Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59

Thread: Looks like I am going to be getting the 100-400L II a lot sooner than I expected.

  1. #31
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,566
    Congrats David. Looking forward to your impressions and images.

  2. #32
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,566
    Looks like 100-400 II IQ results are up....

    vs 400 f/2.8 @ 5.6

    560 f/8 vs Tamron 150-600 @ 600 f/8

    200 f/5.6 vs 70-200 II @ 200 f/5.6


    Impressive...only real comment is it has some vignetting going on. But otherwise very impressive.
    Last edited by Kayaker72; 12-18-2014 at 03:18 AM.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,918
    The Tamron is crap at 600mm, but compare the two at 400mm.

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=0

  4. #34
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    The Tamron is crap at 600mm, but compare the two at 400mm.

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=0
    C'mon now Rick.

    A guy named Imagemaster who frequents other forums seems to get quite good results from the Tamron at 600mm. It isn't a Canon supertele, but it doesn't cost over $10,000 either. It offers a level of quality at a cost point.

    I don't want to go on a cost crusade or anything here, but $1,000 for average Joe photographer is near the upper cost limit for a lens. At its $1,069 price the Tamron offers people who previously couldn't afford the entry cost for wild life shots. In the hands of someone as skilled as Imagemaster the lens can deliver really good shots at 600mm.

    The Canon 100-400 II appears to be a great lens. And at its asking price it should be. It should take the Tamron behind the wood shed.

    Dave

  5. #35
    Administrator Sean Setters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    3,346
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    The Tamron is crap at 600mm, but compare the two at 400mm.

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=0
    AF acquisition and accuracy is also something to consider between the two lenses. The Tamron produces good image quality at 400mm, but if it can't lock on to a target in time, then the EF 100-400mm L IS II may prove worthy of its price premium over the budget-friendly Tamron.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin View Post
    C'mon now Rick.

    A guy named Imagemaster who frequents other forums seems to get quite good results from the Tamron at 600mm. It isn't a Canon supertele, but it doesn't cost over $10,000 either. It offers a level of quality at a cost point.

    I don't want to go on a cost crusade or anything here, but $1,000 for average Joe photographer is near the upper cost limit for a lens. At its $1,069 price the Tamron offers people who previously couldn't afford the entry cost for wild life shots. In the hands of someone as skilled as Imagemaster the lens can deliver really good shots at 600mm.

    The Canon 100-400 II appears to be a great lens. And at its asking price it should be. It should take the Tamron behind the wood shed.

    Dave
    What I was referring to is that at 400mm the Tamron looks very good.

    Not so much at 600mm. Corners appear very soft. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=5&APIComp=2

    The crap thought came in when you look at 400mm vs 600mm on the Tamron. To much fall off.

    No doubt it is a fair valued lens and can take great pictures with the right skill level at 600mm. At 400mm it looks like it will have very decent IQ.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Setters View Post
    AF acquisition and accuracy is also something to consider between the two lenses. The Tamron produces good image quality at 400mm, but if it can't lock on to a target in time, then the EF 100-400mm L IS II may prove worthy of its price premium over the budget-friendly Tamron.
    This is true. AF will rule supreme over IQ in many cases.

    Looking at the charts I have decided the 100-400mm is not a lens I will want to own, at least yet anyway. I am selling my 300mm f/2.8L and will need something in that range.

  8. #38
    Administrator Sean Setters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    3,346
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Looking at the charts I have decided the 100-400mm is not a lens I will want to own, at least yet anyway. I am selling my 300mm f/2.8L and will need something in that range.
    What kind of capabilities/features were you looking for in the replacement lens?

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Setters View Post
    What kind of capabilities/features were you looking for in the replacement lens?
    Small, compact and the highest IQ.

    Really the 100-400mm fits that bill.
    But knowing myself I will end up with just two I am choosing from.
    The 300mm f/2.8L II or the 400mm DO II.
    It will probably end up being the 300mm.

    I debated for to long between the 600mm and 500mm II, I just couldn't make the decision.

    I finally made the decision and today I am waiting on the big brown truck to arrive. I went with the 500mm II because of the size and weight.
    That said the 400mm DO may be to close to the 500mm for it to be a contender.

  10. #40
    Senior Member conropl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Small, compact and the highest IQ.

    Really the 100-400mm fits that bill.
    But knowing myself I will end up with just two I am choosing from.
    The 300mm f/2.8L II or the 400mm DO II.
    It will probably end up being the 300mm.

    I debated for to long between the 600mm and 500mm II, I just couldn't make the decision.

    I finally made the decision and today I am waiting on the big brown truck to arrive. I went with the 500mm II because of the size and weight.
    That said the 400mm DO may be to close to the 500mm for it to be a contender.
    I was hoping someone would get the 400 DO so I could see if it is a worthwhile lens or not. And I was kind of hoping it would be you because you are very thurough and particular in you assessments.

    Go ahead... give it a try so I can live vicariously; and even better, find a problem so I can keep my wallet intact.
    5DS R, 1D X, 7D, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 24mm f/1.4L II, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 100mm Macro f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, 580EX-II
    flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •