Everyone Else Has One, Why Not us? Tamron to Announce 100-400mm F/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD

[browndt]

I'd rather have a smaller 400mm f5.6. In the same way Nikon reduced the size of their older 300mm f4 by half, I'd like the same for the 400mm.

 

[josephandrews222]

As for Canon, 200-500 is the way to go in terms of making a competitive product.

Frankly, I think the grass is always greener on the other side. The 100-400LII is the finest zoom lens I've ever owned -- including the 70-200/2.8 IS II, and the 1.4x extender option gives it a very flexible focal range. The weight, size and MFD are spectacular, plus 100-200mm is an amazingly useful if you want to keep the lens on the body without swapping a lot. Plus it fits in holsters and spaces designed for 70-200/2.8 (which is a lot), and uses 77mm filters.

Its weakness is tree-fold: the price gives people who aren't really serious a double-take, the extender takes it to f/8 on the long end, and there is a natural greediness of wanting a longer telephoto. I'll admit it; that's why I bought the 150-600 Sigma instead, first.

But until I used the 100-400 II, I really didn't appreciate how good it was for handheld shooting. As a result, it's become my carry-around and stays with me almost all the time -- it's in my passenger seat holster, and nearly always the lens that I have in a backpack, messenger or holster most accessible to me. I could never do that with any lens with 500mm+, unless it was something fancy like DO.

On planned outings, I still take my 150-600 and appreciate the focal length, but like a 200-500 (if Canon made one similar in size to Nikon), that would just be too large a lens to carry everywhere, which just reduces a lot of shooting opportunities.

An example, today -- tons of traffic, so instead of going home, I pulled into a park on the way for half an hour to allow it to mellow out, and just snapped a few pictures. Got lucky and caught some nice pictures a hawk and a Killdeer (didn't know what that was, had to ID it after)

If I didn't have the 100-400LII, I would have ended up either waiting it out in a restaurant or toughing it out on the highway, neither of which is as fun or good for my health as a short hike

The Nikon 200-500 is amazing for the price and I think Canon needs something similar.

I agree. I think the price point is what it all comes down to. Add $250+ just for clear and polarizing filters, though.

I more-or-less confirm everything in this post.

The lens on my 5DMk3 (95% of the time)? The Canon 100-400 II. This lens, along with the EOS M 11-22 (which is on my EOS M2 95% of the time), is 'tied for first' as far as favorite lenses are concerned.

Speaking of the 100-400II, when attached via adapter to an M10...this combination produced decent eclipse photos (one shown below):

 

[Plainsman]

...why not a 100-450?
That extra 50mm would really bring the customers to Tamron even at the slightly increased price.

 

[-1]

A Canon 200-600mm could show some "responsibility" in keeping it 3x while beating Nikon at the long end. Would be a double jab that would not cannibalize on exiting glass... )

It would probably not be hard for Canon to beat Nikon in both IQ and QC!

 

[Chaitanya]

Depends on what format you are shooting, Tamron 150-600 seems to work better on FF cameras. Also from what I have been seeing with Nikon shooters here most prefer to buy Nikon lenses as they hold their value better than Tamron/Sigma lenses which you can buy for nearly half the price of new lens on used market.

I use my 150-600mm on a 5DSR, which has the same pixel size as APS-C, and its relative performance to my Canon lenses is the same as on my 5DIV - and I nearly always severely crop.

The financial investment argument breaks down if you are comparing a cheap easy to sell used lens with a far more expensive Canon or Nikon. If you lose half the price of a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm, you lose about $400, and they are easy to sell. Buy a big white, and you lose 3-5x that as soon as you unwrap it.

Anyway, on eBay UK completed listings, used Sigma 150-600mm Cs routinely have sold at £650-700 whereas new cost £799-899. So, they are holding their prices well.
[/quote]
Here in India Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm can be purchased for nearly half off the price of new lens. I havent purchased any big white(only rent it from time to time) so no idea how much they lose their value. Although from time to time I see 500mm f/4 on sale and the prices are really tempting.