Upgrade advice from Tamron 70-300 VC

I've had the Tamron for about 16 months now as my first upgrade from the kit lens. It's been a good lens, but I now feel ready for an upgrade. I'm quite keen on a fast zoom, so have been looking at the 2.8 70-200 Sigma ( can't stretch to the canon one just yet) but am concerned on missing the extra 100mm at the long end.

While I'm not a birder, I do enjoy the chance to photograph birds when possible. So I think my choices are the Sigma coupled with a 2x TC for when I need that extra reach, or the Canon 100-400L. I'm concerned that the Canon will just be too much for everyday use, and as it's over 10yrs old now I have read a new version is due this year? Also it's not as fast as the Sigma although I know the TC will impact this. While I don't necessarily need the 2.8 in Perth, Oz, I will probably be moving back to the dark and dingy UK in a year or so.

Am I missing any other obvious choices here? I'm looking to spend around $1500.


eta - also throwing the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM into the mix

All advice welcome

Out of curiosity, may I ask what is "wrong" with the Tamron that you're unhappy with, that something like the Canon 70-300L (at same f-ratio) would fix?

And just to clarify your question--you're talking $1,500 AUS, right?

I had the same concerns you have about the Canon 100-400L. I went back and forth for months. I'm getting it, no I'm not getting it. It's old and will be replaced I told myself. Finally I sold a guitar I didn't play very often, so I just went ahead and bought the 100-400L. I'm getting some of the most enjoyable pictures I've ever taken. It almost never leaves my camera. It's not a lens for the faint of heart, and your keeper rate definitely isn't going to be as good as with a 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4. There is a learning curve to it also, but as long as you get a good copy of the lens, all I can say is WOW.

Good Luck.

Lens 100-400L
ISO 400
1/400
f/8
EV +1/3
400mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/25261775@N02/6​963873840/

Thanks for the input Hitthespot, lovely example shot So you find it ok as a day to day lens?

canadave wrote in post #14337969
Out of curiosity, may I ask what is "wrong" with the Tamron that you're unhappy with, that something like the Canon 70-300L (at same f-ratio) would fix?

And just to clarify your question--you're talking $1,500 AUS, right?

USD and AUD pretty much even these days I'm just after more sharpness at the long end, and better bokeh than I'm getting from the Tamron, but it has been a great beginners lens

There have been rumors for many years that there would be a 100-400L ver. II coming out "this year". If you need the reach, just buy it -- you will not regret it. It is a very versatile lens for general wildlife and birds.

However, if you need a telephoto for indoor sports or other lower light shooting, then this is not the lens for you. In that case, a 70-200 f/2.8 lens would be the choice.

If there is a new 100-400 released, it won't be anywhere near $1500. If you "only" have that much to spend, hurry and buy it before Canon replaces it with an upgrade costing $1000 more. (That does seem to be the formula of late)

ScreamingSwifts wrote in post #14338226
Thanks for the input Hitthespot, lovely example shot So you find it ok as a day to day lens?

USD and AUD pretty much even these days I'm just after more sharpness at the long end, and better bokeh than I'm getting from the Tamron, but it has been a great beginners lens

I agree with the others, even though the 100-400 is an old design it's sharp at 400mm, good bokeh, etc. Depends on what you shoot but it's a nice "day to day" lens

XSi (450D)
Canon 100-400
at 400mm
(cropped)

ScreamingSwifts wrote in post #14338226
Thanks for the input Hitthespot, lovely example shot So you find it ok as a day to day lens?

Your Welcome. I don't know about it being a day to day lens. On a 7D even at 100mm you have an effective fov of 160mm. So anything close it's not going to work. But most of my shots are of wildlife. I always have my 24-105L with me when I leave the house in case I want to take a pic of something close, or spot a landscape that just needs shooting. lol.

I figure if Canon does replace the 100-400L it's going to cost a minimum of 30-40% more, and with their current pricing scheme maybe as much as 50-60% more. So I would say even at 1600-1700 bucks for a new one, todays 100-400L is a bargain, especially considering the great image quality.

100-400L
400mm
Cropped

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/25261775@N02/6​935936320/

I would go for the Canon 100-400L as a wildlife lens, actually if i can find me a better job than my current (part time) i will save up for one, knowing me i would use it for sports and people to.

I just checked hitthespots heron picture on flickr at highest resolution and the lens seems like a great one