Canon 400m f5.6L vs. Tamron 200-500mm

dbaxter7 · Jan 1, 2007

I'm in the market for a new long lens and I'm stuck between these two lenses. I have removed the Canon 100-400mm zoom from my list because I already have a Canon 70-200mm F4L and a Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter, which gives me 280mm of reach. And since the 100-400mm has been said to really only get you 370mm of reach, it doesn't seem like the IS and extra 90mm of reach are worth $1400. The image quality I get from the 70-200mm and the 1.4x is quite good, but not long enough sometimes. So, I'm at the point now where I'm looking for something that could give me the extra reach I'm looking for, and these two lenses are at the top of my list.

Canon 400mm f5.6L pros are that it's image quality can't be matched by either the Canon 100-400mm zoom, nor the Tamron 200-500mm zoom. It's fairly light and hand-holdable (from what I've read, I have not actually held one), and it's L glass, which is always good. The cons are that it is limited to 400mm, which means I'll be doing a lot of "foot" zooming. Another plus is that I could put my 1.4x tele on this and get to 560mm, albeit losing a full stop.

Tamron 200-500mm pros are the zoom range and the pretty decent image quality (according the the photozone MTF charts). The cons are that, according to other users, the color and contrast are not as good as the Canon prime, nor is the autofocus speed. But, for the price, it seems worth a shot. Plus, you get an extra 100mm of reach.

Of course, there are many other pros and cons of both, but I'm learning towards the Tamron for the flexibility is provides.

I've been doing a fair amount of birding lately, but I also do other nature photography or larger animals, some sports photography (which neither would be very good for unless it was a very sunny day).

Any comments or suggestions?

--
Dave

Hobbo · Jan 1, 2007

Hi,

Have used a Tamron 200/500 for eight months, image quality ok, sold it for a 400mm 5.6 L. This lense is much sharper than the Tamron, & focus a lot quicker. Yes i sometimes miss the versatility of the zoom, but for me the image quality wins, hope this helps

Daniella68313 · Jan 1, 2007

they are so far apart in term of AF speed, sharpness wide open and convenience that it is impossible to compare them.

you alone can decide what is more important for you. image quality and AF speed or convenience of a zoom?

your choice.

dbaxter7 said:
I'm in the market for a new long lens and I'm stuck between these
two lenses. I have removed the Canon 100-400mm zoom from my list
because I already have a Canon 70-200mm F4L and a Kenko Pro 1.4x
teleconverter, which gives me 280mm of reach. And since the
100-400mm has been said to really only get you 370mm of reach, it
doesn't seem like the IS and extra 90mm of reach are worth $1400.
The image quality I get from the 70-200mm and the 1.4x is quite
good, but not long enough sometimes. So, I'm at the point now
where I'm looking for something that could give me the extra reach
I'm looking for, and these two lenses are at the top of my list.

Canon 400mm f5.6L pros are that it's image quality can't be matched
by either the Canon 100-400mm zoom, nor the Tamron 200-500mm zoom.
It's fairly light and hand-holdable (from what I've read, I have
not actually held one), and it's L glass, which is always good.
The cons are that it is limited to 400mm, which means I'll be doing
a lot of "foot" zooming. Another plus is that I could put my 1.4x
tele on this and get to 560mm, albeit losing a full stop.

Tamron 200-500mm pros are the zoom range and the pretty decent
image quality (according the the photozone MTF charts). The cons
are that, according to other users, the color and contrast are not
as good as the Canon prime, nor is the autofocus speed. But, for
the price, it seems worth a shot. Plus, you get an extra 100mm of
reach.

Of course, there are many other pros and cons of both, but I'm
learning towards the Tamron for the flexibility is provides.

I've been doing a fair amount of birding lately, but I also do
other nature photography or larger animals, some sports photography
(which neither would be very good for unless it was a very sunny
day).

Any comments or suggestions?

--
Dave

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

dbaxter7 · Jan 1, 2007

Yes, I realize that we are talking about apples and oranges here, but I'm just curious to know how big the difference is between the image quality of these two lenses. Autofocus speed is important, but it's not a deal breaker for me. I love the idea of the convenience of a zoom, but the quality of the Canon 400mm lens is tough to give up. Just hoping that someone could convince me that the image quality difference isn't all that great, and that with a little post processing, I could make the difference even less.

I haven't seem too many postings showing actual images from the tamron 200-500mm, so if anyone knows of any sites comparing these two lenses, I'd appreciate posting the links.

--
Dave

csfbphoto · Jan 1, 2007

Canon 400L f5.6 is perfection.
How do you compare Tamron to that?
You don't!!!

Good luck with your selection process.....it's crystal clear to me.

Daniella68313 · Jan 1, 2007

dbaxter7 said:
Yes, I realize that we are talking about apples and oranges here,
but I'm just curious to know how big the difference is between the
image quality of these two lenses. Autofocus speed is important,
but it's not a deal breaker for me. I love the idea of the
convenience of a zoom, but the quality of the Canon 400mm lens is
tough to give up. Just hoping that someone could convince me that
the image quality difference isn't all that great, and that with a
little post processing, I could make the difference even less.

nope. there is also the color and contrast to the prime that you won't get with the zoom.

Make no mistake about that. you really have to choose for your subjects. if your subjects are far away, get the prime.

dbaxter7 said:
I haven't seem too many postings showing actual images from the
tamron 200-500mm, so if anyone knows of any sites comparing these
two lenses, I'd appreciate posting the links.

--
Dave

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

dbaxter7 · Jan 1, 2007

You've got me starting to change my mind Daniella!! Have you tried using a 1.4X TC on the 400mm? I have a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x that I use on my 70-200mm with great results, but I don't know if it will work on the Canon 400mm. Here's a shot I took yesterday with the 70-200mm and 1.4x TC

Anyway, you've got me thinking hard about the Canon again. Thanks for the help..

--
Dave

Rowbear · Jan 1, 2007

I'm just curious as to why you don't consider the Sigma 50-500 ?

My guess is that it would have IQ at least the equal of the Tamron your talking about, if not better, and would give you the versatility you seem to favour ?

As for the 400 f/5.6 prime, its in another time zone as far as IQ and autofocus speed. I don't think its fair to try to compare these 2 zooms with it.

--
Robert
http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/mes_photos

dbaxter7 · Jan 1, 2007

I feel like I'm pretty well covered from 17mm to 280mm with my current setup which includes

Canon 30D
Sigma 17-70mm
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 70-200mm F4L
Kenko Pro 300 1.4X TC

So I'm really looking for something with more reach since I'm pretty well covered up to almost 300mm. I've read good things about the Bigma, but I'm just not interested in the 10x zoom.
--
Dave

s23chang · Jan 1, 2007

Just want a quick prime? get the 400mm 5.6
Need flexible and extra reach? Get the Tamron.

I don't think color and contrast is any worst on the Tamron.

Here a shot with Tamron 200-500 @ 500mm wide open with Canon EF 2X TC ISO 1250 1/125 Sec.

Obvious AF will not work with 2X TC but MF works just fine.

hires · Jan 1, 2007

After reading every thread in this forum on the 400 5.6L verses every other supertelephoto over the last year I just now pushed the button on the 400 5.6 and the Tamaron AF14C700 1.4 from B&H.

I've been birding with the 70-200 F4L + 1.4 Canon TC II for the last year and got this RTH shot last spring in Mill Valley California:

I hope that if I get lucky enough to get a shot like that again with the new lens that it will be twice as good.

Thanks to all, especially Daniella, for all the posts which make choosing a new bird lens so much fun.

hamsteve · Jan 1, 2007

I pondered these lenses for a while.

I tried out the 400 5.6L and the 200-500 in a store this last week. I do not have any photos that will provide a fair comparison of image quality of the two. When I was checking them out, I was mostly considering how they handled and focused.

I found that inside the store, some places were too dim/low contrast for either lens to autofocus, and any place that either could autofocus, the other could also.

As for focus speed, after all the praise on this forum for the 400, I was underwhelmed by the speed of the 400. It is certainly fast, just not as fast as I was expecting. The 200-500 was also pretty fast when moving from one focus point directly to another. However, when the 200-500 misses focus and hunts across its whole range, that takes a long time--I'm sure that will cause some missed shots.

I did get some photos that allowed me to compare the width of the field of view (i.e., focal length). When focused at a medium distance (perhaps 200-300 feet, the Tamron showed 1.27x more magnification than the Canon. That is to say, if the Canon is a perfect 400mm at this distance, the Tamron at maximum zoom is a 507mm.

On the balance of many considerations, including price, I bought the Tamron.

--
Steve
Longmont, CO

dbaxter7 · Jan 2, 2007

I'm thinking that I might buy both from B&H, test them out together and see for myself what the difference is. Whichever one I feel works the best for me, I'll keep, the other one will either get returned, or put up for sale on FM.

Daniella has me leaning more towards the Canon, but the convenience of a zoom is so damn tempting.

Thanks for the comments everyone!

--
Dave

dbaxter7 · Jan 2, 2007

Wow! Now that is impressive, especially considering you have a 2x TC and ISO 1250! Do you remember the distance to the subject?

--
Dave

s23chang · Jan 2, 2007

Any closer it would have run away : )
Happy shooting

Lemming51 · Jan 2, 2007

The 100-400 is 392mm at "400mm". The difference between 392mm and 400mm is immaterial. http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/275/canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-l-af-is-usm-page2.html

Virtually all internal focus zooms will change focal length (usually getting shorter) at closer than infinity focus. The EF 100-400L, EF 400 f/5.6L USM, and Tamron 200-500 f/4.5-6.3 are no exception.

70-200 + 1.4x does not mean that the EF 100-400L would only be useful to you for 300-400 range. The whole point of a zoom is the flexiblity of the focal length and not having to change lenses as often. The 100-400 covers virtually the same range as 70-200, 70-200 + 1.4x, and 400mm. It trades a little absolute sharpness at 400 v. the 400 f/5.6L for the convenience of not changing lenses and the added IS feature.

dbaxter7 said:
I'm in the market for a new long lens and I'm stuck between these
two lenses. I have removed the Canon 100-400mm zoom from my list
because I already have a Canon 70-200mm F4L and a Kenko Pro 1.4x
teleconverter, which gives me 280mm of reach. And since the
100-400mm has been said to really only get you 370mm of reach, it
doesn't seem like the IS and extra 90mm of reach are worth $1400.
The image quality I get from the 70-200mm and the 1.4x is quite
good, but not long enough sometimes. So, I'm at the point now
where I'm looking for something that could give me the extra reach
I'm looking for, and these two lenses are at the top of my list.

Canon 400mm f5.6L pros are that it's image quality can't be matched
by either the Canon 100-400mm zoom, nor the Tamron 200-500mm zoom.
It's fairly light and hand-holdable (from what I've read, I have
not actually held one), and it's L glass, which is always good.
The cons are that it is limited to 400mm, which means I'll be doing
a lot of "foot" zooming. Another plus is that I could put my 1.4x
tele on this and get to 560mm, albeit losing a full stop.

Tamron 200-500mm pros are the zoom range and the pretty decent
image quality (according the the photozone MTF charts). The cons
are that, according to other users, the color and contrast are not
as good as the Canon prime, nor is the autofocus speed. But, for
the price, it seems worth a shot. Plus, you get an extra 100mm of
reach.

Of course, there are many other pros and cons of both, but I'm
learning towards the Tamron for the flexibility is provides.

I've been doing a fair amount of birding lately, but I also do
other nature photography or larger animals, some sports photography
(which neither would be very good for unless it was a very sunny
day).

Any comments or suggestions?

--
Dave

dbaxter7 · Jan 2, 2007

I agree about the focal length covering almost the same range as my 70-200 with the 1.4x tele, but if I already have a darn good lens in that range, why would I want the overlap? I'd rather get a range that I don't already have than make my 70-200 obsolete. Plus, IS is nice, but I haven't missed it yet, and for the extra cost, it doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.

That's why I'm leaning towards either the 400 f5.6L or the Tamron
--
Dave

arms · Jan 2, 2007

dbaxter7:

I had the 200-500 but sold it for 100-400.

The main problem with the Tamron is AF speed and also 100-400 has IS. IQ-wise, Tamron is obviously better than my 70-200F2.8IS + 2x but not on par with the 100-400. To be fair, Tamron has extra reach BUT it has to be used under bright day, or on a tripod (that means an extra 1.5 -2 kg).

Go for Canon for sure if your subject needs fast focusing.

For 100-400 and 400 prime, I think you could pick the 400 prime if
(i) you definitely do not need the versatility of zoom and IS; and
(ii) you do not mind to bring 70-200 along with 400 prime.

NOTE: weight of 70-200F4 + 400 prime is heavier than 100-400 for 575g AND you have to change lens if you need another focal length.

s23chang · Jan 2, 2007

I don't think I would use anything slower than 1/125 to 1/160 sec for shooting birds.

There is really not much advantage with IS vs non-IS for shooting bird.
It is really a misconception. Read the Canon lens manual on IS.

If you are shooting close-up shots then I would agree wtih you that IS has its advantage.

arms said:
dbaxter7:

I had the 200-500 but sold it for 100-400.

The main problem with the Tamron is AF speed and also 100-400 has
IS. IQ-wise, Tamron is obviously better than my 70-200F2.8IS + 2x
but not on par with the 100-400. To be fair, Tamron has extra reach
BUT it has to be used under bright day, or on a tripod (that means
an extra 1.5 -2 kg).

Go for Canon for sure if your subject needs fast focusing.

For 100-400 and 400 prime, I think you could pick the 400 prime if
(i) you definitely do not need the versatility of zoom and IS; and
(ii) you do not mind to bring 70-200 along with 400 prime.

NOTE: weight of 70-200F4 + 400 prime is heavier than 100-400 for
575g AND you have to change lens if you need another focal length.

--
What's real in Digital?

Cooperii · Jan 2, 2007

I disagree. Perched birds (particularily owls) can benefit greatly from IS.

-D

--
Dustin aka Cooperii
Toronto, Canada
20D
17-85IS USM
50 1.8 MKII
400 5.6L

Canon 400m f5.6L vs. Tamron 200-500mm

Well-known member

Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Active member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts