I still think the 400 f5.6 is a superb lens . I just didn't get on with 7d but may end up going back to mkii in which case I would get the 400 because of weight .I used a kenko extender and was very happy with the quality.
How about these ? All taken with 100d and kenko 1.4x .
I will probably be back at canon soon, not because of tamron quality but weight . I keep thinking i can carry heavier lenses but I can't . I've tried 4/3 but no good for me so they new 7d is temping with the 400 5.6.
How about these ? All taken with 100d and kenko 1.4x .
I will probably be back at canon soon, not because of tamron quality but weight . I keep thinking i can carry heavier lenses but I can't . I've tried 4/3 but no good for me so they new 7d is temping with the 400 5.6.
I can only find a couple and these are heavy crops. If you're happy with tamron fine . I think it's a tie and for me weight is everything .
Not sure if it is the lighting or the distance to the subjects but I don't think that these pics show the same contrast, or feather detail as pics I have seen with the Tamron.
Having watched this thread and checked other reviews/forums/flickr sites, considering my 'birder with a camera' modus operandi and a limited budget it seems that upgrading my old 40D to a 7D2 will gain me more than upgrading the 100-400 to the Tamron. Time to invest in getting closer rather than buying more reach!!
Russ
Sean, Good luck with thatThat's probably where I am too with the 400 f5.6... but I will still try and find a Tamron to do a real life comparison with, for both IQ and speed.
That's probably where I am too with the 400 f5.6... but I will still try and find a Tamron to do a real life comparison with, for both IQ and speed.
The Tamron shots I have seen on this thread are mostly from Florida and the Canon shots mostly from the UK. That's the biggest difference - the light. We need someone from Florida and someone from the UK with both lenses to do some side by side testing. But distance is also an issue. Here is a shot with the Canon where I got a bit closer than I normally can in the UK: https://flic.kr/p/gBAYzt Bright (for the UK) October light...
That's probably where I am too with the 400 f5.6... but I will still try and find a Tamron to do a real life comparison with, for both IQ and speed.
Having watched this thread and checked other reviews/forums/flickr sites, considering my 'birder with a camera' modus operandi and a limited budget it seems that upgrading my old 40D to a 7D2 will gain me more than upgrading the 100-400 to the Tamron. Time to invest in getting closer rather than buying more reach!!
Russ
Have to disagree a bit. Think I have posted most of the shots on this thread and I am in New York. Not arguing that the light is better here than the UK, just saying that the lens works well in other places other than sunny Florida.
I also prefer a zoom for BIF shots being able to find the target with a low magnification and zooming in to get the final shot.
Tim.