Zoom Lens Quandry

OneOffDave

OneOffDave

Messages
87
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just got a Canon R6 mk2 and found out (lack of research on my part) my Tamron 150-600 G1 won't work with it. I've also got a Canon EF 100-400 mk 1. I'm thinking of trading them both in for a more modern telephoto zoom but the more I look at it, the more puzzled I get about the options. I'd love to hear people's thoughts. With them I shoot (poorly) birds, wildlife and planes
 
I don't shoot Canon but I can say this: go for the largest aperture possible. I use the Sigma 150-600 S on my Sony and much just like your Tamron it starts at f/5.6 going u to 6.3 at 600mm. Many times I wish for a larger aperture, just to let in more light. Your Canon 100-400 isn't really much better. Something like a 500mm prime at f/4 would be much better for what you shoot. Problem is they're quite spendy.
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely right Tamron G1 series are incompatible. G2 with latest - but lackluster - firmware updates may be workable but even those will perform far worse on RF series than comparable Sigma latest EF equivalent, or better still the gen II Canon 100-400mm. If you are happy to spend a bit more the obvious upgrade becomes RF 100-500mm.

I just occasionally use the old EF 400mm f/5.6 prime which is fine for my needs and this will resolve tenfold more than any of the old zooms. none of the birds, wildlife or planes interest me all that much.
 
I use a Canon EF 100-400 L mk ii with and with and without an extender EF 1.4x iii. I also use a Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 C and have tried a RF 100-500mm. They are all fine but obviously the light needs to be good given the max apertures. The ability to use high ISOs and noise reduction software certainly helps.

The Try The Kit scheme is very good in helping you decide.

You could spend a fortune on a great lens with a large aperture.

​

​

 
Age old answer - depends on your budget! I can highly recommend the RF 100-500, when I had mine I used it for everything from Motorsports to wildlife and even landscapes (yes really) and it never let me down, (I ended up upgrading to the rf100-300 2.8 - just awesome) my wife now has the 100-500 on her R5 99% of the time.
 
Last edited:
I hear what the OP wrote Nothing wrong with Cannon camera equipment as far as it goes. There is one very strong reason why I went down the micro four thirds route with the Panasonic G9 and the G9ii later version. I can now use any make of MFT lens and being a 2x magnification a 100-400mm lens now becomes in full frame terms 200-800mm without anything being added. So not only a lot shorter and lighter but easily hand held with the dual IS in the camera and the lens.

Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3 = £1299 or in full frame terms(200-800mm ) Weighs just 985g​

Canon 200-800mm f6.3-9 IS USM RF Lens =£2149 Weight [g]2050.​


I know which I would prefer and actually have and in reality and politely cannot understand why on earth anyone would want to lug around all day a heavy long lens. Then not being to be able to hand hold for a shot but needs a tripod and miss the shot anyway?:woot::thinking:
 
Last edited:
I used my EF 100-400 L mk ii with an adapter when I first moved to a mirrorless body, and it worked just fine.

However, the RF100-500 works so much better....faster, sharper, more flexible.

I was wary of the f7.1 maximum aperture at the long end, but this really hasnt been an issue for me.

Most of my photography is wildlife, including birds, and i was amazed to find that it even does a decent job as macro lens!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top