Canon 100-400 (with extender/converter) or Tamron 150-600? (Page 2): I can tell you that the tamron 18-400 is not a sharp lens(had one got rid of it). The Canon ll is razor sharp which...

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

lwhite61 wrote:

Currently use tamron 18-400 on my 80D. Hoping to go FF in future. Looking to get "more reach" from a lens at this time. I mainly do birds/wildlife/landscape handheld while hiking. Budget will not allow for the canon 100-400L is ll new , would have to get used. Or could go with new tamron 150-600. Thanks

I can tell you that the tamron 18-400 is not a sharp lens(had one got rid of it). The Canon ll is razor sharp which I have. My friend has the tamron G20 150-600 lens with the Nikon 500. Impressive. Cheaper and pretty sharp.

Tom70 Loc: NY

some more of my 2 cents,
you mention that you might go FF, as good as the 100-400 is on the 80D, it was designed for FF so results are much better on FF.
Up to 400mm the canon is the sharpest lens w/ the best AF out there, even w/ the 1.4 TC. Tried a friends set up and even w/ my limited experience could not believe the results.
Also regarding close focus, lens is rated at approx 30-36", that's from the sensor, actually only 20-22 from extented lens front.
again only my 2 cents

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

Tom70 wrote:

some more of my 2 cents, br you mention that you ... (show quote)

The Canon 100-400 ll is an incredible piece of glass!

lwhite61 Loc: Kentucky

tcthome wrote:

Any camera stores near you. If so, take your camera with you(if they have what you want in stock) & fire off a few phots of each & decide. Just a thought.

Thanks. Plan on doing that.

lwhite61 Loc: Kentucky

Picture Taker wrote:

I had a Canon 100-400 and when Tamron came out with 150-600 I tried it got it and sold my Canon. I am still glad I did. That is me.

Thanks

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Other responses are correct... You're looking at some fairly large and hefty lenses. Your current 18-400mm weighs in a little over 1.5 lb. The Canon 100-400L II is about 3.5 lb. and the Tamron 150-600 G2 is over 4.5 lb. You also might want a tripod to work with these lenses, and that's going to add still more weight and bulk. Maybe a monopod could serve for hiking? (Someone suggested a Canon 400mm f/5.6 plus 1.4X, but that lens doesn't have Image Stabilization... is more likely to need a tripod... and at about 3 lb. really isn't very much lighter than the 100-400L II.)

When it comes to image quality, if at all possible, get the Canon 100-400mm II and 1.4X teleconverter. At the long end with the TC, it's a bit sharper than the Tamron 150-600mm G2. Without a TC with both at 400mm, they are pretty close, but the Canon lens has less chromatic aberrations. It's similar at shorter focal lengths, also with no TC on either lens, except the Tamron gets especially soft at 150mm.

See test shots done with both lenses at 400mm without teleconverters: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Here are test shots with EF 1.4X III on the Canon (560mm), vs the Tamron without TC (600mm): https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Test shots with Canon at 100mm and Tamron at 150mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Note that the above comparisons are all done on full frame, 50MP 5DS-R, which is quite demanding of lenses. However, if cropped down to APS-C format the pixel density would be fairly similar to your 80D's (the "center" and "mid-frame" test shots are most relevant to APS-C camera users, when the tests are shot with a full frame camera). Also, the test target images shown are significantly magnified. You can see the entire test target and a description of it here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

For that matter, compare the Canon 100-400L II against what you have now: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1145&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1 (In this case, test shots were done with a 7D Mark II, which is APS-C same as your 80D, but the 7DII is slightly lower resolution... 20MP versus 24MP).

I've been using the Canon 100-400L II for several years and it's an excellent lens... sharp at all focal lengths and with very little chromatic aberrations. The reason for that is because fluorite is part of the optical formula. Canon uses fluorite in a lot of their telephotos. It's expensive to work with, but significantly improves image quality. No third party manufacturers are using fluorite (Sigma has "FLD" elements in some lenses, which they describe as "fluorite like"). In fact, very few lens makers in general are using it, due to the difficulty and expense. A few years ago Nikon started using it in one 70-200 and four super tele primes longer than 300mm. I think Sony is using it in one or two lenses, too. Canon currently uses it in 12 telephoto lenses: 5 zooms and 7 primes. But they've been using it for over 50 years, developed methods of growing fluorite artificially, pioneered methods of working with it and used it in many different lenses over the years.

I have not used my 100-400mm II with teleconverters a lot... but did some experimentation with a Canon 1.4X II and found the results very good. There's almost no loss of image quality, comparing shots done with and without the TC (note that it's the previous version of 1.4X, not Canon's current "III"). I would happily use it again, but simply don't have all that frequent need for more than 400mm focal length.

I'm attaching a couple sample images from my own tests using the TC with my 100-400L II, both on 7DII (the lighting and the bird's pose were more favorable for the 1st shot, so use the 2nd mostly to compare sharpness, detail, etc.)

Canon EF 100-400L II @ 560mm with Canon EF 1.4X II teleconverter

(Download)

Canon EF 100-400L II, @ 400mm, no teleconverter

(Download)

lwhite61 Loc: Kentucky

Thanks to all that "weighed in" on this. Appreciate all the info/suggestions. Took the Canon 100-400L II for a test drive today. Think I am pretty well hooked. Here are a few results. Thanks again!!!

(Download)

lwhite61 Loc: Kentucky

amfoto1 wrote:

Other responses are correct... You're looking at some fairly large and hefty lenses. Your current 18-400mm weighs in a little over 1.5 lb. The Canon 100-400L II is about 3.5 lb. and the Tamron 150-600 G2 is over 4.5 lb. You also might want a tripod to work with these lenses, and that's going to add still more weight and bulk. Maybe a monopod could serve for hiking? (Someone suggested a Canon 400mm f/5.6 plus 1.4X, but that lens doesn't have Image Stabilization... is more likely to need a tripod... and at about 3 lb. really isn't very much lighter than the 100-400L II.)

When it comes to image quality, if at all possible, get the Canon 100-400mm II and 1.4X teleconverter. At the long end with the TC, it's a bit sharper than the Tamron 150-600mm G2. Without a TC with both at 400mm, they are pretty close, but the Canon lens has less chromatic aberrations. It's similar at shorter focal lengths, also with no TC on either lens, except the Tamron gets especially soft at 150mm.

See test shots done with both lenses at 400mm without teleconverters: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Here are test shots with EF 1.4X III on the Canon (560mm), vs the Tamron without TC (600mm): https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Test shots with Canon at 100mm and Tamron at 150mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Note that the above comparisons are all done on full frame, 50MP 5DS-R, which is quite demanding of lenses. However, if cropped down to APS-C format the pixel density would be fairly similar to your 80D's (the "center" and "mid-frame" test shots are most relevant to APS-C camera users, when the tests are shot with a full frame camera). Also, the test target images shown are significantly magnified. You can see the entire test target and a description of it here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

For that matter, compare the Canon 100-400L II against what you have now: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1145&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1 (In this case, test shots were done with a 7D Mark II, which is APS-C same as your 80D, but the 7DII is slightly lower resolution... 20MP versus 24MP).

I've been using the Canon 100-400L II for several years and it's an excellent lens... sharp at all focal lengths and with very little chromatic aberrations. The reason for that is because fluorite is part of the optical formula. Canon uses fluorite in a lot of their telephotos. It's expensive to work with, but significantly improves image quality. No third party manufacturers are using fluorite (Sigma has "FLD" elements in some lenses, which they describe as "fluorite like"). In fact, very few lens makers in general are using it, due to the difficulty and expense. A few years ago Nikon started using it in one 70-200 and four super tele primes longer than 300mm. I think Sony is using it in one or two lenses, too. Canon currently uses it in 12 telephoto lenses: 5 zooms and 7 primes. But they've been using it for over 50 years, developed methods of growing fluorite artificially, pioneered methods of working with it and used it in many different lenses over the years.

I have not used my 100-400mm II with teleconverters a lot... but did some experimentation with a Canon 1.4X II and found the results very good. There's almost no loss of image quality, comparing shots done with and without the TC (note that it's the previous version of 1.4X, not Canon's current "III"). I would happily use it again, but simply don't have all that frequent need for more than 400mm focal length.

I'm attaching a couple sample images from my own tests using the TC with my 100-400L II, both on 7DII (the lighting and the bird's pose were more favorable for the 1st shot, so use the 2nd mostly to compare sharpness, detail, etc.)

Other responses are correct... You're looking at s... (show quote)

Thanks. Beautiful photos of the Cedar Waxwings!!!!!!

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

amfoto1 wrote:

Other responses are correct... You're looking at some fairly large and hefty lenses. Your current 18-400mm weighs in a little over 1.5 lb. The Canon 100-400L II is about 3.5 lb. and the Tamron 150-600 G2 is over 4.5 lb. You also might want a tripod to work with these lenses, and that's going to add still more weight and bulk. Maybe a monopod could serve for hiking? (Someone suggested a Canon 400mm f/5.6 plus 1.4X, but that lens doesn't have Image Stabilization... is more likely to need a tripod... and at about 3 lb. really isn't very much lighter than the 100-400L II.)

When it comes to image quality, if at all possible, get the Canon 100-400mm II and 1.4X teleconverter. At the long end with the TC, it's a bit sharper than the Tamron 150-600mm G2. Without a TC with both at 400mm, they are pretty close, but the Canon lens has less chromatic aberrations. It's similar at shorter focal lengths, also with no TC on either lens, except the Tamron gets especially soft at 150mm.

See test shots done with both lenses at 400mm without teleconverters: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Here are test shots with EF 1.4X III on the Canon (560mm), vs the Tamron without TC (600mm): https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Test shots with Canon at 100mm and Tamron at 150mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Note that the above comparisons are all done on full frame, 50MP 5DS-R, which is quite demanding of lenses. However, if cropped down to APS-C format the pixel density would be fairly similar to your 80D's (the "center" and "mid-frame" test shots are most relevant to APS-C camera users, when the tests are shot with a full frame camera). Also, the test target images shown are significantly magnified. You can see the entire test target and a description of it here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

For that matter, compare the Canon 100-400L II against what you have now: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1145&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1 (In this case, test shots were done with a 7D Mark II, which is APS-C same as your 80D, but the 7DII is slightly lower resolution... 20MP versus 24MP).

I've been using the Canon 100-400L II for several years and it's an excellent lens... sharp at all focal lengths and with very little chromatic aberrations. The reason for that is because fluorite is part of the optical formula. Canon uses fluorite in a lot of their telephotos. It's expensive to work with, but significantly improves image quality. No third party manufacturers are using fluorite (Sigma has "FLD" elements in some lenses, which they describe as "fluorite like"). In fact, very few lens makers in general are using it, due to the difficulty and expense. A few years ago Nikon started using it in one 70-200 and four super tele primes longer than 300mm. I think Sony is using it in one or two lenses, too. Canon currently uses it in 12 telephoto lenses: 5 zooms and 7 primes. But they've been using it for over 50 years, developed methods of growing fluorite artificially, pioneered methods of working with it and used it in many different lenses over the years.

I have not used my 100-400mm II with teleconverters a lot... but did some experimentation with a Canon 1.4X II and found the results very good. There's almost no loss of image quality, comparing shots done with and without the TC (note that it's the previous version of 1.4X, not Canon's current "III"). I would happily use it again, but simply don't have all that frequent need for more than 400mm focal length.

I'm attaching a couple sample images from my own tests using the TC with my 100-400L II, both on 7DII (the lighting and the bird's pose were more favorable for the 1st shot, so use the 2nd mostly to compare sharpness, detail, etc.)

Other responses are correct... You're looking at s... (show quote)

The images speak for themselves--the Canon 100-400 ll is an incredible piece of glass. I use it all the time.

lwhite61 Loc: Kentucky

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

The images speak for themselves--the Canon 100-400 ll is an incredible piece of glass. I use it all the time.