sometimes have to suffer a little for our art... my new 600mm f/4L IS III is supposed to be nearly 2 lbs lighter than the II, but it doesn’t feel any lighter at the end of a long day of shooting. Makes the 100-400 feel light as a feather.
Oct 17, 2019 20:40:04 #
TriX wrote:
I truly understand that. My son recently bought this lens, and having used it, it IS a beast (twice the weight of the 100-400), hence the reason I suggest (and most pros use) a monopod. BUT, neither the Tammy or the Canon 100-400 (which I own and is f5.6 on the long end) is fast enough for this application - already tried it.
Understand. I have a monopod, but don’t like using it. I think I’m in a quandry here.
Oct 17, 2019 20:43:42 #
BB4A wrote:
👍
As sports photographers, we sometimes have to suffer a little for our art... my new 600mm f/4L IS III is supposed to be nearly 2 lbs lighter than the II, but it doesn’t feel any lighter at the end of a long day of shooting. Makes the 100-400 feel light as a feather.
As sports photographers, we sometimes have to suffer a little for our art... my new 600mm f/4L IS III is supposed to be nearly 2 lbs lighter than the II, but it doesn’t feel any lighter at the end of a long day of shooting. Makes the 100-400 feel light as a feather.
The Canon 100-400 L/II checks in at abt 3.5 lbs. That’s one reason I’m considering the Tammy, at abt 2.5 lbs.
Oct 17, 2019 20:53:58 #
DeanS wrote:
The Canon 100-400 L/II checks in at abt 3.5 lbs. That’s one reason I’m considering the Tammy, at abt 2.5 lbs.
Seems like you already made up your mind.
What is the purpose of the post?
Oct 17, 2019 21:04:42 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Seems like you already made up your mind.
What is the purpose of the post?
What is the purpose of the post?
Perhaps, but I was hoping for more definiti comparo based on use knowledge.
I should have mentioned up front that I also have the Canon 70-200 F4 L/II and a t/c 1.4/II. But the t/c costs an fstop. Still in a quandry.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.