Lens Question

I am sure this information is on here somewhere but I don't really know how to research it so I may be asking a question that has been asked before. So, without further delay I am looking for a viable replacement for my tamron 150-600. Contenders are:

1. 500 F4 - top of my wish list but out of my price range

2. 300 F2.8 + 2.0 TC (a bit out of my comfort zone price wise)

3. 100-400 V2 + 1.4 TC

IMO pretty much all of this stuff is way over priced but I'd like a couple opinions regarding the above options. Some of the sale prices are only good for a few more days. I'm in Canada and prices are not good (choices tend to be expensive or too expensive). It sort of comes down to is option 2 above worth the $5k more than option 3. Each has big pluses and minuses.

Thanks
Rod

PS: using 7D2 so F8 focus on center only
PPS: probably just dreaming

Just curious, what's wrong with the Tammy?

RodS57 wrote in post #18478690
I am sure this information is on here somewhere but I don't really know how to research it so I may be asking a question that has been asked before. So, without further delay I am looking for a viable replacement for my tamron 150-600. Contenders are:

1. 500 F4 - top of my wish list but out of my price range

2. 300 F2.8 + 2.0 TC (a bit out of my comfort zone price wise)

3. 100-400 V2 + 1.4 TC

IMO pretty much all of this stuff is way over priced but I'd like a couple opinions regarding the above options. Some of the sale prices are only good for a few more days. I'm in Canada and prices are not good (choices tend to be expensive or too expensive). It sort of comes down to is option 2 above worth the $5k more than option 3. Each has big pluses and minuses.

Thanks
Rod

PS: using 7D2 so F8 focus on center only
PPS: probably just dreaming

I can only comment on your third option. I didn't care for the 100-400Lii/1.4X TC combo on my 7D2 when I had it. It's a bit better on my 1D IV... but it doesn't meet my expectations for detailed shots. It isn't horrible but I'm sure either of your first two options would be more fulfilling. I'm pretty much where you are. I'd love a 500 f/4, but that isn't in the cards at the moment so I try to get closer to the targets.

I'll slightly dissent w/ the above in that I'm relatively happy w/ the 100-400 + 1.4 on my 7dII. It is nice for reaching out that last little bit and not having to crop so much; as well as being able to not have to creep in quite so far to reach my subjects. The two things I'm less than enamored of are:
- AF speed/subject acquisition: while the bare lens is good and snappy, the tc combo slows down too much for most bif shots
- Center Point AF only w/ the TC attached; all other AF points are disabled, not like it only works well at center but you can try others. It concretely locks to only that point.

Research Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with a Sigma 2X TC. Only f/5.6 @ 600 mm.

I am very happy with the results I get from my 100-400 vII and a 1.4 III TC. The combo focuses fast and the pictures are sharp.

There might be 1 more option. I know someone who shoots with the 300mm F/4 + 1.4x TC. Most of his images are just as sharp (some sharper, maybe) than my 400mm F/5.6.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18479240
There might be 1 more option. I know someone who shoots with the 300mm F/4 + 1.4x TC. Most of his images are just as sharp (some sharper, maybe) than my 400mm F/5.6.

That is an inexpensive way to get some focal length. The original 100-400 is better at 300mm than the 300 f/4, and better at 400 than the 300/1.4x combo is at 400, and costs less these days.

I tried the 100-400Lc with a 1.4X TC. At 400mm, it is essentially a manual focus lens, even on cameras that can do f/8 AF.

rrblint wrote in post #18478740
Just curious, what's wrong with the Tammy?

Soft on the long end. It's a well documented issue. Hoped maybe I could do a bit better for a price I can live with so I wanted some opinions before any outlay of cash.

Anyway, thanks to those who responded. Food for thought. Long lens on a budget could be a hard nut to crack. Maybe I'll wait for that canon 200-600

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #18479265
Soft on the long end. It's a well documented issue. Hoped maybe I could do a bit better for a price I can live with so I wanted some opinions before any outlay of cash.

Anyway, thanks to those who responded. Food for thought. Long lens on a budget could be a hard nut to crack. Maybe I'll wait for that canon 200-600

Rod

That would be a long wait for me. How long would it take you to save up the $15,000+ Canon would ask for it?

RodS57 wrote in post #18479265
Soft on the long end. It's a well documented issue. Hoped maybe I could do a bit better for a price I can live with so I wanted some opinions before any outlay of cash.

Anyway, thanks to those who responded. Food for thought. Long lens on a budget could be a hard nut to crack. Maybe I'll wait for that canon 200-600

Rod

Thanks for the info. I've been thinking along these same lines. I'll continue to follow this thread, please update with your findings.

I currently use the Canon 100-400 Mk2 and/or Canon 300 F2.8 L IS as my walkabout lenses. The 800mm is mainly for hide use! I have also tried out/used the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses as well as (previously owning) the Canon 600 F4 L IS and have used the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk1 and Mk2 quite a bit.

Personally I would go for the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk1 or 2 - but they are quite big and pricey! Having said that they are one of the best long lenses out there, including the competition.

The Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 or Mk2 is simply a superb 300mm lens in every respect - but it is a 300mm. You may find that you have to resort to extenders quite a bit. Now the good news - it works rather well with them! The Canon 1.4 Mk2 or 3 works great with little loss of anything except 1 stop of light. The 2 x extender needs to be used with a little more care and is more light dependant. Not necessarily the amount of light but this combination does benefit from contrasty light to get the very best out of it.

I should have said at the top of this post that my cameras are the Canon 7D2 and 1DX.

The 100-400? Best lens of it's type - end of in my experience. On my 1DX it is simply great in AF and IQ - no it is not as good as my 300 F2.8, but what is? However it is light to carry about, very versatile and takes a 1.4 extender decently. Whilst the 100-400 Mk2 performs very well on my 1DX it is not quite as good on my 7D2. I don't know why as it focuses very accurately but just doesn't give the same sharpness/detail as it does on the 1DX. I think that this is down to my individual cameras and lens - if you want to see what the 7D2 can really do with this lens then have a look at "Pondrader"'s posts on this forum.

These are just my thoughts and observations - certainly not Gospel! I would point you towards the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 (not silly money) or, if you could stretch to it and it isn't too heavy, the 500 F4 L IS. Having said that the 100-400 Mk2 is lighter, cheaper, more versatile and does a very good job - just not quite (but nearly) as good

Decisions, decisions.............​..

RodS57 wrote in post #18479265
Soft on the long end. It's a well documented issue. Hoped maybe I could do a bit better for a price I can live with so I wanted some opinions before any outlay of cash.

Unfortunately a TC on the long end of a zoom will also soften the IQ. I have a 2x Canon that I'll use sparingly. Most of the time, I use 70-200, and occasionally put the 2x on it. There is noticeable degradation, but it is good for versatility (I can fit lens and TC in a day pack). I decided to get a Sigma 150-600 as its reviews said it was marginally sharper then the Tammy and has more reach then the 100-400L. I find it's pretty good for birding/wildlife. It's still relatively easy to hand hold with OS active in good lighting. The dream, fast long telephotos would make a difference for sports, better AF, and corner sharpness. But there is a price premium...I don't use long telephotos enough to warrant such a lens. Though I would say from your list, the 500mm would be the real upgrade.

johnf3f wrote in post #18479415
I currently use the Canon 100-400 Mk2 and/or Canon 300 F2.8 L IS as my walkabout lenses. The 800mm is mainly for hide use! I have also tried out/used the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses as well as (previously owning) the Canon 600 F4 L IS and have used the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk1 and Mk2 quite a bit.

Personally I would go for the Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk1 or 2 - but they are quite big and pricey! Having said that they are one of the best long lenses out there, including the competition.

The Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 or Mk2 is simply a superb 300mm lens in every respect - but it is a 300mm. You may find that you have to resort to extenders quite a bit. Now the good news - it works rather well with them! The Canon 1.4 Mk2 or 3 works great with little loss of anything except 1 stop of light. The 2 x extender needs to be used with a little more care and is more light dependant. Not necessarily the amount of light but this combination does benefit from contrasty light to get the very best out of it.

I should have said at the top of this post that my cameras are the Canon 7D2 and 1DX.

The 100-400? Best lens of it's type - end of in my experience. On my 1DX it is simply great in AF and IQ - no it is not as good as my 300 F2.8, but what is? However it is light to carry about, very versatile and takes a 1.4 extender decently. Whilst the 100-400 Mk2 performs very well on my 1DX it is not quite as good on my 7D2. I don't know why as it focuses very accurately but just doesn't give the same sharpness/detail as it does on the 1DX. I think that this is down to my individual cameras and lens - if you want to see what the 7D2 can really do with this lens then have a look at "Pondrader"'s posts on this forum.

These are just my thoughts and observations - certainly not Gospel! I would point you towards the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 (not silly money) or, if you could stretch to it and it isn't too heavy, the 500 F4 L IS. Having said that the 100-400 Mk2 is lighter, cheaper, more versatile and does a very good job - just not quite (but nearly) as good

Decisions, decisions.............​..

Thank you for the detail. Your post reinforces my opinion on the performance of the listed lenses/combos. Of course I am forming an opinion on reading only and you have hard data / personal experience to draw from (is this the point where I start to turn green from envy ). Performance of the 300 + 2.0 TC is a bit of a hiccup as this would be main planned layout. As close to 600 as possible while maintaining some semblance of good performance.

I went on vacation this past June. I visited 6 camera stores. Not one had a big white in sight. If I had found one I probably would not have needed to start this thread. Hard to really visualize one of these from just a picture on a web page.

Rod

This may be a bit out there, but what about a 400mm f/4 DO IS and an extender, either 1.4x or 2x? I have the first gen 400mm and the mk3 2x. They play well together, at least I am pretty happy with the results I got. If you are in BC and could meet somewhere in the Bellingham Washington area I'd be happy to meet up and let you test my combo out.

Another option is to look at some of the Sigma (or Tamron if they have some??) primes like their 500mm f/4.5 or the 300mm f/2.8 plus an extender. Sigma also had the BIG old monster 300-800mm f/5.6, but it doesn't have IS and is really a tripod only lens. Also hard to find and probably still a bit spendy.