Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Ah, I see - you meant the Nikkor one ... got it! ... When you put it like that, R - 13 doesn't sound so much.
Shame about that lens. Well, look at the good side - at least, it was ONLY the lens ... you didn't lose a camera, too. I guess, with all those bodies, it might have been a good idea to carry two - one with the tele-zoom mounted, and the other with a UWA mounted. In retrospect - solutions come easy - huh? How do you like that Tamron, compared to the Canon lens you dropped? Is it on a par, or better, or worse?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The lack of mention of other tele zooms in comparison to the 100-400mm L MII is literally there is no comparable lenses to it, except some esoteric prime lenses. All others are in the next down tier of IQ and for that matter build quality (Read Lens Rentals tear down of this lens).
Others are good in their class and those by general acclaim are the Tamron 150-600mm G2, Sigma Sport 150-600mm and the Nikon 200-500mm. But these all are in the next lower quality tier down.
And there have been many discussions here on the quality of these lenses and general consensus is they are of very good quality and good alternates to $12,000 primes unless you are made of money and have a sherpa to haul them around.
So unless you have a Canon or adapt a 100-400mm L MII to a mirrorless camera you will have to choose from the good range of second tier telezooms all of which are quite good and will NOT disappoint you.

Haydon

I bought my Canon 500F4 new right at the end of the version one cycle in 2012. This was just before the v2 was to be released. After seeing the new price, I had mine shipped from Canada. Before it was used more than one time I wrapped the entire lens and hood with Lens Coat and cut the window out to make the switches easily accessed. My lens looks brand new and with the money spent, I knew keeping it in great shape was a priority. It's inevitable when shooting birds, brambles and other unforgiving objects can the mar the white unless there is protection.

I concur some long lenses look they narrowly escaped an explosion. I met one guy several years ago with a 5DIII ungripped and he asked me how I kept mine in such great shape. I didn't think much of his comment until he pulled his out. The bottom and sides looked like he cleaned it with coarse sandpaper. To this day, I have never figured out how he managed to deface it on that level.

Prior to Canon discontinuing support above cleanings on that lens, I saw a hood new priced at $750.00. Definitely an eye opener.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Dear amphoto1:

I wanted to take a moment and thank you for showing me these test results. I currently own the Canon 100-400mm ISL II version and love it. But I did really know how it faired with other similar lens from it's neighboring mfgrs. The differences are startling and the last exam where they used the 1.4x teleconverter on the lens sold me even farther. I need to buy that as well and it's already in y budget for next year.


Thank You for your help.

JIMBO

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I didn't have 13 Canon bodies at the time. If I remember correctly my only full frame body at the time was a 6D. I did have two cameras with me that day. A 6D with the 70-200 and a 70D with an EF 400L + EF 1.4X III mounted. Yes, shame about the lens. It's the only lens I ever lost in action.
The EF 70-200L II had been on the market for a few years when I destroyed my lens. The Tamron was brand new to the market and had quite impressive specs. The day before my wife and I left for a trip to Assateague island I went to the local Camera Shop to get a new EF 70-200L II but they were out of them. They did have the Tamron SP 70-200 in stock and at $1499, it was $500 cheaper than the Canon. Optically it was better than my old lens and on par with the new one. Build quality was good although not quite as good as the Canon and although the AF was not as fast, it wasn't bad either. I decided to get that lens. I could always return it after the trip and get the Canon. It performed well enough for me so I kept it. I still use it for a lot of indoor photography when a flash is not permitted or not a good idea. Plus, since the Tamron lens is black, it's not as obvious as the off white Canon lens.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Mine was nicked up before I bought it, the previous owner was a deep woods hiker, but it does not matter, the lens makes great images, the glass is perfect as is the functionality of the lens. I am good with it, I just got a used 300 f/2.8 from Adorama that is brand new in its appearance, I don't know if I will consider lens coat or not that lens is not nearly as large as the 500...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

That Tamron is supposed to be excellent, I have the Canon II version and it is my understanding that DXOmark rates that Tamron as optically superior. Build is a different story.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

No. It depends on how "engineered" the lens is.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I'm curious. All of my larger lenses have lens coats on them so I'm familiar with lens coats. If your lens is wrapped in a lens coat, how did the other guy know it is in great shape? I don't know about you but I never take the coats off my lenses and with a coat on, you can't see what the lens looks like underneath.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I wouldn't say it's superior. On par with the Canon yes, but superior?! There are some categories the Tamron does slightly surpass the Canon but in the end, the Canon is the better lens. The build quality of the Tamron is quite good. Tamron SP lenses are kind of like Canon L lenses. Bottom line, unless one is a lens snob or a pixel peeper, the Tamron SP 70-200 Di USM is on par with its Canon equivalent.

Haydon

Sorry morrison, I did not articulate that well. I met at guy while shooting roses at Elizabeth Park just outside of Hartford. He came over to me leering at my 5D3. He asked how I kept the body is such great condition. I told him I'm just very careful where I place it. Mine is gripped btw. He pulled his ungripped 5D3 out of his bag and showed me his. The bottom and sides of the 5D3 body were NOT black. It was completely void of a black finish showing a coarse white abrasion in almost a third of the body. I really wanted to take a picture of his camera but I felt it might create animosity. My apology, I wasn't referring to my 500F4.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I have been using the Sigma 100-300 f4 for a long time now - first in Canon mount and now in Sony/Minolta A. It is a GREAT lens ! Takes 1.4 and 2X TC's and it is INTERNAL zoom - just like the BIG boys ! Works with CIZ very WELL also. I have used it along side my Canon 300 2.8 - hard to see a difference !

The first two versions of the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 are also great lenses and internal zoom also.

Tamron also made a decent 200-500 - lightest of the genre and, probably the best "range" IMO. Easier to make than the 4:1 150-600's too !
.

machia Loc: NJ

In 1977 I bought a Vivitar 70-210. It was a good piece of glass. Built like a tank too. Photos were good. Mounted it to my SRT-101.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

That makes sense. I don't have a 5D3, I have a 5DSr and a 5D4 with grips for both but I only use them when I need to. I don't coddle my gear and I try not to abuse it either. All my bodies pretty much look like the day I bought them. I clean them periodically and put them away, except for the 5D4, when not being used. I generally don't use camera bags, I use cases. They do a much better job of protecting the gear and are stackable.
The semi trashed body says something about Canon gear. It's built to take a lickin and keep on clickin.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

From a given manufacturer, with "equal quality" models, a "very long" zoom range lens is harder to design/achieve than a shorter range lens. Many say that ANY zoom cannot equal image quality of a prime lens, focal length to focal length. I would presume that a Canon L lens and a cheaper brand , of the same zoom range, shows better image properties.

What is optimum zoom range is subjective. It's what you demand in reach and image properties (I"m avoiding the subjective "quality"), balanced by how many lenses you want to carry around.