EF 400L f/5.6 vs. Tamron 150-600

[bholliman]

I have around $1,200 in my new lens budget and am debating between these two lenses. I'd like to purchase in the next month or so as we plan to take a vacation to Alaska in June and I really need a longer lens for wildlife shots. After the AK vacation, I would use the lens primarily for wildlife closer to home (wild turkeys, bears, deer, maybe a few birds, etc.) and some limited outdoor sports like baseball and soccer.

My other tele lens is a 70-200 2.8 II and I have a 2xIII extender. This lens is still really good even with the 2x extender, so maybe I should continue with this combo and save my money toward an 85 1.2 II?

From reading reviews and looking at the lens sharpness tool at TDP, it appears the 400 is sharper overall. But it of course lacks the zooms flexibility and vibration control. At this point, I'm leaning a little toward the 400 5.6 as I expect I would use the zoom primarily at 400+.



Thoughts?

 

[Random Orbits]

I'd opt for the Tamron. The prime is slightly better at 400mm, but the VC/IS would win out for me because it's not always bright and sunny. Other threads have shown that the Tamron is good up to 500mm. TDP shows that 500 uprezzed is similar to 600mm at f/8. It's not great but you still get AF and VC, which the 400 prime won't get you with the 6D. The prime definitely has an advantage in weight and handling.

 

[JPAZ]

Never handled the Tammy but when I was in Denali last year, my 100-400 was often too short. I did use it some with a 1.4x but now plan to return with the 300 and 2x someday. If I were in your shoes, I'd really consider the Tammy and bring the 70-200 with TC as well. My only reservation is that I was shooting the 100-400 at relatively high ISO's because of the lighting and the Tammy won't be any better.

Another alternative is to rent something long. A member of our group had a 600 mm on a crop body (with a monopod) and got some spectacular shots.

 

[bholliman]

Never handled the Tammy but when I was in Denali last year, my 100-400 was often too short. I did use it some with a 1.4x but now plan to return with the 300 and 2x someday. If I were in your shoes, I'd really consider the Tammy and bring the 70-200 with TC as well. My only reservation is that I was shooting the 100-400 at relatively high ISO's because of the lighting and the Tammy won't be any better.

Another alternative is to rent something long. A member of our group had a 600 mm on a crop body (with a monopod) and got some spectacular shots.

Thanks for the tips. I was wondering if 400mm would be enough reach, maybe with the 2x extender, but then I'm looking at f/11 and no AF. I have an EOS M can give me more pixels on distant targets. I'll look into rental options.

 

[Dylan777]

Since you on budget my vote is tammy. Longer reach and flexible zoom.

 

[AlanF]

The uprezzing of 500 x 1.2 vs 600 done on TDP was misleading - he took images of a piece of bark that had so little detail that a 20% increase from 500-600mm would be expected to reveal little extra. Here are 3 more appropriate images, a greylag goose head central crop at f/8 with a 5DIII plus Tamron 150-600mm, f/8, at 400mm uprezzed 1.5x (top). 500mm x 1.2 (middle) and 600mm (bottom). There is a slight improvement on going from 400-600mm as there is not much fine detail but notice the improved bokeh. In the next posting I'll show where you see an improvement at the fine level.

 

[AlanF]

You see the differences in resolving power when you are looking at fine detail that is close to the limits of resolution of a lens. Here is a collage of shots of the centre of an iso 12233 chart (not a professional chart from a high quality printer but a standard laser print posted on the wall of my house in daylight). The results are pretty clear: at 400mm, the Tammy, which as as sharp as the 100-400 and close to the 400L, can't resolve fully the fine line circles; at 500mm it can; and 600mm it is definitely slightly better. For comparison, a 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III wins at f/5.6.

I use the 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC when I am out in the country or the Tammy when I need zoom or don't wish to be seen carrying the even more conspicuous 300mm in more urban situations or when travelling. For light weight and less conspicuousness, the 400/5.6 is great. But, the added length and IS and zoom of the Tammy are great assets and make it much more versatile.

 

[bholliman]

You see the differences in resolving power when you are looking at fine detail that is close to the limits of resolution of a lens. Here is a collage of shots of the centre of an iso 12233 chart (not a professional chart from a high quality printer but a standard laser print posted on the wall of my house in daylight). The results are pretty clear: at 400mm, the Tammy, which as as sharp as the 100-400 and close to the 400L, can't resolve fully the fine line circles; at 500mm it can; and 600mm it is definitely slightly better. For comparison, a 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III wins at f/5.6.

Thanks for the real world examples, the bokeh is definitely smoother in the 600mm shot of the goose and some details look sharper. The ISO 12233 charts provide an excellent comparison of fine detail resolution between 400 and 600mm. The Tammy looks pretty decent at 600mm f/8.

The added reach of the Tammy along with its flexibility and image stabilization are making me lean in that direction over the 400L. I'm thinking I should order the Tammy soon to make sure I have it prior to our Alaska trip. I understand it's not readily available yet. Thanks again!

 

[bod]

Pleased to follow this thread as I was with the thread about the 300 f/2.8 plus x2TC. I currently have the 300 f/4 and use it with the x1.4 and x2 TC's but find I am not so happy with the results with the x2 TC at 600. I am considering alternative options such as the 300 f/2.8, the 400 f/5.6 or the Tamron zoom in order to get better IQ at 600 (and AF would be good to!). From Alan's posts it appears the 300 f/2.8 plus x2TC is the sharpest. My question for this thread is - how does the 400 f/5.6 plus x1.4 TC at 560 compare with the Tamron since this give a similar maximum reach?

 

[weixing]

Hi,
I had both the EF400mm F5.6L and Tamron 150-600mm. Here is my experience on my copy of EF400mm F5.6L and Tamron 150-600mm on Canon 6D.
On sharpness at 400mm, basically my Tamron 150-600mm is as sharp as my EF400mm F5.6L... ok, at F5.6, my EF400mm F5.6L is slightly sharper, but only visible at 100% crop. But when compare with EF400mm F5.6L + Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro, my Tarmron 150-600mm (500mm to 600mm) is sharper even at wide open.

On AF speed, the Canon EF400mm F5.6L is faster and more consistence than the Tamron 150-600mm on my 6D as expected. Also, my Tamron 150-600mm had one issue when using AI servo AF... when continuously AF on an object, sometime it'll "jump" out of focus a bit and then re-focus back... I don't remember this happened before on my EF400mm F5.6L even with the kenko 1.4x TC on, but not sure whether is this a common issue, so if you mainly shooting action shots, you might want to consider again.

Anyway, for me, I now mainly use the Tamron 150-600mm for my birding as I seldom shoot action shots and the Tamron IS is quite good, so I don't need to bring my tripod and gimbal head all the time when out for birding, but I think I'll still keep the EF400mm F5.6L as a backup... frankly, I'm not sure how reliable the Tamron 150-600mm is in the long run.

Have a nice day.

 

[JonB]

I don't have any of these lenses myself, but according to this review by Tony and Chelsea Northrup the Canon 400 5.6 digitally zoomed in photoshop to 600mm is sharper than the Tamrom 150-600 at 600mm.
As I said I can't vouch for this myself. Here is the review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk

Jon

 

[mb66energy]

I have around $1,200 in my new lens budget and am debating between these two lenses. I'd like to purchase in the next month or so as we plan to take a vacation to Alaska in June and I really need a longer lens for wildlife shots. After the AK vacation, I would use the lens primarily for wildlife closer to home (wild turkeys, bears, deer, maybe a few birds, etc.) and some limited outdoor sports like baseball and soccer.

For the applications you mentioned IQ matters. I attached three pictures with my EF 5.6 400 (EDIT: All taken with EOS 40D) which I bought primarily for condensed landscape shots etc.
First attached image:
- Sharpness/contrast close up (meaning 4m distance) and wide open is phenomenal. It is a 100% crop taken with 40D - not a pixel monster but pixel size is close to 5Diii

Second image:
- landscape through a lot of atmosphere: This is NO ART FILTER of some software like gimp or photoshop, it is a straight image ... The weather was cloudy but with intense sun so you have a lot of turbulence in the atmosphere.

Third image:
- Moderate agricultural action shot where I had to place things attractively (more or less) without the chance to get the whole apparatus on the photo - here a ZOOM HAD BEEN VERY HELPFUL

My conclusion is:
- in the close focus or nearer range (<= e.g. 200m) the IQ is dominated by the lens
- depending on weather conditions for distances of e.g. 200m or more the quality of the atmosphere dominates (or select a weather of stable temperatures, then atmosphere has good optical quality)
- a zoom is helpful if you cannot change your position or you have no time to do so. This is a very common statement but it applies perhaps to your scenery very often.

My other tele lens is a 70-200 2.8 II and I have a 2xIII extender. This lens is still really good even with the 2x extender, so maybe I should continue with this combo and save my money toward an 85 1.2 II?

I have used the 4.0 70-200 non IS with the 2x TC mark i - a good combo at f/8, better at f/11 (with TC), but the long exposure times give much more smearing for long distance shots so f/5.6 with the EF 5.6 400 is a large benefit.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=104&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2
The CAs introduced by the teleconverter are handled well with DPP or DxO and they improve the IQ substantially.

I think your 70-200 lens with 2x TC is quite a good alternative which gives you acceptable IQ combined with flexibility and no additional cost. Just here correcting CAs will help a bit.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

From reading reviews and looking at the lens sharpness tool at TDP, it appears the 400 is sharper overall. But it of course lacks the zooms flexibility and vibration control. At this point, I'm leaning a little toward the 400 5.6 as I expect I would use the zoom primarily at 400+.



Thoughts?

If the EF 4.5-5.6 100-400 would exist as a mark ii version with 4 stop IS and equal IQ @ f/5.6 and 400mm like the EF 5.6 400 for 2300 $ I would think: The 1000 $ premium compared to the prime is well invested and that lens would replace my 4.0 70-200 AND the 5.6 400 - so if you can live with your lens-TC combo do that and wait for some development.
PLUS
Think about renting a 5.6 400 and run your own checks. Lenses are not only about IQ but also about handling, AF speed, mass, size, haptics etc. and the 5.6 400 handles very well.

Just my thoughts - Michael

 

[AlanF]

Sorry to disagree with the above. But, the 70-200 with a 2xTC is neither sharp enough nor long enough for bird photography. Both the 400L and Tamron would blow it away (as would the 100-400L). The 70-200s f/2.8 and f/4 are both fabulous lenses that take a 1.4xTC well. But, longer than that, no, unless you are satisfied with soft bird photos that are not close ups.

 

[Don Haines]

Sorry to disagree with the above. But, the 70-200 with a 2xTC is neither sharp enough nor long enough for bird photography. Both the 400L and Tamron would blow it away (as would the 100-400L). The 70-200s f/2.8 and f/4 are both fabulous lenses that take a 1.4xTC well. But, longer than that, no, unless you are satisfied with soft bird photos that are not close ups.

I have the 70-200 and the 2X teleconverter.
I have the Tamron 150-600.
Absolutely no comparison, the Tamron wins by a large margin.

The included shot is a 1:1 crop from the Tamron 150-600 at 600mm, F10, 1/600th second, on a crop camera handheld.... and as many people love to say, you can never get a long enough lens for birding.

 

[Albi86]

I have the Tamron and I can wholeheartedly recommend it.

As stated above, for far subjects the haze usually ruins your pictures to an extent that nullifies the advantages of even the best lens.

On the other hand, if you're close enough to fill a good part of the frame (i.e. no savage cropping), even at 600mm f/6.3 the Tamron performs really well.

 

[TheJock]

I'm still in two minds on buying this lens, my Sigma provides good reach and mated to the 70D the IQ has improved 10 fold (compared to the 550D), but I'm blinded by the whole "big white ownership" scenario, will a 100-400L (plus a 1.4X TC) be considerably, and noticably better than my 150-500 or would this Tammy provide better IQ at 600mm without a TC??? For me the prime 400mm is not really an option due to it's limitations of range.
Ohh the drama of all the decisions!!!

 

[Alefoto]

my two cents ...
I would sell the Canon 70-200 IS II and get the 70-200 f4 non is or the 135 f2.8 and with the money left and the 1200$ more you budgeted, I would find a Canon 300 2.8 non is. Mated with the tc 2x III you already have, you would have two very nice 300 2.8 + 600 5.6 options.

my reasons would be ;D
- the 70-200 2.8 IS II is quite big and heavy for hiking (if you have to)
- when I hike I don't need to shoot at 320mm, 350mm, 414mm etc, so I prefer to use lighter primes and zoom in and out with my legs
- if I have to choose a heavy lens/low f aperture I prefer a longer one or one with very high quality
- since you already have the 70-200, you would use the tamron basically at its longer lenghts, below 400mm you are already served well. the canon 70-200 2.8 IS II + the tamrom would only give you a normal 500-600mm slow lens
- I never used the tamron, but used the 400mm 5.6L and it's a good lens
- if for any reason you don't like much the tamron, the resell value would be lower than for canon lenses, maybe try one before buying it

 

[AlanF]

I'm still in two minds on buying this lens, my Sigma provides good reach and mated to the 70D the IQ has improved 10 fold (compared to the 550D), but I'm blinded by the whole "big white ownership" scenario, will a 100-400L (plus a 1.4X TC) be considerably, and noticably better than my 150-500 or would this Tammy provide better IQ at 600mm without a TC??? For me the prime 400mm is not really an option due to it's limitations of range.
Ohh the drama of all the decisions!!!

Both the Tammy and the 100-400 perform much better on full frame than crop. You need sharper lenses on crop. DxO has some very nice comparisons of the Tammy, Sigma and 100-400 showing that the Tammy is the clear winner on FF, but it is less clear on crop. The 100-400 isn't good with extenders.

 

[mackguyver]

Thanks for the tips. I was wondering if 400mm would be enough reach, maybe with the 2x extender, but then I'm looking at f/11 and no AF. I have an EOS M can give me more pixels on distant targets. I'll look into rental options.

I owned the 400 5.6 for many years and created many great photos with it, but it is a challenging lens to use without IS. If you don't mind using a tripod/monopod, it's great, though. With the 1.4x extender, it's good to decent, but the 2x isn't worth it. It's a very dark viewfinder and the photos are soft.

If I were making the decision all over again, I think I'd go for the Tamron. It seems like the tradeoffs in AF and aperture are more than made up for by the IQ and ability to zoom.

 

[Lightmaster]

- I never used the tamron, but used the 400mm 5.6L and it's a good lens
- if for any reason you don't like much the tamron, the resell value would be lower than for canon lenses, maybe try one before buying it

that´s maybe the case in a few month/years.

actually because of the shortage you can sell the lens "used" for more then it cost new.

my nephew wanted the 150-600mm but got none.. all sold out.
so he bought a used EF 100-400mm.
that lens is cheap right now because many sell (like i have) their EF 100-400 mm to get a tamron 150-600mm.

i would not buy the canon 400mm f5.6 today.
it has no IS, and IS on such a long lens helps a lot.
IQ is not really visible better @400mm.