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

[Kayaker72]

Congrats David. Looking forward to your impressions and images.

[Kayaker72]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

The Tamron is crap at 600mm, but compare the two at 400mm.

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

[Dave Throgmartin]

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

[Sean Setters]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Sean Setters]

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?

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[conropl]

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.