My Predicament the Canon 400mm or 100-400mm II or Tamron 150-600mm G2

russellsnr

russellsnr

Messages
2,674
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I own the Canon 400mm and the 100-400mm version 1, we are returning to the UK to live early next year from Greece, where we live there is no way to look at or rent the 100-400mm II. I cannot decide between a trade in for the 100- 400mm II using the both the 100-400mm ver I and the 400mm or keep hold of the 400mm and go for a Tamron 150-600mm G2.
I read rave reviews of the 100-400mm II and not just from those fellows on youtube who maybe get there gear at a cheaper price or can rent a copy. Camera wise I use a 7D II and a 70D, my main interest is Wildlife/Birds and hope be doing a lot more on return to the UK. Also anyone uses a mix of the 400mm and Tamron 150-600mm ?
Thanks in advance, Russ.
 
Still having 100-400mm II and loving it, I have the same FL for Sony as well. If you can PX both your prime and zoom lens for 100-400mm II then I highly recommend it as you'll reduced to 1 lens rather than having both.

I have not used Tamron 150-600mm G2 but judging from the internet reviews, it seems to hold it's strength. Having 600mm which is 200mm additional FL from Canon's 100-400mm is very useful.

But the prime lenses will still trump these zoom lenses.

There are few places where you can rent, lensesforhire owner is member here @StewartR, wex photo hire or hireacamera. I suggest you try them out prior to committing.
 
Thankyou for that reply. Looking at new on the 100-400mm as used on MPB is not far off a new price compared to excellent quality there.
 
I have had the 400mm f/5.6, 100-400mm MKI and MKII plus the Sigma 150-600mm Sport I eventually sold everything bar the Sigma as I found when using those lenses I am always shooting at their maximum focal length and more is always better with the type of subject you tend to use them for. The Canon MKII is sharper than the Sigma at 400mm but when you put on the Canon 1.4x MKIII to try and match the Sigma's 600mm it's the other way round.

Saying that I do find it a pain carrying the SIgma, it's a hefty lump.
 
Mike.P said:
I have had the 400mm f/5.6, 100-400mm MKI and MKII plus the Sigma 150-600mm Sport I eventually sold everything bar the Sigma as I found when using those lenses I am always shooting at their maximum focal length and more is always better with the type of subject you tend to use them for. The Canon MKII is sharper than the Sigma at 400mm but when you put on the Canon 1.4x MKIII to try and match the Sigma's 600mm it's the other way round.

Saying that I do find it a pain carrying the SIgma, it's a hefty lump.
Click to expand...
Hi, funny world, I traded in a Sigma 150-600mm because of the weight of it and I thought the Canon although 200mm less would be a lot lighter I also found that the Sigma was giving me soft looking images at 600mm even after calibrating it with Focal and must admit not that impressed with the Canon 100-400mm MK I for the same reason, the 400mm gives excellent results, if I could afford the Canon 600mm but at around the £4000 mark well out of my reach. Russ.
 
I think there is quite a bit of sample variation with the Sigma lenses and it took me a few goes to get a good one but mine seems fine at 600mm. The 400mm is a fantastic lens but let down by the lack of IS and the 100-400mm MKII was excellent but a bit on the short side.

I have always thought Canon make the best lenses and should make something like the 150-600mm, Nikon have the 200-500mm and Sony now have the 200-600mm but Canon did nothing.
 
Mike.P said:
I have always thought Canon make the best lenses and should make something like the 150-600mm, Nikon have the 200-500mm and Sony now have the 200-600mm but Canon did nothing.
Click to expand...
Canon make the 200-400 with built-in 1.4x converter which gives you the extra range. But at £10,000 it's not a cheap option.
 
Can't talk about the Tamron - never used it - but the Canon 100-400mm ii is an astonishing bit of kit for the price - and it takes a 1.4x very well to virtually match the focal length of the Tamron

Mike
 
I swapped my 400/5.6 for the 100-400/II about 12 months ago as I needed the flexibilty for some sporting events.....the zoom does the job admirably but I'll be going back to the prime when I have the time ro get back into birding again. It's a superb zoom but if you're going to use it at 400mm all day then it's second best.
 
Love my Canon 100-400 mkii - really sharp right through the range and takes the 1.4x really well, best value for money lens I've ever bought - great for wildlife, golf (my 400 f2.8 wasn't used much when I shot the Dunhill Links in October because I got everything I needed with the 100-400) and on a day with good light very good for football
 
Love my new 1-400 mkll , it`s a cracking lens , I have the 400 prime as well , which is also cracking , but I think the 1-400 Mkll is just as sharp top end , and as mentioned works well with the 1.4 mklll converter . I havn`t used any of the super zooms , but think if were me I would go for 1-400 mkll and a 1.4 converter .
 
Thanks to all replies. I have a 1.4 mk ll converter so going for the 100-400mm MK ll when I get home next year. Russ.
 
I've previously owned the Canon 100-400L MK1and loved it.
Last year when I got back into photography I bought a Tamron 100-400.
I've had some fantastic results with it but there have been plenty of times when more reach would have been helpful.
A friend of mine recenty sold his Tamron 150-600 G2 in favour of a Canon 400L.
We both found the sweet spot with the Tamron lenses is betweem f/8-f/11.
I'm going to buy a Tamron 150-600 G2 in the new year as having had a play with my friends, it's impressed me.
 
I have quite a few wildlife guys that I know have changed to the 100-400 Mkii and they are loving it and the results I have seen are great.
 
100-400 II is probably the best of both worlds choice if you can get it. Otherwise, 400mm prime gives same sharpness, minus the IS, zoom and closer MFD... at fraction of cost. I don't see any point in keeping mk1 zoom, but 3rd party lens may be worth extended trials if they are any good at long end.

Also to throw the spanner in the works there will be RF version coming out at some point fairly shortly, obsoleting the mk2 and sending the prices down. Personally I am holding any purchases until I buy into a new system, either RF or Sony equivalent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top