Which is sharper - Tamron 100-400 or Canon 70-300 II?

I was just doing this exact research. I currently have an EOS 90D with a canon 70-300 II and was thinking I'd like the extra reach of the Tamron 100-400, but after reading this thread I have to agree with Kasrielle. You've convinced me that the brand focusing is worth more than the off brand reach. I think what I am going to do is stick with my Canon 70-300 with the goal of someday stepping up to the Canon 100-400.

I've never owned or even shot with a Canon 100-400. From what I understand, it's a superb lens and I have nothing bad to say about it. But, I'll probably never own one. Just too big for my budget and biceps.

I have owned every 70-300mm lens Canon has ever made, including the USM II. While I love the nano-USM focusing on that lens, I quit looking once I found the "L" version (Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM). It's a daily driver that I mainly keep paired with a 5Div. I probably make half my pictures with that rig.

The L is fatter and heavier than the USM II, but nowhere approaching the size and weight of the 100-400mm lens. The 70-300L has L-lens sharpness, build quality and weather sealing. A used copy of the L version runs about the same price as a new USM II.

Personally, I've found that, on a full-frame body, if 300mm is too short, 400mm probably won't help much. I keep a 400mm 5.6 prime (crazy sharp) mounted on a 90D for my big-reach kit. If 300mm is too short I go straight for the 640mm effective focal length that rig gives me.

hobs1466 wrote in post #19371253
I was just doing this exact research. I currently have an EOS 90D with a canon 70-300 II and was thinking I'd like the extra reach of the Tamron 100-400, but after reading this thread I have to agree with Kasrielle. You've convinced me that the brand focusing is worth more than the off brand reach. I think what I am going to do is stick with my Canon 70-300 with the goal of someday stepping up to the Canon 100-400.

I have the EF 100-400L II and the 70-300 II. The 100-400 does have better image quality, no matter what body I am using, the EF 70-300 II is really good, very sharp, blisteringly fast AF and MUCH cheaper/lighter. I use it quite often as a walk around zoom. I also will use it on a second body, for a second shooter at outdoor track meets sometimes.

IMAGE LINK: https://troybracker.sm​ugmug.com …lery/n-4qjsDB/i-MmXqrR9/A

I have thought about renting the 70-300L sometime just to compare it to the 70-300 II that I own. Maybe will get around to it at some point.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll definitely keep that in mind. The original conversation had convinced me that saving to step up to the Canon L for the improved image quality made more sense than going to the extra 100mm reach of a lesser third party lens. I set my goal as the 100-400L because it was the only reasonable one I saw. I was not aware there was a 70-300L, but I had only been looking at new.

If reach or budget is important, 3rd party lenses are tough to beat, like the Sigma 150-600.

If AF speed and IQ (sometimes, depends on lens) is important, Canon OE lenses are tough to beat.

That being said, Sigma lenses for example have good AF tracking speeds, it is their initial acquisition speeds that are terrible. That impacts a shooter in two areas:

- If the lens focuses off the subject and goes to the background or foreground, it can be very difficult or impossible to get back to the subject before the moment is lost.

- Seeing a subject and getting the system to latch onto it on time to get the shot.

Once it has a lock, and you can keep the lock on the subject, movements of the subject likely won't tax the AF system of a 3rd party lens, the newest offerings from Sigma, etc are quite good at AF changes on a locked subject.

I know the topic is only covering 70-300 or 100-400 variants, but keep in mind that to get the reach of a 400mm lens on a 300mm, you will need to add a teleconverter, which usually comes with a bit of baggage in the way of light transmission, AF speed, etc. This is where maybe looking at a 3rd party really long lens like a Sigma 150-600 makes sense. 600mm with a 70-300 and 2x vs a native 3rd party lens at 600mm will likely suffer IQ-wise, I would think.

Understood. And that is exactly where are had originally gone, towards the Tamron for the better reach. Reviews seemed to indicate the Tamron AF was a little better than the Sigma.

But as I said, finding this thread I have been convinced that the better AF, and more importantly the better optics are preferable to the slightly longer reach.

I had the Canon 70-300L and I have the Tamron 100-400mm for my Nikon, in my opinion the extra reach is worth it if you need it. Ideally I would like to fill the frame as much as I can and not have to rely on cropping or using a TC, the sharpness of the Tamron or the Sigma 100-400mm lenses in excellent. My Tamron will focus plenty fast for my needs and it is very sharp, the Image Stabilization is very good also.

I have posted photos taken with the Tamron in this thread. https://photography-on-the.net …18&mg=407722&i=​i202917483

I also had great IQ from the Sigma 150-600, but it is a big heavy lens.

Very comparable to my 100-400, with 1.4x TC....

840mm on the M50 crop mirrorless with Sigma 150-600 + 1.4x:

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19371739
I also had great IQ from the Sigma 150-600, but it is a big heavy lens.

Very comparable to my 100-400, with 1.4x TC....

840mm on the M50 crop mirrorless with Sigma 150-600 + 1.4x:

600mm cropped from 7D2 and Sigma 150-600

The Tamron is about a pound lighter than the Canon 100-400mm, only slightly heavier than my 70-300L weighed.

Thanks for another take. As always, it seems like the right answer, to the extent that there is one, is largely dependent on specific uses/needs and personal preference. I will probably flip-flop on the question multiple times by the time a actually do something about it. I'm purely an amateur, so I probably wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between the pro grade glass and the third party stuff, but at the same time I don't like to cut corners unless I absolutely have to.

drsilver wrote in post #19371310
I've never owned or even shot with a Canon 100-400. From what I understand, it's a superb lens and I have nothing bad to say about it. But, I'll probably never own one. Just too big for my budget and biceps.

I have owned every 70-300mm lens Canon has ever made, including the USM II. While I love the nano-USM focusing on that lens, I quit looking once I found the "L" version (Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM). It's a daily driver that I mainly keep paired with a 5Div. I probably make half my pictures with that rig.

The L is fatter and heavier than the USM II, but nowhere approaching the size and weight of the 100-400mm lens. The 70-300L has L-lens sharpness, build quality and weather sealing. A used copy of the L version runs about the same price as a new USM II.

Personally, I've found that, on a full-frame body, if 300mm is too short, 400mm probably won't help much. I keep a 400mm 5.6 prime (crazy sharp) mounted on a 90D for my big-reach kit. If 300mm is too short I go straight for the 640mm effective focal length that rig gives me.

I'll vote for the 70-300L as well. It tends to be my walk around lens paired with my T3i. Light enough that a bag isn't required. This past winter I switched over to my 7D2 and 100-400 L v2. Much heavier set up. For me, bag required. That meant a lot of missed opportunities because of time lost getting the camera out.

That said, for small birds I really missed the extra reach this past winter. I've looked at the 400 F5.6 but I can't find one for a price I find acceptable.

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #19372070
I'll vote for the 70-300L as well. It tends to be my walk around lens paired with my T3i. Light enough that a bag isn't required. This past winter I switched over to my 7D2 and 100-400 L v2. Much heavier set up. For me, bag required. That meant a lot of missed opportunities because of time lost getting the camera out.

That said, for small birds I really missed the extra reach this past winter. I've looked at the 400 F5.6 but I can't find one for a price I find acceptable.

Rod

Yeah, that 400mm 5.6 is a sleeper lens (kinda like the 70-300 L). People who own them tend to keep them.

I retired a couple of years ago and got back into photography after a 30-year hiatus. I set out to build a kit and spent 2020 and 2021 pouring through Craigslist and Ebay. I bought 32 used lenses -- basically trying anything I could get my hands on for less than $700. I still have 7 of those lenses and sold off the rest.

That 400 5.6 was my greatest find, at least for the ones I kept. Got a great deal on it.

I really like the Canon lens - here is review I did on it. https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1520243

Had an experience this weekend that, at least for the moment, altered my thinking a bit. I live a couple hundred yards from a reservoir and while sitting in the backyard with the camera just playing around, I noticed some birds circling in the distance over the water. They weren't much more than black dots, but I decided to take a look through the zoom anyway assuming they were the red tail hawks we see all the time. I was surprised to be able to barely make out that they had white heads. I snapped several images and via cropping was able to verify that they were indeed a pair of bald eagles, though the images aren't really good enough to bother printing as they were at the limit of the 70-300's ability. So now I'm thinking, "man it would have been nice to have one of those 150-600's!"

The problem being that it seems like the 150-600's might be on the big/heavy side to carry around unless you absolutely know you are going to need them. So maybe my solution is to find one of the Canon 70-300L's used (I'm only seeing them used. Are they not made anymore?) and also get one of the Sigma/Tamron 150-600's. Seems like I could get both for roughly the same price range of the Canon 100-400L and have the best of both worlds.