Mark K wrote:
I carried my 100-400L out this morning. Even in the dim dawn light.....the iso was pushed up to 12800 and I kept thinking, what if the f stop was as small as 6.7
So while you were using your 100-400L at 400 under conditions that it wasn't designed for you were thinking that it would be worse if you had 50% more reach while only costing you 1/3 of a stop?
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Would love to have the 600 rach and has me thinking of selling my 100-400
I think that if this lens turns out to be as good as it seems that it could be then there will be a bunch of 100-400L's for sale. That will push the 100-400's used price way down. I'm thinking that a used 100-400 will go as low as $750-$800 and maybe lower during the selloff. One just sold locally here for $800. Think about it, how much would you pay to upgrade to 600mm from 400mm? $300-$400 to get the extra reach? At $300 that would put a used 100-400 at $769.
Right - just like the Sigma 35 has pushed down the price of the 35L... wait, that didn't happen. Until it proves it can deliver reliably in the AF department, something with which Tamron has had problems, this will be at most a step up from the Sigma 150-500, not a replacement for the L (which Canon will hopefully release at a halfway decent price sometime).
I keep seeing better / more shots . Why do they print exif instead of it being in shot ? Am I missing something ?
I know I will have to try myself to know how it will work for / with me .
Anyone who has one right now is probably way above me shooting wise .
GC5 wrote:
Right - just like the Sigma 35 has pushed down the price of the 35L... wait, that didn't happen. Until it proves it can deliver reliably in the AF department, something with which Tamron has had problems, this will be at most a step up from the Sigma 150-500, not a replacement for the L (which Canon will hopefully release at a halfway decent price sometime).
Not even close to the same comparison. The latest Tamron lenses have very good AF (sigma is still unreliable) and this Tamron has 50% more reach then the 100-400. If it's as good as it seems to be then it'll be a step UP over the 100-400 for people that want more reach or don't like a push/pull lens. Also much newer stabilization.
If the Tamron is as good as we've seen so far then who's going to want to buy a used 100-400 for $900 when for $169 more they can get a new lens that gives them 50% more reach, newer VC and a 6 year warranty?
Now I am making an assumption that this is going to turn out to be a very good lens. So far it looks like it could be.
Greg M wrote:
Not even close to the same comparison. The latest Tamron lenses have very good AF (sigma is still unreliable) and this Tamron has 50% more reach then the 100-400. If it's as good as it seems to be then it'll be a step UP over the 100-400 for people that want more reach or don't like a push/pull lens. Also much newer stabilization.
If the Tamron is as good as we've seen so far then who's going to want to buy a used 100-400 for $900 when for $169 more they can get a new lens that gives them 50% more reach, newer VC and a 6 year warranty?
Now I am making an assumption that this is going to turn out to be a very good lens. So far it looks like it could be....Show more →
I don't have a problem with Tamron, but their AF consistency is not as reliable as Canon, and several of their lenses have had problems with outer AF points especially. If AF consistency, sharpness, colors and the like matter to you, the verdict is still out. I'm sure it will be a fine lens, but then, so is the Sigma. Only time will tell, but there are plenty of people who will stick with the Canon. Clearly is is longer and likely has better stabilization, and if that is your only criteria, the new lens looks a winner.
Joke and make wise cracks all you want. That does not change the fact that 3rd party manufacturers are making good lenses these days. I own Zeiss & Sigma lenses that are excellent.
If you prefer to only buy Canon that is just fine.
I prefer Canon if the lens is affordable.
Problem is Canon has not made any affordable full frame telephoto lenses recently.
the competition from 3rd party manufacturers is much needed. to give photographers affordable options
The Tamron 150-600 will likely be a popular lens.
GC5 wrote:
I don't have a problem with Tamron, but their AF consistency is not as reliable as Canon, and several of their lenses have had problems with outer AF points especially. If AF consistency, sharpness, colors and the like matter to you, the verdict is still out. I'm sure it will be a fine lens, but then, so is the Sigma. Only time will tell, but there are plenty of people who will stick with the Canon. Clearly is is longer and likely has better stabilization, and if that is your only criteria, the new lens looks a winner.
I have no AF problems with my Tamron 70-200 VC and it is just as reliable as the Canon 70-200 II that I had at the same time. The Canon in low light was a fraction faster to lock (only VERY slightly) but Tamron's AF is just as reliable. As for longevity, Tamron comes with a 6 year warranty.
I agree that the verdict is still out. There are only a handful of opinions of actual use out there. We'll know a whole lot more in 30 days or so. My comments are based on what we've heard so far. If what we've heard so far turns out to be true then that would be huge!
Greg M wrote:
I have no AF problems with my Tamron 70-200 VC and it is just as reliable as the Canon 70-200 II that I had at the same time. The Canon in low light was a fraction faster to lock (only VERY slightly) but Tamron's AF is just as reliable. As for longevity, Tamron comes with a 6 year warranty.
I agree that the verdict is still out. There are only a handful of opinions of actual use out there. We'll know a whole lot more in 30 days or so. My comments are based on what we've heard so far. If what we've heard so far turns out to be true then that would be huge! ...Show more →
On what body? The difference was evident on my 1Ds2 and 7D. I very nearly traded my mkII in for the Sigma 70-200 OS instead as that felt closer in AF performance. In the end I kept the MkII though.
jj_glos wrote:
On what body? The difference was evident on my 1Ds2 and 7D. I very nearly traded my mkII in for the Sigma 70-200 OS instead as that felt closer in AF performance. In the end I kept the MkII though.
So far we have two sources for photos. One is from Tamron, and no manufacturer would ever post amazing images from a lens they make, regardless of the price point, because that is not how marketing works.
The other source is a "review" w/ mediocre images.
I have the sigma 35mm 1.4 Art lens. It's nice, but it was a headache not being able to use it out of the box, and the AF is not as fast as the 35L. I am not opposed to 3rd party lenses (although I don't rank Zeiss with Sigma and Tamron), but they have their short comings. I just wish they were as reliable as Canon's.
I am sure the Canon 500mm F4, 600mm F4, 800mm F5.6, 200-400, and 300 f2.8, 400 F4 are all reliable
just no way to afford them, especially version II lenses
big country wrote:
I highly doubt the 100-400 gets to $750 used.
Hi Jason,
I don't know if you should doubt more highly or less highly, but the current eBay resale value for an EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS in Excellent or better condition is from about $1020 to $1200.
