100-400 Mk2 vs Tammy zoom vs Siggy zoom (1 Viewer)

[Nick Leech]

The new Canon 100-400 Mk2 seems to be excellent and seems to give great IQ with a x1.4TC on a 7D2.

So, for someone with a decent crop-frame Canon body (eg 7D2 or 70D) who wants to photograph birds and needs reach, but can't afford a 600/f4 or 500/f4.

Which will give the best results between the following three setups?

a) 100-400 Mk2 at 400mm with x1.4TC added
b) Bare Tamron 150-600 at 550-600mm
c) Bare Sigma Sport 150-600 at 550-600mm

Whadya think guys n gals?

(especially interested in hearing from people who have tried all three!)

 

[Paul Jarvis]

How deep are your pockets? This is probably the biggest debate on BF at the moment for a lot of us (IQ, weight, price) the list is near endless for what's the best option. I doubt anyone has had all 3 though.

 

[a_j_steele]

In the same boat at the moment swinging towards the 100-400 Mk2 at 400mm with x1.4TC but I wonder is there likly to be a better x1.4TC to use not having gone down that route before

 

[Roy C]

I would have thought the chances of anyone trying all three are remote Nick, especially as there are very few Sigma 150-600 out there yet and there would not be that many who have tried the 100-400 MkII. Unless anyone can compare then directly them comments are somewhat meaningless. You best bet could be the digital picture lens comparison tool when all three are on there.

 

[Nick Leech]

Thanks guys.

Good point Roy, will keep an eye on the digital picture website. :t:

 

[Roy C]

Thanks guys.

Good point Roy, will keep an eye on the digital picture website. :t:

They have the Tammy and 100-400 Mk2 on there already Nick. I looks to me that the 100-400 is better even with a converter on (560mm v 600mm) when both at f8 especially in mid frame and the corner.
One thing you have to bare in mind though is the Camera they are using - if you look at the 100-400 mk2 shot on the 1Ds III against the 7D2 then you will see that the 1Ds III shots are miles better than those taken with the 7D2!!!!!.
The Tammy has only been tested on the 1Ds III so it is not a true reflection on its IQ with say a crop Camera.

 

[gandytron]

My impressions from doing lots of reading....

Is money an issue? If yes, get the Tamron, or wait to see what the Siggy Contemporary has to offer. I note that WEX have already dropped the price of the Tammy, and others are bound to follow. It will be interesting to see how much the "Siggy C" is launched at.

Are you willing to hand hold a heavy weight, or use a tripod? If yes, get the Sigma Sport - the images seem to be sharper than those of the Tammy.

Will you use the lens mostly beyond 400mm? Beyond 400mm the "Siggy S" will have all focus points working, but the Canon 100-400 mk2 will (I think) only have centre point focus operating when a teleconverter is added.

Do you want the lens to be relatively small and portable? If yes, then get the Canon - it is significantly smaller and half a kg lighter than the Tammy. It also has a lower f stop, which might be beneficial in some instances (eg tropical forest), so it will be a better "travel lens".

Are you looking for replacement for your Dyson (expensive plastic vacuum cleaner that is good at sucking up dust)? If yes, then get the overpriced, plastic Nikon 80-400mm, which already seems to have problems with dust that are not being honoured under warranty.

 

[Roy C]

My impressions from doing lots of reading....

Is money an issue? If yes, get the Tamron, or wait to see what the Siggy Contemporary has to offer. I note that WEX have already dropped the price of the Tammy, and others are bound to follow. It will be interesting to see how much the "Siggy C" is launched at.

Are you willing to hand hold a heavy weight, or use a tripod? If yes, get the Sigma Sport - the images seem to be sharper than those of the Tammy.

Will you use the lens mostly beyond 400mm? Beyond 400mm the "Siggy S" will have all focus points working, but the Canon 100-400 mk2 will (I think) only have centre point focus operating when a teleconverter is added.

Do you want the lens to be relatively small and portable? If yes, then get the Canon - it is significantly smaller and half a kg lighter than the Tammy. It also has a lower f stop, which might be beneficial in some instances (eg tropical forest), so it will be a better "travel lens".

I agree with all this :t:
For those that are interested Digital rev (grey importer) are doing the Tammy for £759 I also note with interest that MPD had at least four used Canon mounts ones for sale (from £819).

 

[Nick Leech]

My longer term goal is to buy a second hand Canon 600/f4 IS Mk1, to be used with gimble head/tripod (or maybe monopod) for hide work (or when not walking far).

But I still would want to keep a lighter weight rig for walking around with. I already have the Tamron 150-600, but it can be a little soft at 600mm. I am thinking that the Sigma Sports 150-600 is probably a bit heavy to use as a walkaround lens. But I wonder whether the new Canon 100-400 Mk2 with x1.4 TC might give me better IQ than the Tammy at 600mm. So might the Canon 100-400 Mk2 with TC be my best walkaround option.

 

[ians5]

I too have been teetering with a similar decision, more mm Scotty!! I currently use a 300f4 with a 1.4 conv. ..... love it on the 5Dmk2, hate it on crop. wish I could help with this complete selection posted here but having seen a youtube review of the tammy against a 500f4, 400mm f5.6 and 300f4.... I was dissapointed. The tammy performed well but was always notably worse than the primes (as you would expect) but at 450+ the tammy was really poor. IQ and focus were hit and miss.
for info / background:
I have previously had 100-400mk1, 70-200 f2.8, 300f4IS, 400f5.6 1.4 and 2x converters. I ran myself a garden test on tripod of all lenses and converter combos against same subjects. the 100-400 was worst by far for IQ and focus speed, the dif in IQ on all lenses was negligible with the 1.4 conv and terrible on all lenses woith the 2x. after that I sold the 100-400 and the 400 as you also loose af with these. when you fit a converter.

 

[ians5]

oh, and at the time I also tried the taping contacts lark, seemed to 'work' on some lenses but not others. theres a reason why Canon decided to disable focus past f8 ....... because it would be an embarrassment for them to advertise it as 'functonal' its slow lumbering and painful, not unlike a cheap sigma circa 1990.

 

[Roy C]

oh, and at the time I also tried the taping contacts lark, seemed to 'work' on some lenses but not others. theres a reason why Canon decided to disable focus past f8 ....... because it would be an embarrassment for them to advertise it as 'functonal' its slow lumbering and painful, not unlike a cheap sigma circa 1990.

You can get AF at f8 on the 1 series Cameras as well as the 5D3 and now the 7d2. Also in live view AF you can get AF up to f11 and beyond depending on contrast (I even got AF at f16 when I had a 7D).
I use the 400/5.6 prime + 1.4c tc a lot with my 5D3 and AF is even fast enough for BIF. Attached shots were all taken with the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc (560mm) recently.
BTW you will find that the 400/5.6 prime is a lot faster to AF than the 300/4 + 1.4x tc and also IQ is a lot better.

 

[ians5]

Intriguing, I knew the 1 series behaved differently, but not the latest 5 and 7 .....
agree that the 400 is quick and clear on its own just was not so useful with a 1.4 and the bodies I was using at the time. The copy of 400 I had couldn't beat my 300 IS ..... just goes to show that they are all unique ..... I feel a body upgrade coming on myself now ... and perhaps a new lens ... or two ..... which takes us full circle back to the original posters question ...... I want 500 / 600 mm which way should we turn ?

 

[Roy C]

Intriguing, I knew the 1 series behaved differently, but not the latest 5 and 7 .....
agree that the 400 is quick and clear on its own just was not so useful with a 1.4 and the bodies I was using at the time. The copy of 400 I had couldn't beat my 300 IS ..... just goes to show that they are all unique ..... I feel a body upgrade coming on myself now ... and perhaps a new lens ... or two ..... which takes us full circle back to the original posters question ...... I want 500 / 600 mm which way should we turn ?

I had both the Tamron 150-600 and the Canon 400/5.6 for several months and in the end I sold the Tammy.
With both at 400mm I found the Prime was a clear winner both in IQ and most certainly AF speed. At the longer focal lengths the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc (560mm) was just about as good as the Tammy at 600mm when both at f8 but I found the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc was a fair bit better for picking up fast birds in flight.
There is not enough user experience yet to properly evaluate the Sigma 150-600 Sport but I will be surprised if it does not turn out better than the Tammy. Perhaps a better comparison will be the Sigma 150-600 contemporary when it finally becomes available.
The Tammy is very good for perched birds that do not require the images to be cropped a lot - certainly good value for money especially if you are not too concerned about BIF.
Probably the best way to a quality 600mm lightweight set-up is the 300/2.8 IS MkII + 2x tc MkIII (or even the 300/2.8 IS MkI) but of course both these options are way more expensive than the options quoted on this thread.

If I were 10 years younger I would be looking to get a 500/4 which is superb with a 1.4x tc (700mm) and also very respectable with a 2x tc (1000mm) but at my age and style of photography it is just too heavy. As it is if I ever do get back into bird snapping again it will most probably be with the 300/2.8 IS MkII + MkIII converters - but that is a big IF!!!

 

[Paul Jarvis]

Well I've recently swooped my 7d for a 1dmk3 and I'm impressed by the IQ from my 400 5.6 + 1.4 and the focus is still pretty fast for bif. Bare in mind the 1d3 is is alot older and only 10 mp but the results are still excellent.

 

[recreationalbirding]

I ordered a 7D2 around new year and coupled it with my 400/5.6. The 400/5.6 performed insanely well on my old 7D1 (in good light that is). Unfortunately I got a bad 7D2 that sometimes frontfocused and sometimes was "almost" in focus. Sent it back, and today I was promised a new body (phew!). Also ordered a 100-400 II today, so I am really hoping to get a good example of the 7D2 and also have big hopes for the 100-400 II. Im praying it will be close to the 400/5.6 in IQ but feels a little bit like a gamble. Not too many reviews out there yet :-s IS will be nice for sure though!

Id be happy to see a few more user reviews in thread! Please keep posting your thoughts about the 100-400 II and the Tammy and Sigma!

I was considering getting the Tammy 150-600 for a long time, but I have the latest 1.4x I hope the 100-400 will perform nicely with that one. I guess from a somewhat neutral perspective I should feel safe in the 100-400 II performing as well as the Tammy, but there are some really nice pictures in the Sigma- and Tammyforum at this site...not sure a Canon zoom can live up to those standards?

The choices one has to make in the amateur-birder&photo-enthusiast-yet-lacking-sickly-deep-pockets-business are really tough! Ill post my thought of the 100-400 II here in a week or so!

 

[dandsblair]

Almost exactly the same expereince

I ordered a 7D2 around new year and coupled it with my 400/5.6. The 400/5.6 performed insanely well on my old 7D1 (in good light that is). Unfortunately I got a bad 7D2 that sometimes frontfocused and sometimes was "almost" in focus. Sent it back, and today I was promised a new body (phew!). Also ordered a 100-400 II today, so I am really hoping to get a good example of the 7D2 and also have big hopes for the 100-400 II. Im praying it will be close to the 400/5.6 in IQ but feels a little bit like a gamble. Not too many reviews out there yet :-s IS will be nice for sure though!

I had almost exactly the same experience 7D Mark ii body that didn't correctly focus 90% of the time, same shots on Mark 1 both on tripods and with 400 and 100-400 were more consistent. Changed body and 2nd 7D Mark ii is much better. Interestingly there was no focus problem with 15-40 doing landscapes.
I decided that I would get more on trade in on 400 lens than 100-400 and as I'd tried a friends 100-400 Mark ii and was impressed, it seemed to me as sharp as 400 wide open, I went for that.
So far only tested in the garden and on stationary objectives with and without 1.4X Mark iii and it looks really good but next week off to Ghana for three weeks and that should really test things out.

David

 

[holzphoto]

i have the tamron 150-600mm, the 100-400, 100-400 ii and the 400 5.6.

my opinion is the 100-400 ii is the lens. put it on the 7D2 w/ a 1.4x iii and you have a very viable birding rig. the af does slow down somewhat, but it's not a deal breaker.


the 100-400 is decent, but the version ii shows that has become outdated. does that mean you can't make good photos with the lens, no way. and w/ used prices around $1000 or less (usd), it's a tough to beat lens.

the 400 5.6 is a great lightweight option. can be found used for around $1000 usd or less. the 100-400 ii is just as the prime though.

the tamron is what it is. it's a native 600mm for less than $1100 usd. it's my least favorite lens of the bunch. when the lens was released the reliability was pretty low. Tamron did the firmware update and it did improve results. i wrote a review about the tamron, here is my summary:

Tamron, with their updated firmware has produced a decent super telephoto zoom lens at a very low price. This lens can not compete with the big whites, nor should it be expected to, costing 1/10 of the price. It is a great lens for the aspiring photographer who wants to get closer to the action. It is also a great lens for hiking and trekking to remote places if you don’t want to lug a big lens around. As long as you understand the limitations of this lens, with some patience, it will get the job done.

You can read the whole review here:

http://www.travelandphotograph.com/...sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-for-canon/

 

[Nick Leech]

Hi Holzphoto - thanks for your useful post.

Would you say that the 100-400 Mk2 at 400mm is any better than the 400mm f5.6 prime? Or would you say they are pretty much equal?

What about 100-400 Mk2 at 400mm with x1.4 TC cf. the 400 prime with x1.4 TC? Again, are these around equal in IQ?

I currently have the Tammy 150-600 and the Canon 400 f5.6 prime. I am often reach-limited and frequently use the Tammy in the 500-600 range, or the Canon 400 prime with x1,4 TC (ie equivalent to 560mm). On IQ alone, I do not find much difference between these two setups.

I had been wondering whether to sell one or both of my lenses and buy the 100-400 Mk2, to use with x1.4 TC in the hope of improving the IQ at 560mm. However, I am starting to think that IQ will be much the same.

Any comments?

Or maybe the Sigma Sport 150-600 is the way to go for better IQ at 600mm (without spending the £££s required for a Canon 600 f4!!).

 

[recreationalbirding]

i have the tamron 150-600mm, the 100-400, 100-400 ii and the 400 5.6.

my opinion is the 100-400 ii is the lens. put it on the 7D2 w/ a 1.4x iii and you have a very viable birding rig. the af does slow down somewhat, but it's not a deal breaker.
/[/url]

Sounds good! Hopefully I have made a good choice. I love the 400/5.6 but very often feel I could have used a zoom. If IQ at 400 is like the 400/5.6, or close to it (the 400/5.6 really is VERY sharp), Ill be very happy!