Budget photo: Canon 100-400mm (I) Vs Tamron 150-600mm

[Hjalmarg1]

Hi Folks,
I want to buy a zoom telephoto lens and a friend is going to buy the new Canon 100-400mm and his version I is for sale. He's giving me a good price but I was also considering the Tamron 150-600mm?

Anybody has own both so can give unbiased advise?

Thanks and regards,

 

[Canon1]

I have not used the Tamron... (sorry can't give unbiased reply) but I will say that the 100-400 VI can be an excellent lens. The key word here is "can". There is a lot of copy variation out there. This lens is probably one of the most loved and most hated lens of all time, and likely because of this copy variation. If you get a good one, images are razor sharp and performance is very good. If you get a bad one you will be frustrated until you sell it.

If your friend is close and willing, ask him/her to show you some comparative shots at 1:1 with both lenses calibrated to the same body. IQ should be pretty similar if the 100-400 is a good copy.

The Tamron from what I have seen is quite good through 400mm, at 500mm it is ok, and 600mm is quite soft. It also does not seem to perform quite as well as the canon counterparts (AF speed etc...).

I'm sure you will get some great replies from those who use or own both.

 

[old-pr-pix]

I don't own both, but have had the opportunity to do some head-to-head testing. I have a 100-400L that was a Canon refurb. so likely not the best of the best, but supposedly up to full Canon spec. My interest is in handheld use with max. reach. My conclusion was that the Tamron at 600 was noticeably better than my Canon at 400 then cropped to match FOV.

So far I've stayed w/my 100-400L though, partly in anticipation of the MkII version. I liked the Tamron but found it more awkward to carry and the longer physical length at 600mm meant more much susceptibility to wind despite my best efforts at stable stance. That mandated higher ISO/higher shutter speeds. (The alternative of carrying a tripod just adds even more weight to the kit.)

I have not had the chance to try the 100-400L MkII yet. Once I can give it a go I'll make a final decision. I don't think you can do badly with any modern lens.

 

[Dylan777]

Can't speak for Tamron- never own one.

I had used 100-400 I in the past, IQ from 100 to 225ishmm was good. Anything above that is just soft. I'm not sure if I had a bad copy.

Off topic: 100-400 II is excellent through out the FL. May I suggest save more money and get mrk II when you ready. Also, if I remember correctly, Dustin mentioned in one of his reviews that he sold his Tamron and Canon 70-300 for mrk II - I can be wrong on this

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My 100-400mm L MK 1 was excellent at all focal lengths, anything that is soft needs repair.

Here is one at 400mm with my MK I lens.

 

[candc]

That's a really nice shot of the killdeer Alan. It shows that the lens was and still is really good.

If you can get the v1 for significantly less than the tamron then go for it. If the price is close to the tamron then I think its a better choice because you have 600 without a tc.

I have the tamron and shoot with friends who use the v1 and v2 canons. All 3 are good. The "is" on the v2 is the best, tamron 2nd, v1 3rd.