Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jitendra_katre, May 3, 2010.
how does canon 100-400 compares with tamron 200-500 at 400 m.m.?
Very similar, according to Photozone:
Tamron review: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/296-tamron-af-200-500mm-f5-63-di-ld-if-sp-lab-test-report--review
Canon review: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/204-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is-test-report--review
Remember though, the Canon has IS - which means if you are handholding its effective-in-the-field sharpness is likely to be better, unless you always shoot in the brightest of sunshine.
YMMV but IS and USM would be enough for me not to even consider the Tamron.
I'm with Yakim, the IS and USM is well worth the $$$$ difference you are talking about IMHO.
I wouldn't even "speculate" what the difference in resale value will be . . . say 5 years down the road!
I'm not knocking Tamron by any means! I have their 17-50mm f/2.8 and I love it! But I also purchased it "used" with "very considerable dollar difference" than what I would have spent for the Canon L with similiar focal lengths.
I would buy the 100-400 and if you think you really need to get to 500mm, then get the Canon 1.4X TC later down the road. It too will hold it's resale value.
This Hummingbird shot was taken Hand Held with the Canon 100-400 w/ EF 1.4X TC as an example;
Another example of the 100-400 IS w/ EF 1.4X TC
how about these,.. all are shot with tamron 200-500,handheld.
Separate names with a comma.