300mm 2.8 + 2x TC vs Tamron 150-600mm G2

Hey everyone, I'm looking at buying either a Canon 200 f2 or 300 2.8 ii in the near future. I do a lot of dog photography so that is what it will mainly be used for. I'm leaning more toward the 200 since the focal length is a lot more versatile. However, I've had a growing passion for wildlife photography and the 300 with 2x iii extender seems like a great choice for it. I test drove the 300 & 2x over the weekend and it was really nice. I'd like to know though, how does the 300 2.8 with 2x TC compare to say the Tamron 150-600 G2? I'm thinking buying the 200 and then a 150-600 for wildlife would be a better choice. Thoughts?

Don't know which camera you are using but on my 7D2 and 1DX the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS (Mk1) has significantly better AF (speed + tracking) then either the Tamron or Sigma "C" 150-600 lenses. I think better IQ as well - but it is heavier and more expensive. When you move to the 1.4 or no extender then the Canon 300 F2.8 really shines in both AF performance and IQ.

If the extra weight and faffing about with extenders is not too much of an issue then I would go for the 300 F2.8 - probably why I did!

Happy deciding!

The L lenses and the consumer-grade lenses are just not truly comparable. Faster AF, larger aperture(s), etc are major upgrades that you get from the funds into 'L' glass...In ideal conditions, you may not see much difference in your final results between the two; but, when you wind up in a dark venue, shooting in cloudy conditions [which we get here fairly regularly when our local Dock Dogs show up to exhibit], or any other 'adverse' conditions, the big guys are much better to have in hand.

With the budget available, I would do a 300 f/2.8 + 2x TC hands down; 2.8 vs f/5 of the Tamron at 300 and still 1/3 faster at 600 (5.6 vs 6.3). Plus the hardier build, better chroma handling from the fluorite elements and AF that's less prone to hunting.

The 150-600 are budget options that make the longer focal lengths more accessible to consumers and do perform reasonably well, but to get those sorts of zoom ranges, there are significant tradeoffs being made.

never used the tamron but I did briefly own the 300L f2.8 V1 + 1.4 TC II. I was unimpressed with the IQ with TC and AF in low light was worse than my 100-400L I. I couldn't imagine using that lens with a 2 x tc

ed rader wrote in post #18890990
never used the tamron but I did briefly own the 300L f2.8 V1 + 1.4 TC II. I was unimpressed with the IQ with TC and AF in low light was worse than my 100-400L I. I couldn't imagine using that lens with a 2 x tc

1000% agree here

If you need to be at 600MM......shocker...I would use the tammy

Thanks for the replies everyone. I ended up ordering the Tamron. Should be here tomorrow. Pretty stoked! Also ordered the Canon 200 f2

ed rader wrote in post #18890990
never used the tamron but I did briefly own the 300L f2.8 V1 + 1.4 TC II. I was unimpressed with the IQ with TC and AF in low light was worse than my 100-400L I. I couldn't imagine using that lens with a 2 x tc

Surprised at that as I use my 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 in preference to my 100-400 Mk2 (which is much better than my Mk1 was!). As to "low light" then the 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 scores over the 100-400 Mk2 with and without the 1.4 extender and is not far short with the 2 x. I think there might have been a problem with your copy?

I bought my Canon 100-400 Mk2, to replace my Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1, due to it's lighter weight - closer MFD and zoom range and it is an excellent lens. However except for weight and flexibility my 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 is just a better lens for AF/IQ and handling - though a bit heavy.

Just what I have found with my gear.

CaPpedDoG wrote in post #18891376
Thanks for the replies everyone. I ended up ordering the Tamron. Should be here tomorrow. Pretty stoked! Also ordered the Canon 200 f2

I finally have decided to get one of the 150-600mm lenses. Now have to decide between the Tamron and the Sigma C.
I would love to hear your first impressions of the Tamron!

Received it yesterday. Haven't had a chance to use it much yet. It seems well built. AF is faster than expected (around the same as my 135mm f2.) Not quite as sharp as I had hoped. It may be it just needs some microadjusting. Could also be that I'm not used to shooting at 600mm; although I didn't have much issue with the 300mm 2.8 ii + 2x iii. The IS on the Tamron is decent. Found the 300mm significantly better though. Now the bad part... this evening the AF completely stopped working. The only thing that fixed it was to turn the camera off and back on. I've never had this happen before, so believe it's a lens issue, and not the body. Going to see if I can replicate it tomorrow.

The AF stopping doesn’t sound good. Were you able to replicate it? Maybe you have a bad copy?

Hasn't happened again, yet. I sent Tamron an email so waiting to hear back. I found an old thread regarding the problem, but it was to do with the G1. I did find a YouTube video from Morten Hilmer who sent his in for a similiar issue. However, his had some moisture damage. He says it still does the same thing though. I'll likely exchange it for another one... or may even go with the Sigma Sport.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18893153
The AF stopping doesn’t sound good. Were you able to replicate it? Maybe you have a bad copy?

colours are colors

ed rader wrote in post #18893514
colours are colors

Clowns are clowns...

CaPpedDoG wrote in post #18892785
Received it yesterday. Haven't had a chance to use it much yet. It seems well built. AF is faster than expected (around the same as my 135mm f2.) Not quite as sharp as I had hoped. It may be it just needs some microadjusting. Could also be that I'm not used to shooting at 600mm; although I didn't have much issue with the 300mm 2.8 ii + 2x iii. The IS on the Tamron is decent. Found the 300mm significantly better though. Now the bad part... this evening the AF completely stopped working. The only thing that fixed it was to turn the camera off and back on. I've never had this happen before, so believe it's a lens issue, and not the body. Going to see if I can replicate it tomorrow.

If the 200 f2 is anything like the 300 2.8 mk2 then it'll be a pig to repeatedly nail focus.
I get a better hit rate with my 85 1.2 than the 300 2.8. I can only imagine the horror of the narrow DOF at f2.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18897781
If the 200 f2 is anything like the 300 2.8 mk2 then it'll be a pig to repeatedly nail focus.
I get a better hit rate with my 85 1.2 than the 300 2.8. I can only imagine the horror of the narrow DOF at f2.

The Canon EF 300 F2.8 L (any version) is an AF monster. Whether you are using a 1 series camera/film camera or a XXD this one of the fastest and most accurate focusing lenses out there from any manufacturer.

I cannot speak for the 200 F2/1.8 as I have simply never used one. But AF and tracking are the last of your worries with a Canon 300 F2.8! However (according to Online DOF Calculator) the 200 F2 has a depth of field of 0.07 m at 6 meters at F2, whereas my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS has 0.01 m and I have no AF issues with that lens - far from it! I would love so much depth of field as a 200 F2 so long as I could keep the focal length

Not sure what you were getting at in your post.