Super Telephoto advice

I am looking for a long telephoto to enable me to get into wildlife and birding. Also help with kids outdoor sports.

I am really liking the reviews of the 100-400 II, but I also like the extra reach of the new tamron 150-600.

The Canon lens is also 2x the price.

I am just wondering if I got the 100-400, would I miss the extra reach, or would the quality and number of keepers I would get with the 100-400 would make it worth it.


Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Thanks

Both your bodies can do AF at f8. It might be worthwhile hunting down a comparison between the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC (giving you 560mm f8) and the Tamron at 600mm.

hollis_f wrote in post #17405711
Both your bodies can do AF at f8. It might be worthwhile hunting down a comparison between the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC (giving you 560mm f8) and the Tamron at 600mm.

Looks like day and night favoring the Canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=2

Centre isn't a huge amount different, but the Canon walks it mid and corner frame!

I looks like the tammy is sharper in the center. After that... fuggettabottit

Wow! That's quite a difference.

tim1970 wrote in post #17405682
I am looking for a long telephoto to enable me to get into wildlife and birding. Also help with kids outdoor sports.

I am really liking the reviews of the 100-400 II, but I also like the extra reach of the new tamron 150-600.

The Canon lens is also 2x the price.

I am just wondering if I got the 100-400, would I miss the extra reach, or would the quality and number of keepers I would get with the 100-400 would make it worth it.


Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Thanks

Heya,

Depends on what you want. You can favor maximum reach to put more pixels on target. This is good for things that are simply farther away and/or very small where you want higher pixel count advantage to keep detail. I do wildlife & birding, and to me, 400mm is the beginning of this. That's the starting point. From there you just start looking at 500mm and 600mm and dream of $12k lenses. You could look in between the Tamron and the Canon and consider the Sigma 600. Me, I went with maximum reach, and I don't regret it at all (600mm).

Very best,

if you get the 100-400L you'll hit spots where 400mm isn't long enough...if you get the 150-600mm you'll hit spots where 600mm isn't long enough

as for the-digital-picture crops, i think it's important to note where the crops are actually taken from...personally myself i'd say 99% of the time that crop 3 for me is going to be out of focus anyways for what i shoot...if you're shooting a lot of landscapes with the telephoto end, i could see that mattering though

tim1970 wrote in post #17405682
I am looking for a long telephoto to enable me to get into wildlife and birding. Also help with kids outdoor sports.

I am really liking the reviews of the 100-400 II, but I also like the extra reach of the new tamron 150-600.

The Canon lens is also 2x the price.

I am just wondering if I got the 100-400, would I miss the extra reach, or would the quality and number of keepers I would get with the 100-400 would make it worth it.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I agree with some of the other comments, if you're primarily shooting birds and wildlife at 600mm get the Tamron / Sigma 150-600
You already have a 70-200 2.8 II and that should get you plenty of kid's sports pics

But if you did not already have the 70-200 and were considering the lens for day time sports then the 100-400 would probably be more useful, even the older 100-400 does a good job with sports during the day

60D
100-400 (original)

I had the Tamron 150-600. I was pretty satisfied with static shot IQ, even at 600mm. But I bought my Tamron for aircraft in flight, and for these panning shots I got poor results (the lens does not have a mode 2 IS panning mode, like my other Canon lenses). So I sold my Tamron on ebay. Note, in fairness to Tamron, there is a flickr member in the UK that gets great panning shots from his Tamron. My hat's off to him, but I could never duplicate his success.

I'm thinking your 7D2 would be a good match for the 100-400 II. With its 1.6x crop sensor you'd have the same field of view as a 640mm lens on your 5D3.

Here's a guy who gets excellent results with his 7D2 & 100-400 II combo. Even with the 1.4x attached the IQ looks pretty good. Although I don't know how the extender would work for BIF or action scenes.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/13364​87/0

I have the Tamron and use it with my 7D and I've really liked it so far.
I know the Canon has got rave reviews, but I am not going to lay out that much money and I don't like buying a lens that I know I'll be using a TC with most of the time. Been there, done that, won't do it again.

I was just looking at this same comparison a couple of weeks ago. I ruled out the 100-400mk2 because of cost. However, I was comparing the Tamron with the 100-400mk1, which can be found for pretty good prices right now as dealers are trying to clear them out (especially if you combine that with the rebate expiring tomorrow). From reading reviews and countless forums, here's what I gathered:

Image Quality: A toss-up depending on focal range. At some focal lengths, the Tamron is sharper, at others the Canon excels. The 100-400 with my 1.4x teleconverter gets me out to 560mm too (at similar image quality as the Tamron at 600mm), but will only auto focus on the 1D series, 5D3, and 7D2.

IS: Tamron probably a little better.

Focus speed: Canon probably a little better.

Reliability: Tamron has a much better warranty, but the Canon is pretty much guaranteed to work with every EF camera during its lifetime. Read some reports of Tamron's AF not working on some modern camera bodies, even with the new firmware, so I wasn't sure what to make of that.

Ergonomics: Canon is much smaller and lighter to carry around… Tamron wouldn't require me to swap off the teleconverter if I wanted just a little more zoom. I've tried the push/pull 100-400, and don't mind it at all.

I ended up pulling the trigger on a 100-400mk1 and love it so far.

Mike, having used the 100-400 MKI with a TC, I would highly disagree that the IQ is better than the Tamron at 600. And even with a camera that will AF with the TC on, the AF is much slower and less accurate. I sold my 100-400 MKI to buy the Tamron and don't regret it at all.

What would you all prefer: the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 lenses. Or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 wuth a 2x TC?

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17407230
What would you all prefer: the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 lenses. Or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 wuth a 2x TC?

I had the 120-300 and tried using it with a 2X TC. AF was very slow and inaccurate with the 2X on it. It was pretty fast with the 1.4, but then it's a pretty big and heavy lens for a 420mm.
Haven't used the Sigma 150-600, so I can't help you there.