IAbowhntr wrote in post #17521082
I originially had my mind made up on the Tamron 150-600 because everyone I know had one ... well between just about everyone needing to send them in for "updates" Im not sure that is the direction I want to go ... the most appealing thing to me about the lens is the 5-600mm, the far end of it ... I already have a 70-200L that I pair up with a 1.4 TC and I get pretty good pictures with it but am finding myself wanting just a touch farther.
I have a 60D for a camera body and was wonding if I would benefit more from the 100-400 Canon and pair it with maybe my 1.4 or my 2x TC ... what are the thoughts on this? Am I going backwards adding the TC's verses just doing the 150-600 Tamron or Sigma?
My budget is right around $1000-1500. And I already have the TC's.
I just dont want to buy that Tamron and have issues and I kinda feel like if I buy the 100-400 Canon its already been proven plus I can also get the 100-400 for $850-900 range used in pretty decent shape all day long ... would this be a better value for my money?
I've heard and read that the 100-400 is very fast focusing and does well with birds in flight ... some have said it needs good light but others say its really well in lower light?
The Tamron puts out some amazing pictures but seems there is a learning curve with this lens ... and how will I know if I buy a new one if the "update" has been done already?
Would the Sigma be another one to throw into this mix? the 150-600C ... Im not sure I could swing the 150-600S ... if I went that route I would have to put the 100-400 II in the mix then also ... and I would really like to stay below that $1500 budget. More like $1200 but could go to $1500.
Steve
Heya,
You cannot use the 100-400 with a TC on the 60D and retain Autofocus. So that's not going any where. Nothing wrong with the 100-400L or 400L on the 60D WITHOUT a TC however, and that's going to give you a good long reaching setup. The question is, are you ok with spending $1k for 400mm, when you already have the 200L with a 1.4x TC that is 280mm, getting 120mm more for your $1k. Me? No. That's not gaining anything for $1k. I would look for a 500mm or 600mm and go from there for $1k. Get real reach.
I use the Tamron. I have no issues. My copy is sharp. Can't complain at all. I have the first rolled out version, no updates, never sent it in. Focuses fine.
Looking at options on the market right now at $1k~1.5k:
Sigma 500 OS
Tamron 600 VC
Sigma 600 OS
Any of those would be my targets.
The next step is the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS, with a 2.0x TC for a physical 600mm at F5.6 clocking in around $2k. Faster than the above $1k~$1.5k lenses, and does 300 F2.8 when you don't need the 600mm end. Great alternative, even though it costs more, but ultimately is a fantastic (albeit heavy) option.
I find there's no learning curve to a specific lens, just learning to use long lenses in general. I can use any 500/600mm lens you give me. There's no learning curve just because one is Tamron or Canon. But there is the techniques of using long lenses, camera settings that become very important to a long lenses shooter especially handheld, etc. You'll go through that with ANY lens choice you go with, and it gets tighter the longer you go. And you will also have to learn environmental factors as well, using long lenses. It's not just the equipment! Shoot 400~600mm over a hot body of water on a sunny day and you'll know what I mean.
I went Tamron. Because for $1k on the nose ($850 used I've been seeing lately), you get a fast to focus, physically 600mm, with great VC (works great) that is quite sharp. Sharper optically than the Canon 100-400L by a bit. It focuses fast enough for birds in flight. I do it all the time. You can look through my Flickr if you wish and I'm one of the regular posters in the Tamron thread with birds over water.
I have zero wish to look at the Sigma 500 or 600, but only because I already have the Tamron, and frankly, I still wouldn't choose the $1500 Sigma over the Tamron because they're too similar, too close optically, for me to think $500 is buying me anything. If I had $1500 more to spend again, I would save up a bit more, and my next lens tier is the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS at $2k that I mentioned before. To me, that's the logical step from the Tamron if I want an actual upgrade in all ways other than weight.
I would buy the Tamron again, at this point, looking back if I were only in the $1k budget.
If I were buying today, knowing what I know now and having used what I've used for over a year, for MY purposes, I would save up and get the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS with two TC's, because there are too many time I want F2.8 on 300mm. But instead of that, I just have a 200 F2.8L prime that I use for close range speed, for dark canopy covered areas. But I'd rather have one lens doing it. So this is my next step lens if I ever buy again any time soon.
My next tier lens, after the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS, would be the Canon 500 F4L, around $5k. I will not afford this, probably ever, because in that price range I'd rather buy other things that are more important to me than 2 stops of light and the optical magic that the 500L is and still hand-holdable. For me, I'd rather have that as a down payment on a new boat that I want more than a new lens, because frankly, I'm fairly happy at 600mm F6.3~F8.0 right now.
Anyhow, examples from the Tamron 600 without any updates or anything, no MFA either, on several of my old bodies (ranging from a 1D2 to a Rebel!):
by
Mwise1023, on Flickr
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mNMt6T DPP_1800 by
Mwise1023, on Flickr
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rnc5Q1 IMG_3682_mark by
Mwise1023, on Flickr
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rqFnEt IMG_3849 by
Mwise1023, on Flickr
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rinyRE LE1M1624 by
Mwise1023, on Flickr
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/q1g3A2 LE1M0779 by
Mwise1023, on Flickr
Very best,
