is the canon 100-400 still relevant?

shamlyn wrote in post #16718394
The Tamron is just a little bit heavier than the Canon 100-400. 4.3 pounds for the Tamron vs 3.04 for the Canon. If you haven't held a Canon body with a telephoto lens say for example 100-400, it might take some getting use to. The Tamron is slightly heavier, but shouldn't be any more difficult than the other Canon telephoto L series lenses.

The Tamron was just released just a few months ago. Trust me when I say that I wasn't aware of it until last month. There are other telephotos also, like other Tamron telephotos and Sigma, but for the range, price, quality, you can't the 150-600. I still love the Canon telephoto L series Lenses, and definitely the sexiness of how the Canon L series looks with their distinctive white color, but so far the reviews are that the Tamron is on the same level as Canon for their 150-600. For people shooting wildlife, sports, et cetera who arent wanting to spend more than $2,000, the Tamron is an exellent lens for the money.

well, after starting this thread, I started reading more about the tamron 150-600. It seems an interesting lens for sure. large. but interesting. there have been some reviews which put the 400-600 FL range as not very impressive especially on a crop body (at this point I have no intention of going FF). I have some time to make my decision. It does seem interesting. I suppose we would have to compare the 100-400 + 1.4 extension = 560mm at f6.3 vs the 600 at 6.3 of the tammy since the 100-400 FLs seem to match pretty well (on FF according to reviews)

shamlyn wrote in post #16718410
Ceriltheblade - Here is a link to a website with some reviews on the Tamron 150-600 and comparing them to other Canon / Tamron telephoto lenses.

One review I would take a look at is the Dustin Abbott review.

http://camahoy.com …-150-600-review-round-up/

Also, even if or when Canon does make a 100-400 IS II lens, it could be another several years before Canon announces the replacement to their original 100-400 lens. Its been 15 years already with nothing although there has just been speculation the past couple of years. The price for that replacement could be in the $2,000 range.

thanks for the link(s). Interesting reading. I understand that any new lens would pop the price up significantly. I am not against paying a bit more for the quality..assuming it is a relevant lens (for me). And of course the issue - at least in part - is getting bang for buck since the large majority of my photography does not include these FLs...just a tad

shutterbug guy wrote in post #16718439
I still have the 100-400L but haven't used it since obtaining the Tamzooka (150-600). My copy is definitely on par or better IQ wise than the L and with the 5D MkIII it will focus just fine, AI Servo or otherwise. And this is compared to what I believe is a very sharp copy of the 100-400L. The only advantage that I can see with the L now is it's size, it will physically fit into many of my camera bags, the Tamron being about 1/3 bigger and heavier will not.

The Sigma 120-300 is mouthwatering but it's also incredibly huge and heavy. Almost as heavy as my 500L is and I've noticed that most owners admit to using a TC with it almost always, which narrows the gap between it and the 500L.

With the Tamzooka I find it very refreshing to have 600mm on a full frame camera. Beautiful files. I no longer want (as much) for more focal length and when that does occur of course, that's when I lug the 500L around.

Since getting the Tamzooka I haven't even used my 7D yet, but one day I will. There have been reports of it not focusing correctly, something I haven't verified yet. The files from the 7D just can't compete with either the 5DII or 5DIII. The angle of view, (perceived focal length), higher pixel density and higher fps are the only things going for it now.

I've used the 2XIII TC with my 70-200L II and the IQ is okay but the focusing is very sluggish. Really bad in dark forests, jungles or shadows, sometimes it won't lock focus if it's dark enough. I've only used it that way a few times when I was out in the field with the wrong tools for what I was trying to do, just a stop gap. The lens when used with the 1.4 II or III is very useful and functional, I use it that way all of the time.

If you are wanting to shoot birds and unless you have a blind set up extremely close to them, you will always lust for more focal length.

Just my 2 cents, and strictly imho.

Roger

thanks for all that. I must admit - the idea of the 100-400 being smaller is indeed a plus in my book. I would be very interested in your opinions of the 150-600 on the 7d. Other sources have not been very fond of the longer ranges on the crop....and if they aren't particularly useful...then why carry the additional killogramage? I understand that the 1.4/2.o X III won't manage instead of the dedicated longer lens. bummer. It sure would have made my life easier!

Gabe here in the forum has made the 120-300 simply magical and raised my interest - but when I look honestly at the lens - it is more than I want to spend and more than I want to truly carry. I am still vascillating even on these lenses - which aren't THAT large (though larger than anything I have now)...

watt100 wrote in post #16718491
depends on what you shoot, using an extender on the 70-200 II won't be as sharp and the AF fast as the 100-400 -

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15006715#po​st15006715

and some of the early reviews show the 100-400 sharper at focal lengths below 400mm but if you are shooting at 600mm in a zoom the Tamron 150-600 could be a good choice, however you might want to wait for reviews at photozone and the wildlife and birding sites like Juza, etc.

thanks for the link. The maximum that I am aiming to shoot at this point is the random time during the year that I am in a "wooded" area for animals, etc. I think it is about a 5% lens and FL for me. Though I have the habit of adapting new lenses and trying to use them more - so maybe it will be even more than 5% - who knows?

It would indeed be very interesting what photozone has to say about this one.

sanil wrote in post #16718520
70-200 2.8 II Is i have, and used it with extenders. Tamzooka is much better when you compare - for its reach and faster focus. (without extender of course the 70-200 is a dream to use)

100-400 I have never used.

sanil

thanks for your time. Bummer about the extenders not competing realistically with the 100-400....

jbrackjr wrote in post #16718538
I have the 100-400 and the big Tamron. For me, the Canon is more compact and faster to use. I find the Tamron to be bulky and heavier but certainly expected as it is 600mm.

I shoot primarily center point focus and AI Servo with the 60D. The Tamron can focus as quickly as the Canon but hunts more. It has a tendency to run through the entire focal range to make a minor correction in focal distance. The IQ is comparable to the Canon.

I will be keeping both for the time being.

i hadn't heard about the hunting. good to note.

jack_dorsey wrote in post #16718565
Yes the 100-400 L is still relevent! Some of us are still choosing it because we believe it best meets our needs. I care more about having 100 on the short end than 600 on the long. Good used 100-400Ls are not more expensive than the Tamron 150-600. I'm very pleased with the 100-400 that I recently purchased.

Before getting the 100-400 I was using a 70-300L and 400 5.6L, so its not like I'm comparing it to bad lenses.

since i have the 70-200 f4IS and the 100L IS, i, personally, am aiming the 100-400 for the longer FLs, not the shorter ones. which is why the idea of the 150-600 is interesting. I should go to the picture sharing section and see what people are pulling out of this lens....

colintf wrote in post #16718568
i find my 100-400 works great on my 5d3 as well

I am happy that you enjoy your lens. I, in contradistinction, am using a crop (7d) - though. I think there are many who would be happy with the 100-400 on the crop as well. Just trying to get some perspective. Thanks!

I use the 100-400 on my 7D and it's a cracking lens.. and perfect for what i use it for on the crop.. as a replacement I was interested in the 200-400 until i saw the price!!.. however i also recently picked up the 70-200 f2.8 mkII for more everyday subjects and therefore have the 100-400 for more reach..

I just went through the decision of a good wildlife lens for my 7D. The Tammy 150-600 or the Canon 100-400mm were my number one choices and caused a great deal of indecision. Both are and will be excellent lenses for a long time to come. I opted for a used Canon 100-400 mostly because I could get a good price and it has been the standard for years - I knew I could not go wrong. Plus the Tammy is mostly out-of-stock as it is so popular at the moment.

The only negatives I have heard about the Tammy is some comments concerning Auto-focus with Birds in Flight. Most have no problems but some do. I suspect the answer for this is obvious. Canon states their cameras will have AF issues with any lens above 5.6 and give a warning about AF concerning the 100-400 with an extender. Bottom line both setups the Tammy at f5-6.3 and the 100-400 + extender push the limits of the engineered design stated by Canon. Therefore both setups need a good sunny day to get good AF at full length.

Not a big deal, both setups are outstanding performers - they simply walk the edge of designed specifications. And now that Tammy has the 150-600 prices on a used 100-400 have dropped considerably so both are a good buy at this time. My 100-400 is supposed to arrive some time later today.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16718627
well, after starting this thread, I started reading more about the tamron 150-600. It seems an interesting lens for sure. large. but interesting. there have been some reviews which put the 400-600 FL range as not very impressive especially on a crop body (at this point I have no intention of going FF). I have some time to make my decision. It does seem interesting. I suppose we would have to compare the 100-400 + 1.4 extension = 560mm at f6.3 vs the 600 at 6.3 of the tammy since the 100-400 FLs seem to match pretty well (on FF according to reviews)

But don't forget, you can't do that comparison. The 100-400 + 1.4x tc, becomes 140-560 f/8. The Tamron seems to like f/8 at 600 for sharpness, so they are comparable there.

While the new Tamron is intriguing for its extra reach, I will be keeping my 100-400L for now. I use the lens for wildlife shooting when we travel, and the Canon's more compact size is very important, as the lens needs to fit in a backpack along with a 5D3, 7D, 17-40L, 24-105L and 40mm pancake (plus accessories). The added size and weight of the Tamron would push me past the capacity of a backpack that I can fit underneath the seat of an airplane.

I have owned the 100-400L for several years now, and it is still a terrific lens. It's very versatile for all types of wildlife, my copy is quite sharp wide open, and the AF performance is very good. The push/pull zoom mechanism is also a plus in my book.

I think the 100-400 is a better general-purpose lens than the 150-600.

It's a small and very quick-zoomed lens.

MikeBurtonPhillipson wrote in post #16718642
I use the 100-400 on my 7D and it's a cracking lens.. and perfect for what i use it for on the crop.. as a replacement I was interested in the 200-400 until i saw the price!!.. however i also recently picked up the 70-200 f2.8 mkII for more everyday subjects and therefore have the 100-400 for more reach..

thanks for your opinion. The 200-400 wasn't even in the running because of price and size! I have indeed seen some excellent results from the 100-400.

Lumens wrote in post #16718643
I just went through the decision of a good wildlife lens for my 7D. The Tammy 150-600 or the Canon 100-400mm were my number one choices and caused a great deal of indecision. Both are and will be excellent lenses for a long time to come. I opted for a used Canon 100-400 mostly because I could get a good price and it has been the standard for years - I knew I could not go wrong. Plus the Tammy is mostly out-of-stock as it is so popular at the moment.

The only negatives I have heard about the Tammy is some comments concerning Auto-focus with Birds in Flight. Most have no problems but some do. I suspect the answer for this is obvious. Canon states their cameras will have AF issues with any lens above 5.6 and give a warning about AF concerning the 100-400 with an extender. Bottom line both setups the Tammy at f5-6.3 and the 100-400 + extender push the limits of the engineered design stated by Canon. Therefore both setups need a good sunny day to get good AF at full length.

Not a big deal, both setups are outstanding performers - they simply walk the edge of designed specifications. And now that Tammy has the 150-600 prices on a used 100-400 have dropped considerably so both are a good buy at this time. My 100-400 is supposed to arrive some time later today.

congrats on the new purchase. I don't know how much wildlife photography (or whatever the plan for the 100-400 for you is) you do, do you make it a primary part of your photophotography? You bring up good points about the "edge of toleralnces". I guess my concern would be the practical extra weight and size of the 150-600 vs usability of the 500-600 FLs...and if I would even use them.....

1Tanker wrote in post #16718650
But don't forget, you can't do that comparison. The 100-400 + 1.4x tc, becomes 140-560 f/8. The Tamron seems to like f/8 at 600 for sharpness, so they are comparable there.

thanks for the correction. you are correct, of course. my bad.

Scott M wrote in post #16718673
While the new Tamron is intriguing for its extra reach, I will be keeping my 100-400L for now. I use the lens for wildlife shooting when we travel, and the Canon's more compact size is very important, as the lens needs to fit in a backpack along with a 5D3, 7D, 17-40L, 24-105L and 40mm pancake (plus accessories). The added size and weight of the Tamron would push me past the capacity of a backpack that I can fit underneath the seat of an airplane.

I have owned the 100-400L for several years now, and it is still a terrific lens. It's very versatile for all types of wildlife, my copy is quite sharp wide open, and the AF performance is very good. The push/pull zoom mechanism is also a plus in my book.

yup - that size issue is a central one in many different ways, huh? thanks for sharing your opinion and experience.

pwm2 wrote in post #16718705
I think the 100-400 is a better general-purpose lens than the 150-600.

It's a small and very quick-zoomed lens.

don't take this the wrong way, but I get a kick out of the fact that we have gotten to the point of calling the 100-400 "small"! I remember that I had a chance a while back ago to get one and decided against it because of the "huge" size.

Just goes to show how perspectives change!

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16718713
don't take this the wrong way, but I get a kick out of the fact that we have gotten to the point of calling the 100-400 "small"! I remember that I had a chance a while back ago to get one and decided against it because of the "huge" size.

Just goes to show how perspectives change!

Yes - it can be quite large when fully extended.

But the great thing is that it telescopes to a very handy size when transporting/storing.

Ceril.
I can only comment on the Canon L lenses you have in question.
Yes I have and still use the 100-400 L IS. Nice range,great images and a fair price point. I love the trombone style push pull design. No problems what so ever using. It is actually fun to use.
Regarding the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II..........the best lens I own. I also upgraded my Extender 1.4 EX II to the 1.4 EX III. Very happy with that.
I see you have the 70-200. f/4 L IS as do I. Quite possibly the second best lens I own and for good reason. One, it serves me as a back up lens. nice to know. Two, when I feel like lightening the load as I am doing more for a nice change of pace. It really is that good.
Do you really need the additional stop of the 70-200 2.8 II at double the weight and double the price of your lighter 70-200 f/4 L IS and possibly the 100-400?
For me, I would rather add the 100-400 range first and then see about adding the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II down the road.

Like Nick, I also have the 100-400L, the 70-200 Mk II AND the 70-200 F4 L IS, and I feel that each has its role to play. I take the 100-400L any time I am going birding. It is the perfect wildlife lens for me. The 70-200 Mk II is my general purpose indoor/outdoor zoom lens when I need reach and I need to blur the background. The F4 is when I am going hiking, when weight is at a premium. No plan to get rid of any of them.

It's amazing at all of the positive comments on the 100-400L push/pull zoom. Prior to the Tamzooka it was a deficiency, an error in design, blasted on forums for it, now it's cherished.

Personally I've always liked and still like the push/pull design, but like any tool I try and learn to live with it's limitations and make the best of it.

Roger

Nick5 wrote in post #16718776
Ceril.
I can only comment on the Canon L lenses you have in question.
Yes I have and still use the 100-400 L IS. Nice range,great images and a fair price point. I love the trombone style push pull design. No problems what so ever using. It is actually fun to use.
Regarding the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II..........the best lens I own. I also upgraded my Extender 1.4 EX II to the 1.4 EX III. Very happy with that.
I see you have the 70-200. f/4 L IS as do I. Quite possibly the second best lens I own and for good reason. One, it serves me as a back up lens. nice to know. Two, when I feel like lightening the load as I am doing more for a nice change of pace. It really is that good.
Do you really need the additional stop of the 70-200 2.8 II at double the weight and double the price of your lighter 70-200 f/4 L IS and possibly the 100-400?
For me, I would rather add the 100-400 range first and then see about adding the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II down the road.

wow....hmmm....you want some salt to pour in the open wound?! LOL
no, i am NOT sure I want the extra weight and size of the version II. I am considering it becuase of some limitations of light issues that I sometimes have with the f4. Yes, it is only one stop of light...and a whole lot of volume.... grrr. now I might have to go rethink my strategy again....

pwm2 wrote in post #16718749
Yes - it can be quite large when fully extended.

But the great thing is that it telescopes to a very handy size when transporting/storing.

true. just love how perspectives change....

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16718789
Like Nick, I also have the 100-400L, the 70-200 Mk II AND the 70-200 F4 L IS, and I feel that each has its role to play. I take the 100-400L any time I am going birding. It is the perfect wildlife lens for me. The 70-200 Mk II is my general purpose indoor/outdoor zoom lens when I need reach and I need to blur the background. The F4 is when I am going hiking, when weight is at a premium. No plan to get rid of any of them.

i don't get rid of any of my lenses. My family uses/borrows/steals them and I can have backups...like my 55-250...i don't use it often, but every once in a while I want a much smaller lens - etc..

shutterbug guy wrote in post #16718908
It's amazing at all of the positive comments on the 100-400L push/pull zoom. Prior to the Tamzooka it was a deficiency, an error in design, blasted on forums for it, now it's cherished.

Personally I've always liked and still like the push/pull design, but like any tool I try and learn to live with it's limitations and make the best of it.

Roger

more slamming of perspective!

I personally worry that even if the 100-400 or the 150-600 would be a great lens that I may not take it out because of the size. The larger it being - the larger the chance of not taking it...of course. but then again - I am buying one of these lenses just for the small percentage of the times that I want something longer than the 200....

when is tool overlap = GAS?

shutterbug guy wrote in post #16718908
It's amazing at all of the positive comments on the 100-400L push/pull zoom. Prior to the Tamzooka it was a deficiency, an error in design, blasted on forums for it, now it's cherished.

Personally I've always liked and still like the push/pull design, but like any tool I try and learn to live with it's limitations and make the best of it.

Roger

Lots of people are constantly waiting for a 100-400 Mk II, since we know that the potential for improvements is huge. But the Mk I lens doesn't get worse just because we know Canon can make a magnificent Mk II (at a magnificent price).

My voice for 100-400 as well. I would take it over Tamron 150-600 just because 100-400L is so reliable work horse (AF) and produces very good IQ, time after time.