Jim Bob

Yep. Not even close.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Then why did you include it in your heading.

3dees

I have read many reviews on the Tamron and Sigma . both great lenses. sorry Canon fan boys, but the Sigma has tested to have better sharpness than the much more expensive Canon. for build quality it's Canon by far but at almost three times the cost. even more for the Nikon. I'm not a pro and do not play rough with my equipment. I have the Sigma and couldn't be happier. no, it does not have a tri pod collar which seems to be a sticking point with some. I use this lens handheld and at 68 years old it's light enough and well balanced for all day shooting. I'm retired and can't see spending 2000.00 plus on that lens when there are two others that are just as good for most of us. some just have the very best and think only the best will give you the images they are looking for. I have seen beautiful shots taken with "lesser" equipment including cameras. the Canon and Nikon are awesome lenses. I'm not denying that. it's just that some people think that just because a lens is from a third party it's junk or not up to par. I think that in time Canon, Nikon, Sony, and others will have to come down on their prices as Tamron and Sigma are turning out some pretty impressive lenses at much more affordable prices.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Tamron....great service, great warranty

JFleming Loc: Belchertown, Ma

My wife and I both have the Sigma 100-400 (I bought mine after seeing how sharp hers was) and I have to say, that this lens blew away both versions (old & new) of my Nikon 80-400's!

I was always "pure" Nikon but when I had a chance to use this lens it was a game changer for me. Good luck on what you decide.

BTW - I read somewhere that Sigma came out with this lens to give both Nikon and Canon a run for their money, and judging by what I seen, they did.

John

OllieFCR

It is not brand loyalty. The Canon is much sharper, especially at 400 mm and wide open. It is also better built: more rugged, smoother to focus, etc. Obviously, if you cannot afford it don't buy it, but it is worth every penny especially if you do sports or wildlife and birds.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Look at Canon refurbished lenses. These are not used, but may have been in a store, and sold at a reduced price. they are rebuilt to repair cosmetic wear and fully guaranteed, You can also look at B&H photo or Adaorama. Both mail order out of NY with a good reputation. I have been buying refurbished from Canon with no complaints. While production line gear is spot checked, refurbished is 100% checked.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If I were doing fast action - like birds in flight - I would go Canon all the way ( as I have done). I would also buy more Lotto tickets !

Speed and accuracy of focus, build quality, and size/weight/cost are the main differentiation of these lenses.

..

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

By all accounts I have seen, the Sigma sharpness wide open at 400 equals the Canon. The jury is still out regarding the Tamron.

..

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

My vote is for the Canon. I had the earlier 100-400 push pull lens and I thought it was a nice lens until I tried the new Mark II 100-400 lens. It blows away the older lens. It is tack sharp. I use it more now than my 500mm f/4 lens because it is so versatile and sharp.

Oh, and yes, I got mine from Canon as a refurbished product. Typically this means that someone tried it and returned it. Canon goes over it with a fine tooth comb and resells it as refurbished for about 15% off and I had another 10% off coupon so I got a good deal on a fully warranted product. I also took it in to Canon and had the tech department check it out to make sure.

taco40

I had been hoping to purchase a used Canon, but last Saturday was directed to Sigma by a photo shop clerk. I wanted some more opinions about Sigma and Tamron quality and it would appear from research online and here that they are probably pretty good. However, as someone said in this forum that I'd probably always be looking back and wishing I'd have gotten the Canon. A post with a link to lensrentals.com shows how they break down the insides of the Canon. It's pretty darned impressive how well built it is.

No one has mentioned using their lenses in weather and I had thought I read that the Canon was sealed well, but the Sigma and Tamron weren't so wonderful on that front. I could be remembering incorrectly.

To your point, my wife saw some Canon refurbished lenses a day or so online and is urging me to spend the extra bucks if I want to. I have some refurbished electronics and am usually satisfied. It's good to know that you have a good history with Canon's refurbs.

Thanks to all who gave their opinions and experiences on the lenses. I've enjoyed learning from you. I hope to learn more.




Raspberries to the two who trolled.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The newest version of the Canon 100-400mm is one awesome lens. Even with a 1.4X Extender, it is very sharp.

b roll wanabee

Canon 100-400 is amazing. Can't wait till version 2 is cheaper.

Don't leave your lense attached if you go through secutity. TSA can't help themselves from taking a look.

Plus be aware you draw a lot of attention to yourself walking around with that lense.
And when light permits shoot at f7 or f8.

You need more light than you think.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Every time I read such a post that always try to compare two or three lenses, and of course include the pricing of the lens, I get a knee jerk reaction. I shoot Canon cameras, and mostly Canon lenses. Canon prices its lenses only for the R&D involved, and the cost of higher grade glass, and special optical glass. Build quality, and resilience to bumps and shocks over time is also considered. Photo quality is also the prime objective, and also repeatability of quality is Canons standard. Personally I shoot full frame (5D Mark IV) and shoot cropped sensor (7D Mark II) professionally. I always select Canon lenses when going to a "paid" shoot. I do shoot with a Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.4 VC USM lens when the shoot dictates. All my Canon glass is "L" quality of course. You'll find if you are more worried about the cost of the lens, rather than the results, your photography will suffer. The OP, or other responder mentioned a 18-400mm lens. This I would consider a totally amature quality lens. Going from 18mm to 400mm magnification really bends the light and the image, this brings into the photo a lot of distortion, no matter the quality of the glass. Photography is one of the most expensive hobbies

B

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

A great thread that I'm following taco. I too am in your situation. Being retired and on a fixed income, plopping down $2200 for a lens is virtually impossible for me. I have researched the Tamron & Sigma 100-400 and the major selling point for me is the price and tri-pod collar. Tamron has it and Sigma doesn't. I would find it virtually impossible @ 400mm with an extender to get a clear picture regardless of IS thus having it mounted on a tri-pod. I feel the Tamron 100-400 would be just fine for me, as an advanced amateur, and not a pro. (or a wannabe pro)