anesh Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 I haven't seen comparisons made between these two obvious contenders for wildlife photographers. IS aside I'd like to know about the optical quality and AF speed of the Tamron compared to the Canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wojtek_kalinowski Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 I haven't used the Tamron,but I have used the Canon.Great build quality,great optics.If you get it in focus you're pretty much guaranteed a good photo.Get it and you'll never regret it.W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 There are 12 user reviews of the Tamron and 147 reviews of the Canon at fredmiranda; might be worth a look: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 That was the link to the Canon reviews; the Tamron reviews are here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=248&sort=7&cat=43&page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterlyons Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Bob Atkins reviewed both lenses separately at least... you can read both and give it some thought based on that. http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/ http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/100-400.html You can find numerous online reviews of the 100-400... just google it. My personal account is that I own the 100-400, and use it all the time--easily 20,000 shots by now. It's my main lens for what I do, and I'm very pleased with it. Is it perfect? Of course not. But I think it's a well-made compromise. A prime would be sharper, and a twist zoom instead of a push-pull would probably make for better weather-sealing (I've managed to get salt deposits in between lens elements from shooting around salt spray), but hey, it's doing its job, and I'm happy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Both lenses are reviewed pretty thoroughly at <A HREF="http://www.photozone.de/ 8Reviews/index.html"> Photozone</a>. Personally, I'd take the 100-400; mine has served me well over a number of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve santikarn Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 I have used both. And the IS in the 100-400 is the decider for me, because I do not like to use a tripod. For the 1.6 crop camera I think 100-400 IS is perfect match. If you use tripod, and FF camera then the Tamron's extra reach may come in handy. The Tamron's optics are very good, but I also prefer the zoom/focus action of the Canon lens (for wildlife photography). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_broderick Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 I have no experience of the Tamron, but the 100-400L was one of the first three lenses I bought back in 2002. I've never regretted it. i vouce for the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigginger Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I have the 100-400, the IS is the clincher. I have no regrets about buying this lens whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now