How does this lens stack up at 600mm vs the Canon 400mm/1.4x = 560mm
650645
I have both lenses... the Canon 400 prime is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. I would however never use it with a converter... you will increase the f stop to much, at least for me. I would not replace the 400 prime with the Tamron. If I was buying new I would say its a toss up. The Tamron is soft wide open. The 400 cropped gives better results at least for me. I would however take the Tamron over the older Canon 100-400 zoom.
650646
I know of people who have sold there 400 L and gotten the Tamron,I know thats not a direct answer.
650647
I also have a Canon 100mm-400mm L f4.5-5.6 IS. So far the Tamron outperforms my Canon 400 in nearly every respect. As long as there is good light the Tamron is a faster focus lens and with a lot more pull it is more versatile. I have not been able to use the Canon lens with an expander, as it is incapable of autofocus with a 1.4x. Better check your sources as far as compatability with an expander. With the cost being much less than the Canon...I have to give the nod to the Tamron...better value, about the same weight, more pull and quicker focus. I had used the Canon for several years before getting this Tamron lens...lots of shortcomings with the older technology of the Canon. I hope this helps in your decision making.
257468
if you can afford the 2.8, get it one of the best lenses Canon makes--1.4 extender will get as good results as the 400 4.5 and you will not miss the 1-300 f4 zoom flexibility for birds.
473926
I'm getting ready to order the 400mm. I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS and if I wanted the extra reach with zoom, I could put my 1.4x teleconverter on it, making it a [roughly] 100-280 f4.0. I don't have the 100-400 to compare, but I'd guess the sharpness is about the same between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 1.4x. I still wouldn't have the reach between 280-400 but I'd have the sharpness when I need it. I can always attempt to move my feet to frame a subject with a prime if I'm too close. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
725619
This lens compares with and outperform the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L USM, I purchased this lens after my Canon broke down, I purchased the Sigma lens and have been use it more than the Canon Lens, fantastic lens and costs half of Canon's price.
2169342
One locks you in at 400mm. If you are only going to shoot birds or football, that's your lens. If you want to shoot something closer that a faraway bird, get the zoom. My 100-400 is a VERY SHARP lens. I am not familiar with the 400. The new 100-400 at a higher price might be better for you. The older 100-400 is made of a half-ton of iron and comes with two teenagers to help you carry it. It also zooms by pushing the barrel out, not by turning the barrel. Be sure you are ok with that. I love my push-pull lens.
1892682
There is a newer model out.. The 150-600. It is a better lens. Should work with your camera in the Canon Mount
599074
Do almost everything hand held. No IS is not a problem as long as your above 180 range but ideally you want to be in good light above 500 IMO. Depending on your camera low light can be decent with ISO cranked up. Overall great lens but not ideal for low light.
11860
Hopefully, you've already made your decision since the prices of both lenses has gone up significantly. I have these two lenses and both lenses are incredibly sharp. The 60mm's IQ in many respects is indistinguishable from the 100mm's. The build quality of the 60 is very nice as well although it isn't weather sealed. The two main advantages the 100mm brings to the table are IS--which would be of limited value with the 60mm--, and length--the extra 40mm means you don't need to get as close to those creepy crawly critters. IS doesn't add much for shorter focal lengths. A lot of macro shooters claim IS doesn't matter regardless because they always shoot with a tripod. I shoot with a tripod only when I have to (I'm stubborn). Thus, I do like it on the 100mm. I really see the value when I switch to my 135L. The shake is quite obvious and would be just a bit better for the 100mm without IS. The added length is indisputably worthwhile. However, you have to determine whether these benefits are worth paying 2.5 times the price.
1783065
Hi this canon 100-400 is f4.5-5.6 while the 70-200 is f2.8. These two lenses are totally different.
725612
Hello, this is a great lens. I shoot weddings with it but outdoors or in a big church since it is 70mm. If you need group shots or wider shots you'll need a backup wide lens. But the quality of this glass is excellent. I have never used the canon version but I researched it and they both are close with the cannon having a slight edge.I decided to go with the sigma due to the price difference.
599076
I would not recommend using any 400mm lens handheld. This lens is large and heavy and really needs to be supported on a tripod. If tripod mounted IS and low light situations become non-issues as you should always turn off IS when you tripod mount an IS lens. I have gotten some remarkable bird photographs with this lens - it is very sharp and well worth the money for the extra reach it provides.
464303
This is an FX lens. This means that you will be shooting the equivalen of 600mm at the long end!
362714
If you are going to be using the lens for wildlife and bird photograpy, chances are the zoom is going to spend all its time at the 400mm setting. That being the case, the 400mm prime lens is cheaper, lighter and sharper. Unless you can actually afford one of Canons "big" 400mm lens (which are $3-5K more), the 400mm f5.6L is probably your best choice.
24767
The 50-500 is a great lens...... but it is heavy!! I can't hand hold it to shoot birds. I now use the canon 100-400 for birding which is awesome. If you are gonna use a tripod, the sigma is great choice.
2268911
I shot the 12-60 on the E-620. The E-620, in size, is larger than the e-m10 however, I think the difference in construction makes the e-m10 heavier. I'd say that the 12-60 on the e-m10 would be a better balanced combination than with the E-620, although with the added length from the adapter for the m43, I'd cradle the lens regardless. In my opinion, it's a nice piece of glass worth any slight inconvenience from weight or size. Hope that helps.
809688
The 56 mm is a sharper lens, especially stopped slightly down from its maximum f/1.2) but you are really buying the 56 mm for the gorgeous results when it is shot wide open - something that the 18-55 (while still an excellent lens) just cannot do.