Would you part Tamron 150-600 and/or Canon 400 f/5.6 for Canon 100-400 II

Looking at the praise the Canon 100-400 II is receiving all over, it's a real temptation to just go and get one.
I sold my 100-400 I a year or two ago and bought the Tamron 150-600 for the reach. (I also have 400 f/5.6).
Looks like the new 100-400 II eliminates the need for both of these (once used with 1.4x TC).
The stellar performance ( demonstrated by everyone that has this new lens), no IQ loss with TC, MFD and flexibility are real winning factors for the 100-400 II.
This is really making me think if I should trade this for the Tammy and the prime.
What do you guys think?

Heya,

Depends on what you shoot.

I have the Tamron 150-600, 200 F2.8L and 2.0x TC that I use. Gives me a 1200mm lens for moon and stuff (fun). Gives me a 400 F5.6 prime that is fast for birding from my kayak. Or just a fast 200 F2.8 for portrait or sports, etc. I shoot 1D series, 5D series, APS-C, etc. Everything really.

I don't feel the need to get the 100-400 MKII for $2k at all.

While it may be fast, sharp and amazing, I don't think I'd care about it as a zoom at 400mm for $2k. Frankly, if spending $2k on a telephoto, I want it to be fast, like F4 or F2.8. So for me, in a similar boat as you, when I think of trading in my telephotos, I think more about a 300 F2.8 non-IS than I do about a zoom with F5.6.

Ultimately the only zoom I'd trade in for right now, is a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS (non-sport). Around $2k as well. 300 F2.8, sharp and fast. Can take a TC and be 600 F5.6 and is still quite sharp and fast. To me that is more interesting.

Just a thought. And my perspective is that of wildlife, birding, in dark swamps and at the ocean, so I have a different take on needs & purposes and I handhold a ton, but I also use mounts & flashes.

If your primary use of the telephoto is handheld, in good light, and you don't need maximum reach, then the 100-400 II is an awesome lens for you.

Looking at your Flickr, you shoot a lot of aviation, I would probably trade in the Tamron for something with superior panning stabilization. If you're doing handheld aviation and trying to go for low shutter panning shots and stuff, the 100-400 MKII makes a ton of sense over a Tamron 600mm. The 400 MKII completely replaces the old 400 F5.6 prime (great lens, but it has finally been beaten, took a long time!). So if you get the 100-400 MKII, sure, replace both lenses. Essentially pays for most of the 400 MKII with a little out of pocket to finish off the purchase.

Very best,

If you plan on using the 100-400L II with a TC attached all the time because you need added reach, then I would stick with the Tamron. While the 100-400L does provide very good image quality with a TC, you lose auto focus performance, since you will only be able to use your center point for AF -- assuming you have a 5D3, 7D2 or 1D Series body. With any other body, you will lose AF altogether.

That being said, I upgraded from the original 100-400L to the new version and couldn't be happier. I only use a TC occasionally, so I can live with the AF limitations. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm options are too big for my travel bag with the other equipment I pack, while the Canon's size and weight work in my situation. Image quality, AF performance and the IS performance are all stellar, too.

I agree with the part about depends on what you shoot. My long lens is the original 100-400L. It serves its purpose just fine, for the most part. Most times when I am fielding the 100-400, I am wanting more for aperture than focal length. If I had the money, I'd replace the 100-400L (or 150-600/400L, if I had those) with a Σ120-300 f/2.8 OS|A.

Thanks for the inputs.
I shoot birds and air shows (whenever they are around). Mainly the tele gets used for birding and hence the 150-600 in the list (mostly used as a 600mm f/6.3 lens).
During last airshow I took only the 400mm prime and really missed the versatility of the zoom (like 100-400). I took 400mm to the show thinking that 70-300 may be a bit short.
That is where I started wondering if I should being back 100-400 II in my gear (albeit sacrificing the prime and/or Tamron)

Heya,

Looking through your photos, few of them are shot wide open. I would consider that if you think you're going to use a F5.6 zoom, with a 1.4x TC, you're already at F8. And that's wide open.

You lose nothing replacing your 400 F5.6 prime. The 400 MKII completely replaces it in every way.

The only change is whether you want 400mm at F5.6 tops, or 560mm at F8, compared to 600mm at F6.3 to F8 (and will full autofocus features of your cameras, seeing as you have 7D, 5D3, etc, all in the mix from your EXIF). From there it's about determining pixel density. Maybe compare 600mm on your full frame to 400mm on your APS-C and see which overall is the more pleasing result. If you're doing a lot of serious distance shooting, the physical range and APS-C may be better simply from pixel density giving you more pixels on target for a crop, rather than full frame, less pixels, and a larger crop. Worth exploring to see what suits your end-result-needs.

If you're finding at a lot of shows you're needing less than 400mm, then yes, a zoom is likely the way to go (again no need to even have the 400 prime, if using a 100-400 MKII zoom).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17791502
You lose nothing replacing your 400 F5.6 prime. The 400 MKII completely replaces it in every way.

I agree, with one minor exception -- the prime is lighter than the zoom, if that is a consideration. But for actual lens performance, the new 100-400L II is stellar. The prime had a few performance advantages over the original 100-400L, but those have been eliminated with the new version. If the added weight and cost are not an issue, there is no longer a reason to own the prime.

Scott M wrote in post #17791521
I agree, with one minor exception -- the prime is lighter than the zoom, if that is a consideration. But for actual lens performance, the new 100-400L II is stellar. The prime had a few performance advantages over the original 100-400L, but those have been eliminated with the new version. If the added weight and cost are not an issue, there is no longer a reason to own the prime.

3.5lb vs 2.75lb.

3/4lb difference.

I wouldn't worry much even if weight was consideration. It's not like 3lb vs 6lb.

Very best,

My .02 cents.

I sold Tamron and bought the 100-400 II this past spring. I don't do birds, but I do airshows and the 100-400 II has put me in a different league in terms of 'keepers'. I still think that's a little short so went ahead and got the 7DII on one of the refurbished deals (I'm not using 7DII for ice hockey also).

So ~$750 or so cleared from Tamron sale, and ~$3000 spent on the 100-400 II and 7DII, net $2250 roughly to get better airshow pics and more reach in the rink.

Is it worth it? I don't know. The pics are better for sure. Just don't need a TC for airshows with that combo. "Light" isn't an issue for that use.

To each is own, if you got the money I think its a better kit than the Tamron. It better be I guess

pigpile34 wrote in post #17791598
My .02 cents.

I sold Tamron and bought the 100-400 II this past spring. I don't do birds, but I do airshows and the 100-400 II has put me in a different league in terms of 'keepers'. I still think that's a little short so went ahead and got the 7DII on one of the refurbished deals (I'm not using 7DII for ice hockey also).

So ~$750 or so cleared from Tamron sale, and ~$3000 spent on the 100-400 II and 7DII, net $2250 roughly to get better airshow pics and more reach in the rink.

Is it worth it? I don't know. The pics are better for sure. Just don't need a TC for airshows with that combo. "Light" isn't an issue for that use.

To each is own, if you got the money I think its a better kit than the Tamron. It better be I guess

Having tried the Tamron, and found the VC unuseable for slow shutter speed panning I would be hesitant on the Tamron, even though they have done a firmware fix for it. Panning mode was not designed in to the lens, so I would not necessarily expect outstanding results from it. Here in the UK at the major large airshows the safety distances, from crowd line to flight line, seem to be quite a bit bigger than they are for similar shows in the US. This means that for UK shows the 100-400 focal length range can be somewhat short, leading to more cropping than one would like. Based on figures from a couple of shows shooting the 100-400 Mk I, and extrapolating the final crop I would have needed to be using an AVERAGE of 560mm to fully frame every shot on my 50D. With the 100-400 that still leaves quite a number of images cropped wider than I would like.

I am now shooting the Sigma 150-600 C, and only have one show to base results on. Now shooting at 600mm I am able to use the same percentage crop, and fully frame most shots. As this is requiring a 33% linear crop, for 3/4 angle shots on aircraft, I could really do with a 900mm lens! For the more side on shots though the 150-600 means that I do not have to crop very much at all. Being able to zoom out to 150 is great, as that will accommodate most larger aircraft. It was certainly fine for the last full public display of the Vulcan. That was also at a relatively small venue, where the distances are actually quite small of the UK, as they mostly fly Veteran and Vintage aircraft there, from 1909 through to WWII.

Although the 100-400 II would be nice, the fact that I would need to add a 7DII, plus grip and Batts etc as well as the additional cost of the Canon lens and the 1.4× extender for no real improvement in AF options at 560mm f/8 over the 50D puts it out of the running for an airshow lens. Not that I wouldn't mind a 7DII.

Alan

Interesting Alan. I have been saving up for the 100-400 II but the Sigma C here has me a little intrigued too. My use would be airshows and kids soccer as my 70-200 on the 7D is becoming focal length limited as my daughter is moving to larger fields now. I think the 100-400 II would be perfect for my needs, however at $2200, I could get the 150-600 C, 10-18 as I am also wanting an UWA and 200/2.8 II and have money left over.

I don't have the tamron but I have the 150-600 contemporary. My answer is nope I would not give mine up for a 100-400II. I have never once thought I wish I had the 100-400 since I bought this lens. It's a great piece of glass at a really good price. Even if price was only like $200 or less difference. I would still pick the Sigma.

I wouldn't trade my 400mm 5.6 for the first version of the 100-400mm 5.6, but I'd trade it in a heartbeat for version II.

nightcat wrote in post #17792228
I wouldn't trade my 400mm 5.6 for the first version of the 100-400mm 5.6, but I'd trade it in a heartbeat for version II.

Looks like that is the gist of all the comments here.
May be keep the Tamron 150-600 in the bag, but trade 400 prime for 100-400 II.
Subsequently if the 100-400 II gets the work done (with 1.4x TC), then get rid of 150-600.. Hmmm. This may be the way..

I can't speak for the T150-600 as I never used one. I had both the 400 and 100-400 v.1. The image was crisper from the 400 prime than the 100-400 at 400. But, I liked the versatility of the zoom and let the prime go. Recently, I was able to replace the v.1 for the v.2 and all I can say is I waited too long to do so.

The v.2 in my opinion is definitely the way to go - obviously, only if it's in your budget.