Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS vs. Tamron 200-500mm F/5-6.3 DI LD IF SP AF

I am looking to buy a new long lens. I am also fairly new to SLR photography. I

am looking at either of the two lenses below. Besides cost. One being $600 more

than the other! What are the advantages or disadvantages of either.

 

I am primarily interested in wildlife photos and my 300mm currenly leaves me

just out of range from many of my targets. I am using a XTI body.

 

 

Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS

vs.

Tamron 200-500mm F/5-6.3 DI LD IF SP AF

 

As always all input is appreciated.

 

- N

Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100400_4556_is/index.htm

 

Tamron 200-500mm F/5-6.3 DI LD IF SP AF

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_200500_563/index.htm

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_200_500.html

 

Both are at their worst at the longest reach. Tamron looks marginally better, but its slower (and darker in the viewfinder) and doesn't have IS. Also, they're both long, heavy beasts and really require external support for best results at the longest reaches. There was a topic a bit earlier where a user gave his impression of the 100-400, which you should search for and read.

Unless you (a) plan on a substantial tripod and good-quality head or (b) don't intend to shoot

except at very high shutter speeds in bright sunlight, then I'd recommend the 100-400,

because it is stabilized. Stabilization is immensely valuable with a long lens, even on a

tripod.

The Tamron is a very good lens for the price.

 

The one problem is that it is a fairly light lens considering it's physical length with the hood on. The slightest breeze even when using a heavy/sturdy tripod will cause the lens it vibrate.

 

This is the main reason I sold my Tammy 200-500 and bought a Canon 100-400.

I've owned my 100-400 USM IS for almost 7 years - it's indeed a tad heavy, but is easily packable to bring on a plane as opposed to the larger prime zoom (300, 400, or 500).

 

Yes, you'd need a tripod most of the time, but for those times when you don't happen to have the tripod, the IS feature, unlike the Tamron, can come in very handy. My tripod broke at a rugby match, and the IS feature proved useful, as I still got great pics.

 

I've taken wildlife photos with it, and it's great for that as well. I feel, for me anyway, that it was was money well spent, and worth the investment.

 

sheryl

I don't want to knock either lens but rather to point out additional options. If you have the 300 f4 L, you could get a very high quality 420 with the addition of the 1.4X TC. If you don't have that 300, you could get it plus the TC. Or you could go with the 400mm f5.6 L, with or without the 1.4 TC.

 

If you haven't already looked at it, this is a comprehensive summary of available EOS tele options:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/telefoto.htm

I would also consider a 300 f/4 with the 1.4x teleconverter, before either of the other zooms.

400 5.6 L is cheap very fast auto-focusing. I have used the Tamron and 400 5.6 L. I surely recommend you the Canon 400 5.6. Image quality is also very high, I think substantially better than both 100-400 and 200-500.

I have the Tamron 200-500mm, Canon 400mm f/5.6, Canon 70-300mm IS and used to have the Canon 100-400mm.

 

On a crop camera like your XTI the Canon 100-400mm is the best solution if you absolutely hate to use a tripod. Cost = $1410.

 

If you are willing to use a tripod for shots in the 300-500mm range.

The best choice is the 70-300mm and the Tamron combo. Cost Cost= $1400 for both. + tripod

 

The B plan is the most versatile, giving you IS for short tele work and a tripod mounted very sharp lens for longer tele work.

 

The 400mm prime is a better choice on a full frame camera or for fast moving target, diving raptors etc.

 

Canon also seems to have quality control issues with the 100-400m zoom these days. Test yours if you buy it and return it for another copy if you get a fuzzy one.