100-400mm Canon, Sigma or Tamron

Hey folks,

Been reading the internet back and forth for a while now on this question, but figure that it's best to ask people who actually use these lenses, rather than trust reviews on YouTube etc!

I'm currently using a Canon 5D MKIV for most photography, and my trusty old Canon 70D when I need that extra crop-sensor reach. I mostly photograph Wildlife and Airshows (I know, weird mix), with a bit of everything else in-between!

I use 2 lenses mainly:

1. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM
2. Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

The Canon is great for quality, and the focusing is fast enough for most of what I do. The Sigma is also capable of some great quality shots, but it's heavy and I find the autofocus a bit slow for fast passing jets etc. I find that once I lock focus, anything fast moving has probably already moved away from where I wanted to take the shot. As I said, I have some GREAT shots with the Sigma, but mostly on stationary targets, and some "more luck than judgement" fast moving planes and animals.

I was looking into adding a 100-400mm lens into my kit, for that extra reach over the 70-300mm Canon, and also because I already own a 1.4x iii Canon teleconverter which isn't compatible with the 70-300mm (well, it does work, but only over 250mm, and it's risky to use). What I really want is something that focuses fast, produces sharp images, and isn't the crazy weight of the Sigma. And reading around, the 3 main options seem to be:

1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS II USM - This was always the one I wanted, given how much I love my 70-300 version, and reading around I know it does sharp images and focuses fast. Price is the only issue, but as it's been around for some time now, you can pick up a 2nd hand one for around 1500 USD/EUR now. I also have the 1.4x iii teleconverter already
2. Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary - Sigma has always been my 3rd party brand of choice, but I worry that the autofocus might be slow like the 150-600mm, and maybe I'll get less "sharp" keepers then I would with the Canon. Also not sure about teleconverter compatibility? It works on the 150-600, but the images aren't that sharp at full zoom I find
3. Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD - I admittedly haven't used Tamron before, so I am a bit skeptical. But it reviews well in this category and, like the Sigma, you can get it new for a lot less than a used Canon, so it's on my list.

Does anyone have experience with all 3, especially for Airshow shots (or I guess birds in flight as it's a similar style). I am trying to find "real-world" feedback as opposed to YouTube reviews that might have an element of bias. Assuming that budget was no problem (I mean, it is, but let's assume not for these 3 options), what would people go for?

Thanks very much for any advice. I did search around and didn't find anything specifically about these 3 lenses, so I apologise if it's been asked before.

Cheers,
Orias/James

While the others are very good, it’s the Canon you “really want”. Bought my 100-400 Mark II to replace my Version 1 Push/Pull.
It’s so much nicer. Color, contrast, faster Auto Focus, sharp.
Save for what you really want. You won’t be disappointed.
Highly recommend.

Zero contest

100-400 all the way. That said. I think the 150-600 is the better option from Sigma. So thats the way I went. 600mm is priceless for wildlife shooting and 400mm is often too short

umphotography wrote in post #19464467
100-400 all the way.

Hehe, definitely going for a 100-400, my question was about which one ߘ. I already have the Sigma 150-600, which I love, just a bit heavy and slow focusing for fast moving subjects. My Canon 70-300 is great, but the extra reach and 1.4 extender compatibility of the 100-400 appeals

I guess what I'm really looking for is a reason NOT to get the Canon lens. The Sigma and Tamron 100-400's are newer (and cheaper), so I wonder if they compete with the Canon, or whether they are in a different league still, and the extra cost of the Canon warrants the quality.

Thanks again, appreciate the feedback so far.

Orias wrote in post #19464738

umphotography wrote in post #19464467
100-400 all the way.

Hehe, definitely going for a 100-400, my question was about which one ߘ. I already have the Sigma 150-600, which I love, just a bit heavy and slow focusing for fast moving subjects. My Canon 70-300 is great, but the extra reach and 1.4 extender compatibility of the 100-400 appeals

I guess what I'm really looking for is a reason NOT to get the Canon lens. The Sigma and Tamron 100-400's are newer (and cheaper), so I wonder if they compete with the Canon, or whether they are in a different league still, and the extra cost of the Canon warrants the quality.

Thanks again, appreciate the feedback so far.

The Canon 100-400 V2 is an amazing lens. but the Sigma is not too bad. I would say if the Canon was a 100, then the Sigma would be a 95. Having said that I think if you need to use an extender, you should get the Canon - which is what Mike was trying to say in the first place

When researching the same question a couple years ago all of the reviews and comparisons I found indicated the Canon was a clear winner. Even when I looked at longer options the Canon with a 1.4x came out ahead of some of the zoom lenses that go to 600. You really can't go wrong with the Canon 100-400II.

Great, thanks very much!

Certainly seems like the Canon is the way to go (which only strengthens my original thoughts).
Now to try and find a good one at a decent price

Thanks again!

Orias wrote in post #19465180
Great, thanks very much!

Certainly seems like the Canon is the way to go (which only strengthens my original thoughts).
Now to try and find a good one at a decent price

Thanks again!

Buy a used one. I have seen them in our forum for $1300-1400

umphotography wrote in post #19465288
Buy a used one. I have seen them in our forum for $1300-1400

On the for sale forum right now. $1200
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1528160

I doubt many people have experience with all three of the 100-400mm lenses: Canon, Sigma and Tamron.

I have the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II and can tell you its a great lens. I have not compared it to any of the 70-300s, but do use it alongside a Canon 24-70mm L, 135mm L, two Canon 70-200mm L, three Canon 300mm L and a Canon 500mm L. The EF 100-400mm II holds it's own alongside the other L series.

There are detailed comparisons of all three of those lenses at The-Digital-Picture.com website. I would encourage you to check them out.

One feature of Bryan Carnathan's website is the "Image Quality" tool that allows you to compare any two lenses side by side. When I do that with the Canon, Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm lenses it's interesting. On a modest resolution APS-C camera like my 7D Mark II there isn't all that much difference, though the Canon still seems best. But if you compare them on an unforgiving full frame, high resolution camera like a 5DS-R, the Canon really shines!

Tamron 100-400mm versus Canon 100-400mm II: https://www.the-digital-picture.com …p=963&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Canon 100-400mm II versus Sigma 100-400mm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com …p=963&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

The Sigma and the Tamron are considerably less expensive than the Canon. From all I've seen, I don't think they have as good image quality as the Canon. The Sigma might be a little sharper, but it doesn't have any means of attaching a tripod mounting ring. The Canon includes a tripod ring and there is one available optionally for the Tamron. Both the third party lenses are "slower" than the Canon. The Sigma is the slowest of the three, with a variable aperture that stops down faster, although this allows it to be smaller. Here's how it breaks down:

- Canon 100-400mm is f/4.5 from 100 to 134mm, f/5 from 135 to 311mm and f/5.6 from 312 to 400mm.
- Tamron 100-400mm is f/4.5 from 100 to 136mm, f/5 from 137 to 180mm, f/5.6 from 181 to 281mm and f/6.3 from 282 to 400mm. So it's 2/3 stop slower than the Canon at some focal lengths and 1/3 stop slower at many.
- Sigma 100-400mm is f/5 from 100 to 111mm!, f/5.6 from 112 to 233mm and f/6.3 from 234 to 400mm. So it's 2/3 stop slower than the Canon at nearly all it's focal lengths.

I shoot sports and wildlife a lot with my lens, sometimes in difficult light where a 2/3 stop brighter lens can be an important factor.

The Canon lens is a little bigger and a full pound heavier than either of the 3rd party lenses. It's 3.5 lb. They're approx. 2.5 lb. (the optional Tamron tripod ring would add a few oz. to it). I use the Canon lens handheld a lot... but for some long sports events or waiting for wildlife in a blind I will put it on a tripod with gimbal or a monopod. I wouldn't want a 400mm lens without a tripod ring!

The 100-400mm also works well with my EF 1.4X II. I am sure it would work at least as well with your 1.4X III. I have no idea how the two 3rd party lenses work with teleconverters (see the image comparison feature at The-Digital-Picture.com website).

First image below was the 100-400mm with 1.4X II, at 560mm wide open (f/8) on 7D Mark II. The second image below isn't my favorite shot, the light wasn't as nice as the previous shot, but for comparison was done with the lens alone at at 400mm, f./9, also on 7D Mark II. Both images were largely uncropped, but somewhat reduced in size for upload here.

Thanks very much everyone, and especially to you Amfoto1 for the very detailed post.

I am happy to say that, as of today, I am the proud owner of a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II . As you suggested, I was looking at various 2nd hand options, and I managed to pick one up for €1300 in the end (~ $1400 USD). I did see the ones for sale on the forum here but, unfortunately, they all seemed to be for sale in the US. I am based in Europe so, even though I paid about $100 more than the one on the forum linked above, by the time it got to me I would have no-doubt been stung for significantly more than that in import tax and shipping costs.

First impressions are great. Feels very sturdy, and the weight really isn't that bad for me. I guess I am used to dealing with the Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, which certainly isn't lightweight. A bit busy at work this week, but hoping to get a day off next week where I can head to one of the local animal parks and really put the lens through it's paces!

Thanks very much to everyone for the advice, I'll post up some results once I get the chance

Cheers,
James

Orias wrote in post #19464738
Hehe, definitely going for a 100-400, my question was about which one ߘ. I already have the Sigma 150-600, which I love, just a bit heavy and slow focusing for fast moving subjects. My Canon 70-300 is great, but the extra reach and 1.4 extender compatibility of the 100-400 appeals

I guess what I'm really looking for is a reason NOT to get the Canon lens. The Sigma and Tamron 100-400's are newer (and cheaper), so I wonder if they compete with the Canon, or whether they are in a different league still, and the extra cost of the Canon warrants the quality.

Thanks again, appreciate the feedback so far.

If you're going for any model of the 100-400, the Canon MkII is THE answer; the only reason to buy any of the other models is price. They are "adequate" for producing decent results, optically, but their focus speed, MFDs and overall build/operation are just not on the same level.

Orias wrote in post #19466673
Thanks very much everyone, and especially to you Amfoto1 for the very detailed post.

I am happy to say that, as of today, I am the proud owner of a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II . As you suggested, I was looking at various 2nd hand options, and I managed to pick one up for €1300 in the end (~ $1400 USD). I did see the ones for sale on the forum here but, unfortunately, they all seemed to be for sale in the US. I am based in Europe so, even though I paid about $100 more than the one on the forum linked above, by the time it got to me I would have no-doubt been stung for significantly more than that in import tax and shipping costs.

First impressions are great. Feels very sturdy, and the weight really isn't that bad for me. I guess I am used to dealing with the Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, which certainly isn't lightweight. A bit busy at work this week, but hoping to get a day off next week where I can head to one of the local animal parks and really put the lens through it's paces!

Thanks very much to everyone for the advice, I'll post up some results once I get the chance

Cheers,
James

smart choice