MannyV
•
Senior Member
•
Posts: 1,055
Re: Tamron 100 400mm question
1
cmcm789 wrote:
Stig Nygaard wrote:
Any particular reason not going for the Canon RF 100-400mm instead?
The Canon is almost half weight, has shorter nearest focusing distance, gives you full "integration" of optical IS and IBIS (= better image stabilization), have very good AF-performance and are surprisingly good optically even at the longest end wide open.
Well, you probably went for the Tamron because of the 2/3 stops extra light I guess, but I have to ask?
The wider aperture helped but also i have a kenko 1.4TC i use with my 70-200 currently which i hope to be able to occasionally use with the Tamron. If it hadn't been for the TC i probably would have went for the RF 100-400 as it was less expensive.
I had the Tamron 100-400. It was fine on the 80D. With RP while everything works, it is slow to focus. Coincidentally I have the Kenko 1.4 as well. The one with the blue dot. While it can still AF, it is even slower and hunts a lot and more so in low contrast and low light situation.
If you goal is stationary objects I guess it will be ok without the TC. With the TC even stationary objects will be an exercise in frustration under most circumstances.
I had the tap in console as I also had the 24-70 2.8 G2 (a sharp lens). Had both updated to the latest firmware.
I sold the Tamron 100-400 as well as the 24-70 lens as I got the RF mount 24-70 and the 100-500.
The native RF lenses focuses a lot faster, focuses more accurately, gives you all the bells and whistles features of the R mount (especially so with R5, 6, 3, etc).
My humble 2 cents - drop the idea of using the TC and if that perspective makes sense then reevaluate EF vs RF keeping in mind other factors such as DSLR's or EF-M mount camera etc. If you have decided to move to R completely then the RF 100-400 starts sounding like a better option in my opinion.