Keltab wrote in post #18269702
Hey Medicine Man! I like the pic and I'm curious what you think of the 150-600 G2? I may be buying a new lens for my wife and I, and I have been waffling between the G2 and the Canon 100-400 Mark II. Do you have any advice or thoughts on this?
Thanks in advance for your help!
And if anyone else wants to jump in, please do!
Kel, money no object get the G2=nicer finish, improved stabilization, ability to use the hockey puck for FW updates. Best new addition is the arca-swiss tripod foot. Money an object and my belief (my belief) that IQ at 600mm is so marginally improved that I wouldn't select it over the 1st gen if ultimate IQ at 600 is the goal.
Now is the 100-400ii cropped to 600 better than the G2? Again only my opinon--but that depends on which sensor you're hooked to becaue the AF ability of the G2 at 600 is also affected by the camera....1DXii focuses much much better at 600 than the 7Dii for example.
In the end I just feel it's a wash. You can get awesome shots with either and proximity is more important than anything.
If I were purchasing again and had the 1st I wouldn't get the 2cd. If I didn't have either I'd get the G2.
If I really want 600mm over a cropped 400mm then I'd get the Tam but knowing 600mm with the TamG2 is not as nice as 400mm with the 100-400ii.
Now what about 500mm on the Tam, or 550mm.
Therein lies the rub because like with the 1st gen there is improvement as you pull back from 600. By the time you are at 500mm the TamG2 looks real attractive
but the say can be said with the 1st gen Tam 150-600mm.
After all that has been said I'll be glad to sell your wife my G2