Mr.Ft Loc: Central New Jersey

I'm looking at a few lens, and wanted to know if there was any pro's or con's to the two systems. Some of the lens are push/pull type for zoom and some other are "twist" to zoom. I was told that push/pull will force dust into the lens but the "twist" lens the barrell extends and retracts when you twist. amy input is greatly appreciated. Some of the len's I'm looking at:

Sigma / Tamron 100/400 150/600

Canon 100/400 Ver 1 and 2

Thanks
Tom

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The argument on push-pull is they "suck in" dust. Others think they're more "logical" for efficient use. The drawback of the v1 100-400L is their age. Their price has come down a lot and they're built to last forever, but as a discontinued design, if they need a repair sometime in that 'forever', that might not be an option.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

Push Pull zooming was great prior to AF - I could follow focus and follow zoom as a player ran down the field. My biggest complaint was inconsistency with what push and pull did, some lens were pull to zoom others were push to zoom. Since AF to my mind not so much. As to dust/debris - if the lens racks in and out the possibility exists of pulling in dust/debris. I think it gets down to personal preference.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I had the Canon Push/Pull for years and its OK. I went to the Tamron 150/600 and love it. Sold my Canon and never missed it. I use a 5DIV and 7DII. I have taken a lion picture (overall) and cropped it to a just a head shot, printed it 13 X 19 and you can see every hair on it.

Bill_de Loc: US

The Tamron 150 - 600 g2 can zoom by rotating the collar or using it as a push pull. I'll bet some others are the same.

---

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Some zooms do extend and retract, when zoomed-in, or out! That does happen with both systems and does not matter which. It is all a thing of preference (I personally hate push 'n pull lenses. I guess there is some truth about collecting dust in push'n pull zooms ( at least in a few cases), but overall, its not true. It comes down to you, which you prefer in handling and shooting!

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I don't have any of the zooms you are considering, but I do have an AF Nikkor 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5D push/pull zoom. It pushes out to zoom to 105mm and pulls in to zoom to 35mm. I don't think it is any more susceptible to dust being forced in to the lens than any other lens that extends and retracts.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Either push-pull or twist, if the barrel extends it will suck air inside.
Some twist zooms move the elements inside, not extending the barrel.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

when you turn the lens control the speed off movement is much slower and less suction than a pull on a push/pull
as I stated before the Tamron 150/600 to be a much more useful lens PS cheeper I believe also.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I feel the same.
I used a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 manual focus lens before AF and the design made sense back then.
Shot quite a few college football games with that lens for the newspaper, along with a 300 prime.

One of my first AF lenses was the 80-200 2.8 Nikkor push/pull. It seemed to work fine, until I borrowed a newer two-ring version. I found it a lot easier to use and more precise to track a subject and zoom with a rotating ring than that sliding focus/zoom ring.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I rented a Canon 100-400 L (older model) several years ago and decided that I would never buy a lens with push/pull for zoom. I did end up buying a wide angle Tokina that has push/pull for switching focus from manual to auto and I find I always add a slight twist when pulling back.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

A ring zoom is more ergonomically advantageous for me than a push-pull.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I have the original 100-400L Canon which is push-pull. I expected it to be confusing since all my other zooms are twist type, but honestly, for me it isn’t an issue changing between types. Perhaps it’s because I have used earlier film zooms in the past that were push-pull, so it seems intuitive to me. I haven’t noticed any internal dust, but in fairness, I don’t use it that often. Having said that, if I was a regular user, I’d consider moving to the version 2 as the IQ is better (and the close focusing distance is shorter), but the original isn’t bad, even with the Canon 1.4x TC (MK II or III), and you can pick them up in the $700 range.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I tried a friend's 100-400 "push/pull", but couldn't get the hang of it. I've just never been a fan of push/pull zooms. Image quality was pretty good and some people prefer the fast action of the push/pull... especially for things like birds in flight or air show photography.

I now use the Canon 100-400 "II" and it has superb image quality. It equals or surpasses some of the best primes I've used and even works very, very well with Canon Extender 1.4X II (as a 140-560mm f/7.1-f/8). The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s and 100-400s aren't as sharp as either of the Canon 100-400s... the Canon lenses use fluorite. The 3rd party lenses don't.

I don't know if the push/pull lens was truly a "dust pump". All these lenses change length as they're zoomed, so they have to pull air in and push it out in the process. I suppose it might be that the push/pull lens' fast action is more prone to pumping air in and out... but they all must do it to some extent. In nearly three years using it now, I haven't noticed the "II" gathering dust inside. It's a little heavier than the original push/pull, too (roughly 3.5 lb. vs 3 lb.) The 150-600mm lenses are about 4.5 lb., except for the more "pro grade" Sigma Sport, which is closer to 6 lb.

Canon 100-400L II review: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Image quality comparison, Canon 100-400 II vs Canon 100-400: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
IQ comparison, Canon 100-400 II vs Sigma 150-600 Contemporary: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
IQ comparison, Canon 100-400 II vs Sigma 150-600 Sport:https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=978&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
IQ comparison, Canon 100-400 II vs Tamron 150-600 G2:https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1079&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
IQ comparison, Canon 100-400 II vs Sigma 100-400:https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1120&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
IQ comparison, Canon 100-400 II vs Tamron 100-400:https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1178&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Other considerations....

The two Canon lenses and the 150-600mm lenses all come with a tripod mounting ring. One is optional for for the Tamron 100-400mm, too. None is available or even possible with the Sigma 100-400mm.

The Canon 100-400 lenses are "faster". While all these are variable aperture lenses, the Canon lenses are at least 1/3 stop, 2/3 stops faster in some cases. They maintain larger aperture through longer focal lengths. For example, the Canon 100-400 "II" starts at f/4.5 at 100mm and maintains f/5 from 135mm through 312mm, then it drops to f/5.6 through 400mm. In comparison, the 150-600 lenses are f/5 to start, drop to f/5.6 around 180mm, and then again to f/6.3 around 350mm. So for much of the focal lengths they share, the 150-600s are actually 2/3 stop slower than the Canon 100-400 II.

It's similar with the 3rd party 100-400s. The Tamron starts out at f/4.5 like the Canon, but the Sigma is f/5 to start with. The Sigma also drops further to f/5.6 almost immediately, at only 112mm and again to f/6.3 at 234mm. The Tamron is a little better, maintaining f/5 until 180mm where it drops to f/5.6, then again to f/6.3 at 280mm. But, again, the Canon is f/5 or better through 312mm, and then drops to f/5.6 for the remainder of its range. Once again, this means the Canon lens is 2/3 stops faster at many of the same focal lengths as the 3rd party lenses. In fact, it's a full stop faster at some focal lengths. This can be the difference between being able to "get the shot" or not, in tough lighting conditions.

Of course, the 150-600mm lenses have 200mm of additional "reach" over the 100-400mm lenses. A 1.4X teleconverter added to the 100-400mm is an option if your camera is one of Canon's "f/8 capable models" (which include all the models with 45-point or 65-point AF, as well as the ones with 61-point AF.... But not any of the cameras with 19-point or 9-point or less AF.)

User ID

'Forever' is a reeeeeeally loooong
time ... especially near the end ;-)