Switch from 70-200 to 100-400

If my Canon 1.4 worked on the Tamron 100-400 I will certainly consider it as long as it could track BIF. I may visit my local camera store someday to try.

May also reconsider one of the 150-600's despite the weight and get a monopod so I don't have to handhold it. I see that you can get the Sigma with their 1.4x as a combo for a decent price and that's a huge amount of reach. If I went this way I would keep my 70-200.

Of course either the Canon or Tamron 100-400 would likely get used more because it would be less of a burden to carry around.

I say this regularly but if looking at the two cheaper 150-600 options I would always recommend the Sigma C over the Tamron G1. The G1 has to disable the VC when panning, although it does so automatically now. The Sigma has the usual mode 1 and mode 2 settings, as on Canon lenses. I used an early G1 with the VC active while panning and it was a complete disaster. I love my Sigma C but don't have a TC as I am running a 50D, so no ƒ/8 AF.

I've shot airshows at focal lengths of 400mm and more since the mid 70's and have tried both tripods and monopods without much success. Generally at airshows you need to make a lot of very wide pans, with 180° by far the most usual. This means you end up needing to move around the tripod/monopod to follow the subject I would be wary of using either unless I could be pretty sure of keeping the subject in a 45° arc either side of the centerline.

To get around this, and still get a lot of extra stability I have used shoulder stocks instead. These allow you to swing the camera with ease, and make for much smoother panning than hand held. They also help with the weight of the combination, something that is very important for me as I am disabled. Back in my film days I used a commercial shoulder stock, there were several designs avilable back then. The system I use now is one of the 15mm rod systems intended to build DSLR video rigs from. I assembled mine in a way that suits using it for my needs for stills, not video use. My daughter got it for me from one of those Chinese places like Banggood, and it was under £15 delivered. The only thing I did was replace the very poor quality machine screws with quality stainless steel socket cap screws from a local industrial fastenings factor. That only added about £1.50 though.

I modified an old broken remote cable so that it has separate AF and shutter buttons. I have shot BBAF only for so long that using a double press button is difficult, especially with my disability. Although one can press the shutter release without first activating the AF, my 50D seems to always want to AF regradless, since you have to have AF enabled on the shutter button for the remote to trigger the AF at all.

Some pictures of my 50D/Sigma 150-600 C rig:

Photo from BigAl007's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (775622)

Photo from BigAl007's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (775623)

Photo from BigAl007's gallery.

I'm kinda in the same boat. Years ago I passed on the original 100-400mm & chose the 400mm F/5.6. It really is a great lens minus the IS but for what I shoot, IS is basically useless. However, the new 100-400mm II is supposedly amazing, and I tend to trust the people here on this forum that say so. I am going to try and sell my 400mm F/5.6 for about $800 (I think it's currently about $1,200 new) to help fund the 100-400mm. I shoot a lot of football, and this will allow me to put it on one body and the 24-70mm on the other, meaning I can keep my 70-200mm F/2.8 at home. Currently I have my WA on one body, my 70-200mm on another, and my 400mm on a third. That's three very heavy pieces of equipment hanging around my neck/monopod. But there is no way I will get rid of my 70-200mm. I just need it in so many other situations.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18719745
I know with the Sigma 150-600's and I think the 100-400 that the lens firmware is supposed to be set up so that the lens will only work with the new TC-1401. That may be for just Sigma converters, because from what people have posted in various threads it seems the Sigma lenses still work fine with non Sigma TC's, including the Canon. It may be this that is confusing the OP.

Alan

Sigma lenses typically don't like Canon MK3 teleconverters. I had Sigma 150-600 S and now have 500 f4 S. You can't take a photo - 'communication error' or similar error message. The same lenses do work with Canon MKII teleconverters. Only an early version of the 150-600 with original firmware will work with Canon MK3s.

No problem with the Tamron, at least with 5D4 and Canon 1.4III:

https://dustinabbott.n​et …-f-4-5-6-3-vc-usd-review/

I also compared it to the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 lens with a 1.4x teleconverter (I used the Canon 1.4x III since I did not have the Tamron TC on hand).

Thanks for the replies. As much as I'd love the Canon 100-400 it's out of my price range.

I will try to get into my local camera store in the next few weeks to try the Tamron 100-400 on my 80D to see if I think it would be good for BIF and also see how it does with my Canon 1.4x (ii) attached. I also keep coming back to the 150-600’s. A few years ago I had a Tamron 150-600 G1 for about 2 weeks but returned it because it hurt my wrist. I thought it was a good lens and loved the reach on it. Starting to think it might be best to go with one of these lenses again and get a monopod so that when I go out to shoot birds I can use the monopod to take the weight of me.

If I did go with the 100-400 I’ll likely sell the 70-200 because over the overlap. If I go with the 150-600 I’ll keep the 70-200.

I have the 100-400L II and the 70-200L F4 IS II. the biggest difference between the two lenses besides range is size/weight. which one to own is not a question for me. I own and use both. just got back from a week in Yellowstone/tetons and I used both a lot. the 70-200L usually stays in my pack, tho sometimes I take the 100-400 instead. sometimes like last week I take both.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18720376
I say this regularly but if looking at the two cheaper 150-600 options I would always recommend the Sigma C over the Tamron G1. The G1 has to disable the VC when panning, although it does so automatically now. The Sigma has the usual mode 1 and mode 2 settings, as on Canon lenses. I used an early G1 with the VC active while panning and it was a complete disaster. I love my Sigma C but don't have a TC as I am running a 50D, so no ƒ/8 AF.

I've shot airshows at focal lengths of 400mm and more since the mid 70's and have tried both tripods and monopods without much success. Generally at airshows you need to make a lot of very wide pans, with 180° by far the most usual. This means you end up needing to move around the tripod/monopod to follow the subject I would be wary of using either unless I could be pretty sure of keeping the subject in a 45° arc either side of the centerline.

To get around this, and still get a lot of extra stability I have used shoulder stocks instead. These allow you to swing the camera with ease, and make for much smoother panning than hand held. They also help with the weight of the combination, something that is very important for me as I am disabled. Back in my film days I used a commercial shoulder stock, there were several designs avilable back then. The system I use now is one of the 15mm rod systems intended to build DSLR video rigs from. I assembled mine in a way that suits using it for my needs for stills, not video use. My daughter got it for me from one of those Chinese places like Banggood, and it was under £15 delivered. The only thing I did was replace the very poor quality machine screws with quality stainless steel socket cap screws from a local industrial fastenings factor. That only added about £1.50 though.

I modified an old broken remote cable so that it has separate AF and shutter buttons. I have shot BBAF only for so long that using a double press button is difficult, especially with my disability. Although one can press the shutter release without first activating the AF, my 50D seems to always want to AF regradless, since you have to have AF enabled on the shutter button for the remote to trigger the AF at all.

Some pictures of my 50D/Sigma 150-600 C rig:

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by BigAl007 originally in forum: Canon Lenses

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by BigAl007 originally in forum: Canon Lenses

Gallery photo:
posted by BigAl007 originally in forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Alan

wow......you need to clean your camera.

Sitting here thinking that maybe I should just go with a 400mm f5.6 for the third time. Was always impressed with how sharp my last two were, how quick the AF was for BIF and how light it was. My only negative as mentioned earlier was that I sometimes wished I had a zoom.

Have to agree with your comments about the 400mm, it's an awesome lens. However, in your original post you mentioned you didn't get the opportunity to use it often & it was a lot of $$$$ just to be sitting around. I agree with that, but the 100-400mm may allow you to use it more often because of the versatility of a zoom to shoot more subjects and therefore not having " a lot of $$$ just sitting around".

I have missed many shots due to it being a prime. Mainly shooting sports, but once I was shooting the eagle migration & missed an awesome shot. I got the shot of the eagle coming out of the water w/ the fish, but afterwards it flew towards us and was harassed by another eagle. It ended up with 2 eagles upside down and both had both their claws in the fish. The guys w/ the zoom got that shot & it was quite a spectacular image!!

Just my opinion & I would choose the prime if the image quality was greater (why I chose the 400mm over the original 100-400mm to begin with), but the reviews of the new version say the IQ is as good as the 70-200mm.

Yes, sorry forgot that point about it being so specialized and a lot of money to have it sitting around. Scratch my last post. Haha!

Here is the Sigma 150-600 vs 100-400II with a Kenko 1.4x. I didn't notice too much in the way of AF differences really.

FOV differences, then size, weight and 100% crop comparisons (top is sigma, bottom is canon).

A local camera shop has a used Tamron 150-600 G1 and a used Canon 100-400 v1 for basically the same price. The Canon is a newer model of the old version and currently on sale to bring it closer to the price of the 150-600 G1.

Between these two, which would you opt for taking into consideration that I have a Canon 1.4x ii which could give me a similar range to the Tamron. It would be used for BIF.

The 100-400 may not take a 1.4x very well, the lens is at its limit for resolving power for a dense crop sensor. A TC isn't going to help matters, and you will be at f8 as well. The Tamron, I feel, would have better IQ at 600 over the 100-400 @ 560mm, and would be at f6.3.

How would the 100-400 handle the 1.4x on a FF (6D)? I'm looking to sell my 400mm F/5.6 & replace it w/ the 100-400mm by next football season.