Thinking of getting the 100-500 to replace my Tamron 150-600 G2

I've been using my Tamron mainly for bird photography. I have an R5, what do you guys think, is it worth upgrading? I mostly stick to f/8.0 as I find the focus a bit soft when using f6.3 and f7.1 on the Tamron. So I don't mind that the 100-500 starts at f7.1 as long as it's sharp at that aperture, is it?

The reason "I think" I want the 100-500 is that I'm hoping the AF will be faster and more precise. I find that sometimes on the Tamron, when shooting BIF that I get a lot of OOF shots, the camera appears to tell me that I'm locked onto the bird, but when I review my bursts, half the shots are often out of focus, and the focus point is not even close to the bird at times. I'm thinking maybe the R5 is too quick for the Tamron. Also I don't get the advertised 12 fps when in mechanical with the Tamron.

I was also looking at maybe picking up a prime lens instead of the 100-500, like a used 300mm f/2.8. With a 2X extender.

So what do you guys think would be best for bird photography? Should I stick with the Tamron or will the other lenses be better? I know I'm losing 100mm with the 100-500, so I suppose I could get a 1.4X extender, but I'll be at f/10.

And do you know of any reviews that compare the 100-500 to any of the 150-600 lenses? I haven't found any.

Thanks,

Dan-Z wrote:

I've been using my Tamron mainly for bird photography. I have an R5, what do you guys think, is it worth upgrading? I mostly stick to f/8.0 as I find the focus a bit soft when using f6.3 and f7.1 on the Tamron. So I don't mind that the 100-500 starts at f7.1 as long as it's sharp at that aperture, is it?

I’ve only been able to shoot with my R5 for a week now, so take this with a grain of salt.

The only (birding) combination I’ve used thus far is the RF 100-500 + RF 1.4x (and only with backyard birds).  This combo is very sharp (I’ve only used it wide open).  The handling and light weight are very welcome.  The image stabilization lets me shoot at 1/200 - 1/500 no problem (except for subject motion blur of course).

The reason "I think" I want the 100-500 is that I'm hoping the AF will be faster and more precise.

The AF is indeed crazy accurate.  Much more consistent than my 7D2 was (7D2 was no slouch with 100-400ii +/- 1.4x iii).  I’ve been testing Eye AF, Spot, Single Point, Assist Points. and have been using various combinations with the BBAF buttons.  Also trying various Use Cases.  Not enough shooting yet to draw any firm conclusions.

I find that sometimes on the Tamron, when shooting BIF that I get a lot of OOF shots, the camera appears to tell me that I'm locked onto the bird, but when I review my bursts, half the shots are often out of focus, and the focus point is not even close to the bird at times. I'm thinking maybe the R5 is too quick for the Tamron. Also I don't get the advertised 12 fps when in mechanical with the Tamron.

The 12 fps mechanical and 20 fps electronic have been wonderful.  I take too many shots though!    I still have to do a comparison to see if the difference in bit depth has any impact.  I’m usually at ISO 1600 (f10 has its down-sides).

I was also looking at maybe picking up a prime lens instead of the 100-500, like a used 300mm f/2.8. With a 2X extender.

Keep in mind that a 2x extender will slow the AF considerably (enforced by Canon, not the aperture).

So what do you guys think would be best for bird photography?

LOL 600 f/4?  

I haven’t tried my 100-400ii yet, or my 400/5.6 “BIF Lens.”  It’ll be interesting to see if IBIS adds some utility to the old prime.

Should I stick with the Tamron or will the other lenses be better? I know I'm losing 100mm with the 100-500, so I suppose I could get a 1.4X extender, but I'll be at f/10.

Now for the bad news.  In my (limited) experience thus far, I find f/10 to be a bit slow on the R5 for good initial AF acquisition.  Sometimes the AF just balks and won’t get started if the subject is too OOF to begin with (I do have Focus Search enabled).  And distant BIFs often don’t even get a lock-on (7D2 no problem).

So my next step is to see how the naked 100-500 does.  Unfortunately it’ll still be only with backyard birds for a while yet.  Darn pandemic!  

And do you know of any reviews that compare the 100-500 to any of the 150-600 lenses? I haven't found any.

I haven’t looked at any.

It hasn’t been all doom and gloom with the R5 + 100-500 + 1.4x of course.  If I have Eye AF enabled the camera will often be locked on instantly, and Spot/Single AF is also super consistent (like a pitbull).  It’s just when the scene is too OOF initially that you get issues.  So I’ll be testing next without the TC.

Sorry about the (very) narrow usage report thus far.  I’m sure others will be chiming in soon.  Best of luck,

R2

R2D2 wrote:

Dan-Z wrote:

I've been using my Tamron mainly for bird photography. I have an R5, what do you guys think, is it worth upgrading? I mostly stick to f/8.0 as I find the focus a bit soft when using f6.3 and f7.1 on the Tamron. So I don't mind that the 100-500 starts at f7.1 as long as it's sharp at that aperture, is it?

I’ve only been able to shoot with my R5 for a week now, so take this with a grain of salt.

The only (birding) combination I’ve used thus far is the RF 100-500 + RF 1.4x (and only with backyard birds). This combo is very sharp (I’ve only used it wide open). The handling and light weight are very welcome. The image stabilization lets me shoot at 1/200 - 1/500 no problem (except for subject motion blur of course).

The reason "I think" I want the 100-500 is that I'm hoping the AF will be faster and more precise.

The AF is indeed crazy accurate. Much more consistent than my 7D2 was (7D2 was no slouch with 100-400ii +/- 1.4x iii). I’ve been testing Eye AF, Spot, Single Point, Assist Points. and have been using various combinations with the BBAF buttons. Also trying various Use Cases. Not enough shooting yet to draw any firm conclusions.

Best BBAF combo I found (for birding) is to use 3 buttons. One button where you set the initial point and let the camera find the Eye, the other just Eye AF where you let the camera find the subject (good for BIF) and the other for Spot AF (use the DOF field button).... took me a while to get it just right, if you're patient you can read through this thread https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64341620

I find that sometimes on the Tamron, when shooting BIF that I get a lot of OOF shots, the camera appears to tell me that I'm locked onto the bird, but when I review my bursts, half the shots are often out of focus, and the focus point is not even close to the bird at times. I'm thinking maybe the R5 is too quick for the Tamron. Also I don't get the advertised 12 fps when in mechanical with the Tamron.

The 12 fps mechanical and 20 fps electronic have been wonderful. I take too many shots though! I still have to do a comparison to see if the difference in bit depth has any impact. I’m usually at ISO 1600 (f10 has its down-sides).

I was also looking at maybe picking up a prime lens instead of the 100-500, like a used 300mm f/2.8. With a 2X extender.

Keep in mind that a 2x extender will slow the AF considerably (enforced by Canon, not the aperture).

Hmm... I didn't consider this. So, I'd probably be disappointed with this combo on the R5.

So what do you guys think would be best for bird photography?

LOL 600 f/4?

If only the 600mm f/4 were a quarter of the price and half the weight.

I haven’t tried my 100-400ii yet, or my 400/5.6 “BIF Lens.” It’ll be interesting to see if IBIS adds some utility to the old prime.

Should I stick with the Tamron or will the other lenses be better? I know I'm losing 100mm with the 100-500, so I suppose I could get a 1.4X extender, but I'll be at f/10.

Now for the bad news. In my (limited) experience thus far, I find f/10 to be a bit slow on the R5 for good initial AF acquisition. Sometimes the AF just balks and won’t get started if the subject is too OOF to begin with (I do have Focus Search enabled). And distant BIFs often don’t even get a lock-on (7D2 no problem).

So my next step is to see how the naked 100-500 does. Unfortunately it’ll still be only with backyard birds for a while yet. Darn pandemic!

Looking forward to read how the naked 100-500 compares to the 1.4x.

And do you know of any reviews that compare the 100-500 to any of the 150-600 lenses? I haven't found any.

I haven’t looked at any.

It hasn’t been all doom and gloom with the R5 + 100-500 + 1.4x of course. If I have Eye AF enabled the camera will often be locked on instantly, and Spot/Single AF is also super consistent (like a pitbull). It’s just when the scene is too OOF initially that you get issues. So I’ll be testing next without the TC.

Sorry about the (very) narrow usage report thus far. I’m sure others will be chiming in soon. Best of luck,

R2

Great review, thanks!

BirdShooter7 wrote:

I think you’ll be very happy

Yeah I don't doubt it, but my pocket book will be less happy

Have you tried both? Will the improvements justify the extra $$$.

The R5 with the 100-500L lens is a really amazing combination. I tried using my Sigma 150-600C lens on my R5 but it wasn't focusing nearly as well as my EF 100-400L MKII. When I had the opportunity to get the 100-500 I did, then sold the other two and it was a great decision.

The image quality between the 100-400L MKII and the 100-500 is almost identical, and I didn't see much difference there which is fine because the 100-400L MKII was always an extremely sharp lens. Where the 100-500 steps ahead, like you stated, is the AF speed and accuracy, The AF speed is faster, and it seems to lock on more accurately as well.

I just recently added the RF 1.4x converter to the mix, and while I was never much of a fan of converters on my DSLRs, the RF version is really starting to change my mind. The only downside to the converter on the 100-500L lens is that is changed the focal range of the lens to the 300-500 range only, so you lose the short end...it's unfortunate because not having that range available anymore can be the cause for some missed shots. That being said, I shoot with the 1.4x now more than I do without it.

(100-500L with 1.4x) 700mm 1/3200sec f/11 ISO 2500

(100-500L with 1.4x) 700mm 1/1600sec f/10 ISO 500

(!00-500L, no converter) 500mm 1/1600 sec f/8 ISO 400

JayLT4 wrote:

The R5 with the 100-500L lens is a really amazing combination. I tried using my Sigma 150-600C lens on my R5 but it wasn't focusing nearly as well as my EF 100-400L MKII. When I had the opportunity to get the 100-500 I did, then sold the other two and it was a great decision.

The image quality between the 100-400L MKII and the 100-500 is almost identical, and I didn't see much difference there which is fine because the 100-400L MKII was always an extremely sharp lens. Where the 100-500 steps ahead, like you stated, is the AF speed and accuracy, The AF speed is faster, and it seems to lock on more accurately as well.

I just recently added the RF 1.4x converter to the mix, and while I was never much of a fan of converters on my DSLRs, the RF version is really starting to change my mind. The only downside to the converter on the 100-500L lens is that is changed the focal range of the lens to the 300-500 range only, so you lose the short end...it's unfortunate because not having that range available anymore can be the cause for some missed shots. That being said, I shoot with the 1.4x now more than I do without it.

(100-500L with 1.4x) 700mm 1/3200sec f/11 ISO 2500

(100-500L with 1.4x) 700mm 1/1600sec f/10 ISO 500

(!00-500L, no converter) 500mm 1/1600 sec f/8 ISO 400

Thanks for the review. Do you find a drop in AF speed and accuracy when using the 1.4X extender? If so, is it better or worse than your Sigma 150-600?

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Dan-Z wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

I think you’ll be very happy

Yeah I don't doubt it, but my pocket book will be less happy

Have you tried both? Will the improvements justify the extra $$$.

Yes I’ve tried both, the 100-500 all too briefly but the time I had with it left a very good impression. I want one to replace my Sigma 150-600 but unfortunately my pocketbook says no for now

My plan for now is to watch the used market and sales and pick one up in a year or so for a price I’m more comfortable with. It would be great to have it now but it isn’t like the 150-600 from either brand isn’t a good lens.

Good luck, maybe when the RF Telephoto Primes come out, some folks will put their 100-500 on sale. Hopefully you won't have to wait a whole year either.

Dan-Z wrote:

JayLT4 wrote:

The R5 with the 100-500L lens is a really amazing combination. I tried using my Sigma 150-600C lens on my R5 but it wasn't focusing nearly as well as my EF 100-400L MKII. When I had the opportunity to get the 100-500 I did, then sold the other two and it was a great decision.

The image quality between the 100-400L MKII and the 100-500 is almost identical, and I didn't see much difference there which is fine because the 100-400L MKII was always an extremely sharp lens. Where the 100-500 steps ahead, like you stated, is the AF speed and accuracy, The AF speed is faster, and it seems to lock on more accurately as well.

I just recently added the RF 1.4x converter to the mix, and while I was never much of a fan of converters on my DSLRs, the RF version is really starting to change my mind. The only downside to the converter on the 100-500L lens is that is changed the focal range of the lens to the 300-500 range only, so you lose the short end...it's unfortunate because not having that range available anymore can be the cause for some missed shots. That being said, I shoot with the 1.4x now more than I do without it.

(100-500L with 1.4x) 700mm 1/3200sec f/11 ISO 2500

(100-500L with 1.4x) 700mm 1/1600sec f/10 ISO 500

(!00-500L, no converter) 500mm 1/1600 sec f/8 ISO 400

Thanks for the review. Do you find a drop in AF speed and accuracy when using the 1.4X extender? If so, is it better or worse than your Sigma 150-600?

That was the surprising part, I didn't notice any drop in AF performance or tracking.  The only thing that you'll see is a slightly reduced area in the EVF of where AF tracking is allowed, just like the RF600 and 800 lenses.  It reduces the AF area by about 15%.  It has yet to cause me any issues though as I rarely focus that closely to the edge of the frame

hANDYman7 wrote:

Dan-Z wrote:

Also I don't get the advertised 12 fps when in mechanical with the Tamron.

PS. Just wondering if you (Dan Z) ended up getting the RF 100-500?

So yes I did get the 100-500 nearly 2 months ago. The AF motor on my Tamron started acting up intermittently so that made my decision easier. I accidently dropped it last Autumn and cracked the ring in the front so I'm sure that voided the warranty. So my first impressions with the 100-500 was that it is very sharp. I only shot at f8 with the Tamron as I found it was too soft otherwise and the Canon lens I find is sharper at f7.1 than the Tamron is at f8. As for OOF shots, unfortunately I still get them with the Canon lens, I'm sure the AF is better, but the difference wasn't that noticeable to me. I love that the lens is lighter. I like having the ability to focus closer to my subjects than with the Tamron. I bought the 1.4x extender and I hate adding or removing it in the field, it's a pain having to make sure that your lens is at 300mm or above. And once it's on, I end up with a 420mm-700mm lens, which sucks because I lose the ability to take wider angled shots. I love the lens, but is it worth the price? Not sure about that.

You might look into either the 100-400 II/1.4x or the Sigma 150-600 C. I own the 100-400 and I've tested the 150-600 a few times (including doing a head-to-head comparison), and I found their image quality to be very close. You lose full weather sealing, and the AF and IS aren't quite as good, but you gain a little bit of light, a little bit of reach, and you don't need to bother with a TC. The Sigma also works a bit better with in-body lens corrections.