EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS Replacement Coming in November [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
lycan said:
I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.
I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy. When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent. But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera. That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame. That requires critical resolving power.
Have a look. This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm). There's a substantial difference.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Upvote
0
I have the lens. I shoot a lot with it.Lee Jay said:
The first thing I did when I got it was to check out sharpness at various F stops.
It is soft wide open at 600mm.
Stop it down to F8 of F9 and it is pretty good, but wide open it is soft.
Upvote
0
lycan said:
Ha! That's coming from a Nikon user. Lets see where the Nikon user is coming from...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=650&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
And now lets see where the Canon user is coming from...
My 400f5.6 on crop gives me more reach and overall better IQ than the Tamron. Don't even start on comparing it with a real Big White.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Upvote
0
no pics I'm afraid, that really would have been pushing my luck ! Forgot to mention that it does have a tight - loose collar like the current version to stop zoom creep. In terms of the 1.4x it will af at f/8.0, at least it does on a 1DX with the centre point.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
Some people are actually expecting the Tamron to be sharp wide open - at the price it is offered at!!
It actually gives the photographer a remarkable value for money 600/8.
The only way to get a sharp 600 at close range is to get the 600/4 because if your shooting at distance say 100m or more the image will be degraded by airwaves you might as well have the Tamron anyway.
Upvote
0
Plainsman said:
When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.
The Tammy remains the most bang for the buck on long lenses.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
I'm not interested in "best value" because I already have a 70-200/2.8L IS II and a 2x TC III. My best value is to buy nothing at all. Thus, I'm looking for something that will substantially out-resolve and out-focus my current combo, and it looks to me like the Tamron will do neither, thus being $1,069 wasted.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
I expect any new 100-400L to be much better than the old 100-400L. But I am not sure it will "beat" the Tammy at 400 mm.
Check out the Tammy @ 400 mm vs the 200-400 @ 400:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
Sure the Canon is "better" but that comparison has always impressed me given the price difference.
Here is the Tammy vs the current 100-400L:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Sharper, less CA. Canon's problem is that the Tammy is very impressive from 150-400. Maybe Canon can "beat" it in the center. Lenstip makes the Tammy seem more "beatable" (Lenstip has the Tammy at ~35 lppm @ 450 in the center, which is good, but beatable).
But, I am assuming the Sigma 150-600S is even better than the Tammy. We'll see. I expect the 100-400II to be very solid, very sharp, 4 stop IS, weather sealing, etc. They may have the size and weight advantage, but it will be interesting to see comparisons of the different 150-600's vs the 100-400II + 1.4TC.
Upvote
0
docsmith said:
Don't underestimate the value of that size and weight advantage. The Tamron and Sigma C both have 95mm filter threads. I expect the Canon to be 77mm or 82mm. I also expect it to be much shorter in overall length.
The Tamron is 10.1 inches long without the hood. It's 4.2 inches in diameter.
The 100-400L is 7.4 inches long without the hood. It's 3.6 inches in diameter.
The 70-300L is 5.6 inches long without the hood. It's 3.5 inches in diameter.
If the new one (if it exists) is really over 2 1/2" shorter and over half an inch smaller in diameter, that's a big difference in storage and usage.
Upvote
0
Yes. I would at least kill my budget for that. Indeed the one decisive factor for me is the length of the 100-400. I could handle (a little) more weight and width, but not length. The current 100-400 is just about the maximum length I can carry in a waist bag on a long hike, the Tamron 150-600 is already way too big for that.dgatwood said:
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
Oh noes a $1000 lens lost against a $2500 combo. oh the shock and horror ...
I have the 70-200/TCs and I re-bought the original 100-400 (that I sold when I upgraded to the Sigma 120-300 OS) because it was a PITA mucking with TCs for how I pack my gear into my shoulder bag, plus TCs gimp the AF so much. Obviously at the cost of flexibility when a 2x isn't needed.
So either:
1. hope the Sigma Sport ticks the boxes (reviews are bit hit and miss with the 600mm performance so far)
2. get a Sigma 120-300 if you don't mind being related to still ~400mm, but faster aperture
3. get a Canon big white
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
If the 100-400 II is really (!!) sharp at the long end I might consider adding it to my primes (EF 400/5.6, EF 500/4.5).
The main issue of the Tammy 150-600 isn't its IQ (quite decent in the 200-500 mm range for such a zoom), it is its slow, inconsistent AF. I met this summer a guy in Norway when shooting Atlantic Puffins. He was lucky to get one of the first copies in Europe and shot it with a 70D. He told me that he had given up to try BIF, because his Tammy was too slow. Later, I had the chance to test this lens with my 7D and 5D3 and came to the same result: nice lens, but not suited for action, what is a real drawback for birding. My wife has got such a lens for her Nikon gear as a compact alternative to her 500 mm prime. She discovered that her Tammy has even trouble to nail big polo horses in action in the 500-600 mm range (despite AF MA at the long end, camera: D300S).
So, basically I expect the biggest advantage of the new EF 100-400 will be a fast and reliable AF for action shooting. I am pretty sure btw it will beat the new Sigma 150-600 S in this respect. All 3rd party lens makers have to reverse engineer Canon's and Nikon's AF systems (not sure about Sony's policy) with some losses in performance. Unfortunately that's the main problem for us customers.
The main issue of the Tammy 150-600 isn't its IQ (quite decent in the 200-500 mm range for such a zoom), it is its slow, inconsistent AF. I met this summer a guy in Norway when shooting Atlantic Puffins. He was lucky to get one of the first copies in Europe and shot it with a 70D. He told me that he had given up to try BIF, because his Tammy was too slow. Later, I had the chance to test this lens with my 7D and 5D3 and came to the same result: nice lens, but not suited for action, what is a real drawback for birding. My wife has got such a lens for her Nikon gear as a compact alternative to her 500 mm prime. She discovered that her Tammy has even trouble to nail big polo horses in action in the 500-600 mm range (despite AF MA at the long end, camera: D300S).
So, basically I expect the biggest advantage of the new EF 100-400 will be a fast and reliable AF for action shooting. I am pretty sure btw it will beat the new Sigma 150-600 S in this respect. All 3rd party lens makers have to reverse engineer Canon's and Nikon's AF systems (not sure about Sony's policy) with some losses in performance. Unfortunately that's the main problem for us customers.
Upvote
0
There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.
I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.
The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.
Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.
I regularly use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.
The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.
Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
Don't forget the 150-600S, at 11.4".
Then add weight into the mix:
100-400L: 2.9 lbs
Tamron 150-600: 4.25 lbs
150-600S: 6.25 lbs
If the 100-400L II plus 1.4TC is similar (or better) to its current size and weight it will have a huge advantage in those respects. The key will be optical quality/AF speed/accuracy/etc of that combination against the different 150-600s. But I travel a lot, I'd prefer a smaller size and weight. But, also, I think too much is made of the size and weight of the Tamron/Sigma (especially the Tamron, the Sigma is getting up there). But I've measured my bag and they'll fit. And the Sigma won't be as hand holdable as a ~3 lb system, but I am sure I could do it.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
Good stuff and there is a quite complimentary recent review of the Tamron on the photography life site.
Apparently the new 100-400 looks likely to be a scaled up version of the Canon 70-300. What a shame - a scaled up IF version of the 70-200 would have been better. Canon are cleverly pitching the new lens as not to be to sharp that it impinges on sales of other lens up the chain.
Unfortunately the extending telescopic lens design @400 could mean that even slight knocks will damage optical alignment.
TC capability is unlikely - how many crop cameras can make use of that!!
However I have to admit that the new 100-400 has a few things going for it - IS2, relatively light weight and Canon quality control assuming it is made in Japan but I think it will be expensive like the Nikon equivalent so I will stick to the current model.
Upvote
0
