Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Feb 2014 (Sunday) 11:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

150-600 vs. 400L?

 
noahcomet
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Feb 16, 2014 11:21 |  #1

(With apologies if this is a subject already covered elsewhere; a search turned up nothing, but that could be user error. If there's another thread, please link me to it.)

I've got the 400L and am considering adding to it or replacing it with the Tamron 150-600. My telephotography is exclusively wildlife, and of that primarily birds. I use the 7D.

Just wondering---anyone out there have (or had) both lenses? How do they compare?---and by that I mean in sharpness wide-open, in light-neediness, in focus acquisition and tracking, in hand-holdability, and in keeper-rate.

I know my style--if I got the 600, I'd be shooting at 600mm 99% of the time, and I'd hope to be able to stay wide open in the aperture.

Any thoughts welcome!
Thanks.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/noahcomet/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Kickflipkid687
Senior Member
921 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Jan 2014
     
Feb 16, 2014 12:01 |  #2

I'd say they could compliment each other. The 400 would be great/best for BIF, and when you dont NEED to be at 600/want a larger aperture/smaller lens.

But the 150-600 obviously will get you a much broader range of focal lengths, in case the animal moves further away/closer to you. If the animal suddenly gets too close, and you're using the 400, you might be outta luck. Also being able to zoom out to 150 or 200 and track something and zoom back in, is very useful.

However, I still am thinking about selling one of my lenses for the 400 or 300 F/4. Mainly to get a larger aperture, and better AF for BIF. However, it sounds like they MIGHT announce a new 400, with IS , so you may or may not want to wait on that. But who knows.... it took years for them to get to a 100-400 replacement, which it sounds like will finally be this year.


My Flickr page - https://www.flickr.com​/photos/86957042@N07/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noahcomet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Feb 16, 2014 12:55 as a reply to  @ Kickflipkid687's post |  #3

Thanks for this---anyone compared them technically? I do agree, they probably would need to complement each other.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/noahcomet/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,172 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 262
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Feb 16, 2014 12:59 |  #4

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16693746 (external link)
I'd say they could compliment each other. The 400 would be great/best for BIF, and when you dont NEED to be at 600/want a larger aperture/smaller lens.

But the 150-600 obviously will get you a much broader range of focal lengths, in case the animal moves further away/closer to you. If the animal suddenly gets too close, and you're using the 400, you might be outta luck. Also being able to zoom out to 150 or 200 and track something and zoom back in, is very useful.

However, I still am thinking about selling one of my lenses for the 400 or 300 F/4. Mainly to get a larger aperture, and better AF for BIF. However, it sounds like they MIGHT announce a new 400, with IS , so you may or may not want to wait on that. But who knows.... it took years for them to get to a 100-400 replacement, which it sounds like will finally be this year.

That same 100-400L MK2 rumor has been out there for many years - it's probably the longest running rumor in Canonland history. I wouldn't count on it.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,140 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 456
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Feb 16, 2014 13:07 as a reply to  @ Scott M's post |  #5

I use the 100-400 on FF. I suppose if I wanted more reach I could get a crop body. what are you shooting that requires more reach? something very small?


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,140 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 456
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Feb 16, 2014 13:08 |  #6

Scott M wrote in post #16693872 (external link)
That same 100-400L MK2 rumor has been out there for many years - it's probably the longest running rumor in Canonland history. I wouldn't count on it.

well, I agree except I do think it'll be this year. I know it's the only lens I am really waiting for :D.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noahcomet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Feb 16, 2014 13:16 |  #7

ed rader wrote in post #16693885 (external link)
I use the 100-400 on FF. I suppose if I wanted more reach I could get a crop body. what are you shooting that requires more reach? something very small?

Birds, often enough---sometimes (when opportunities arise) bigger wildlife, especially bears. In other words, smaller critters at medium distances or larger critters at longer distances. I rarely get a chance to fill the frame and so often need to crop my images for ideal composition. 600mm--especially if useable at 100% resolution--would be much appreciated, then. But I'm not (yet) in a position to shell out 6-7 grand for a 500 or 600 L prime.

The 400 5.6L delivers useable images wide open, and if I do manage to fill the frame (or come close to it), they're often acceptable at 100% and remarkable when scaled down just a little. I'm wondering if the 150-600 is similar in that respect at 600mm wide open. I expect it'll be a bit needier in terms of light (and the 400L is needy too)...


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/noahcomet/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lescrane
Member
85 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2014
     
Feb 16, 2014 13:18 |  #8

400L. Faster, sharper wide open, shorter, lighter
Big tammy - has VC. 200 more reach. Sharpest at f 8
Heavy.

I would prefer a 400L with IS or a new 100-400L for under 1500.00. Since these are about as real as Santa Claus and the Easter bunny I was happy to obtain the Big Tammy.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noahcomet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Feb 16, 2014 13:20 |  #9

lescrane wrote in post #16693920 (external link)
400L. Faster, sharper wide open, shorter, lighter
Big tammy - has VC. 200 more reach. Sharpest at f 8
Heavy.

Thanks for this---kind of what I expected to hear... So, definitely an add on, not a replacement.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/noahcomet/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noahcomet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Feb 16, 2014 13:23 |  #10

Seems, then, like the 150-600 gives more reach, but light-hunger means bumping the ISO, so in order to get similar-quality images (noise), you might need to scale them down a bit, in which case you're no better off than with the 400L... (Minus the VC, of course, but I'd probably use that sparingly anyway.)


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/noahcomet/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,140 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 456
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Feb 16, 2014 13:25 |  #11

noahcomet wrote in post #16693916 (external link)
Birds, often enough---sometimes (when opportunities arise) bigger wildlife, especially bears. In other words, smaller critters at medium distances or larger critters at longer distances. I rarely get a chance to fill the frame and so often need to crop my images for ideal composition. 600mm--especially if useable at 100% resolution--would be much appreciated, then. But I'm not (yet) in a position to shell out 6-7 grand for a 500 or 600 L prime.

The 400 5.6L delivers useable images wide open, and if I do manage to fill the frame (or come close to it), they're often acceptable at 100% and remarkable when scaled down just a little. I'm wondering if the 150-600 is similar in that respect at 600mm wide open. I expect it'll be a bit needier in terms of light (and the 400L is needy too)...

birds are going to require more reach if that's your thing but they also require great resolution if you want better than average results. dangerous animals also require more reach unless you go to the best places (Africa, katmai) but for what I do I guess 400mm is "enough". wouldn't mind having the 500L tho :-). i'll be the first in line when then new 100-400L hits the market but I don't expect much from the tamron. boy you should have seen the hoopla when sigma released its long zooms a couple years back. the siggie boys were calling it a 100-400L slayer ;-)a.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,172 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 262
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Feb 16, 2014 15:27 |  #12

ed rader wrote in post #16693890 (external link)
well, I agree except I do think it'll be this year. I know it's the only lens I am really waiting for :D.

I hope you are right, Ed, but I'm not holding my breath. I would love to upgrade my 100-400L, too, for our summer trip to Alaska. Somehow I do not see that being in the cards, though.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kanye
Senior Member
Avatar
670 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Feb 16, 2014 15:30 |  #13

400L + 1.4x converter.

problem solved.

400L is a lot sharper wide open.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noahcomet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
382 posts
Joined Jun 2010
     
Feb 16, 2014 15:54 |  #14

Kanye wrote in post #16694233 (external link)
400L + 1.4x converter.

problem solved.

400L is a lot sharper wide open.

Right---I do have a 1.4x---but then you lose autofocus.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/noahcomet/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ERJL
Senior Member
Avatar
384 posts
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Feb 16, 2014 16:01 |  #15
bannedPermanent ban

ed rader wrote in post #16693890 (external link)
well, I agree except I do think it'll be this year. I know it's the only lens I am really waiting for :D.

Me too!


-ERJL

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,360 views & 0 likes for this thread
150-600 vs. 400L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rondimar
1085 guests, 349 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.