SyracuseOrange Loc: Manlius,NY

If you are interested in a refurbished Canon 100-400mm lens check out the Canon site. There is a sale on them this weekend. I just bought one.

woodworkerman Loc: PA to FL

I like my Tamron 150-600, but if you are hiking any distance, it's weight will get to you. Still, its images are great. And i use a 1.6 extender and still get great images.

chaman

Here is the explanation my friend. They are soft, those images, not sharp. They are what they are and calling them great is not precise nor honest. That id if you know what a good image is. If you like you can browse my images. I dont own that exact same lens but others, which are Canon (Canon L 500mm f/4 and Canon 400mm f,5.6, both primes), and I know what a sharp image is. I tried other brands but they just can not compete with the sharpness and native contrast the Canon lens, specially L lens have. You can ignore my comment and call me whatever you want, sadly the images will continue to be soft. If your standards are fine with that please continue to do so but the facts are there.....the Canon L lenses are better constructed and offer better IQ, BY FAR.

chaman

Oh really? LOL! I handheld my 500mm Canon L f/4 IS MOST of the time.

Roger Lee

I had Tamron's first version and Canon's 100-400II. Although the Tamron was good it couldn't match the Canon with or without the 1.4TC III.

In a side by side chart comparison the Canon looks better IMHO.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Handheld

For tBragg Guy Loc: Fort Bragg Ca

I have traveled with the Canon 1-400 II a lot and can attest to its build quality. I have shot in the rain and wind and its taken a beating bouncing around without problems. I also have the extender to use with it. Go for the Canon.
Another thing that convinced me was a blog I saw on the deconstruction of the lens and showing superior build quality.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true.

AuHunter

Well NormanTheGr8, now you have a most professional opinion as to what what is wrong with the images I posted "they are soft". However we have no way of really knowing that, as by now that eagle has flown the coop. We can not go back to that exact lighting that exact distance that same bird that same background, etc; etc; and put a canon 100-400 on that same camera and retake the shot. Shooter technique also has a lot to do with it and no doubt "chaman" simply has much better technique than I do. Note also "chaman" is basing his critique on comparison with PRIME lenses not ZOOMS...As I recall I shot that at 600mm and we all know the extremes of zoom lenses are the soft point.

So like i said in my original post the IQ will be satisfactory to some and not to others. There is no doubt that the 100-400 is an extremely good lens. However as many have already pointed out they carry the 1.4x converter for more distance if lighting permits. I personally do not like removing my lens in the field to add the converter.

I also own the Canon 70-200 L glass lens and the 1.4x converter for it. Light and easy to handle, great AF. If I want to sit on the back deck and shoot feeder birds all day I use it. But when I am out walking the river trails or cross country, shooting the unknown, 10 yards one minute and 125 yards the next minute, Bighorn Sheep to Eagles and Sparrows the 150-600 serves ME far better..

Both the Canon 100-400 & the Tamron 150-600 G2 are great lenses..You will be happy with either one, although from the description of your shooting I bet you will put the 1.4x converter on and rarely take it off, so if you go 100-400 i suggest you order the converter to pair with it.

Attached is more "soft Image" from the Tamron.............

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, I agree - soft .........

chaman

Note also that your image is equally soft (it seems you don't know the difference between a clear well exposed image and a SHARP one) and then refer to my signature for further clarification as to why you wrote so much yet FAILED to address the main argument here. The Canon is a much better lens both in construction and IQ. Your post is just the typical forced rationalization of someone desperately trying to justify his own choice against the HARD and COLD FACTS. The Tamron is inferior in basically EVERY aspect except perhaps price. Note also you get what you pay for. Note also that there are PLENTY controlled tests that point out the Canon lens superiority performed in those controlled conditions you seem to crave. Note also how your poorly controlled argument.....fades away.

But hey!, its a good thing you realize how poor your technique is, now that is identified work on it! Good luck.

:)

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

Before buying my Tamron SP 150-600 Di VC Canon I did a lot of review reading starting with dxomark. Several other very good reviews and I settled on Tammie. Cut to the chase. IQ drops slightly 500mm-600mm, but still being quite printable (read: shoot RAW or suffer the consequences) to 13" X 19". HEEYYYY!!! it has half again the reach of the Canon 100-400. Pair a 1.4x with a 100-400? I'll put my 600mm Tammie shots up against that and win; hands down. The lens has heft that says built to endure and a 6 year warranty. I'll shoot hand held and braced, but prefer my Gitzo 320 or at least the Oben 2400 monopod. I went to school again when I received it and I'm still learning. By the way, it's the first generation that I bought newer used from a doctor for $700 shipped. Seems dxomark gives it a higher rating than the G2 model, though there are supposed to be other "improvements". Whatever you do, Google reviews for it. If Money is no issue, then by all means buy the Canon 200-400 with built in 1.4, but the 100-400 is a close second to Tammie. Just learn to shoot 500mm or lower for the best.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMO, the only way the resolution of the Tammy can approach the Canon is for it to be used at 500mm and stop down to f8 - but then even at that, the overall IQ will not be as good because you are giving up 1 f-stop of ISO and 1/3 f-stop of AF speed.

chaman

Thats the truth. Its a f/8 mostly lens and still it fails to get near the Canon in terms of IQ.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

Thank You everyone for the advice and options they are greatly appreciated I am most likely going with Canon ,will be trying both of them on the camera next week before I buy.

rgeremia1 Loc: New Jersey

I have the 7DII and I sold my old Canon 100-400 mark I and bought a Tamron 150-600 as soon as it came out, big mistake since it was cumbersome to handle and I like to hand hold my lenses. I returned it to B&H and luckily Canon came out with the 100-400 Mark II, which is great! Couple that with a 1.4 III extender and you have a winner. My buddy just upgraded from his Tamron 150-600 version I to Generation 2 which is even heavier. He now carries it around with a monopod attached most of the time. Not a good set up for hiking at all. Go with the Canon all the way and you will never be sorry.