Which lens? 100-400L mk1/mk2 vs Tamron 150-600 G2

M

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,060
Edit My Images
Yes
I am going to Alaska this summer and need a wildlife lens to take with me. I mainly take landscape photos, but given the fact I'm in Alaska in prime salmon run season I need a lens for bear photos. The lens will be paired with a 7dmk2.

I will be hiking around a little, and would like to take the lens on these hikes, so size and weight is a concern. Secondly, it's Alaska, it will rain. I will also almost certainly sell the lens upon return. I cannot rent as the cost is prohibitive for the length of my trip.

My initial thoughts are as follows:

Canon 100-400 mk1
+ Cheap
+ Light weight
+ Small
+ Weather sealed
+ I quite like the push/pull zoom
+ I've had a few before so understand it
- Slow focus
- Not as good IS

Canon 100-400 mk2
+ Fast focus
+ Good IS
+ Weather sealed
+ Sharp
+ Light weight
+ Small
- Expensive

Tamron 150-600 G2
+ Long focal length, could be very useful
+ Cheap
- Not weather sealed
- Large
- Heavier


Can anyone assist with my decision?

I'm leaning towards the 100-400 mk1 right now.


Thanks
 
Last edited:
I've had the Tamron, and now have the 100-400 Mk2. I'd go Canon every time. I find the images much sharper, and the lens is much easier to use being smaller and lighter. I guess it depends if you need the extra reach. I also use the Canon with a 1.4TC with good results. It works really well with the 7D2 which I use as well as the 5D Mk3.
 
Tamron G2 is weather sealed and has the best IS
 
Hi Matt, I can only talk about the Canons, as I've had the 100-400 mk1 and now I have the mk2. The mk2 is a fantastic lens and a great improvement over the mk1 albeit not the push / pull design thankfully. Its a really sharp lens, and although Its a bit of lump to carry about if you have other lenses and gear with you, I think its worth it.
I don't know how long you're going for, so the question you need to ask yourself is, if its a one of trip then Its probably worth spending the money and getting the mk2. I'm not sure of the resale value though but if you get the images, its worth it? Looking forward to what you capture.
 
Originally when we wanted a long zoom the only ones available were the Mk1 Canon and the Sigma 120-400, which is no longer available. All the reviews actually suggested that the Sigma was the better of the 2 lenses, so we bought it and have not been disappointed. We still have it and my wife uses it with Canon EOS7DII. When I wanted something about 600mm maximum I opted for the Tamron 150-600mm G2. I agree with Brazo, above, that is is weather sealed - I would not have bought it otherwise. I have not been at all disappointed with the results, see:
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/d...02722079-7c940f9300a06b104c03cbe0bd5f637b.jpg
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/d...02722095-3ba9668138dc569485e3d569c580739d.jpg
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/d...02722157-182a80ab02cd4808a1196f08de882dc5.jpg
It produces good sharp images, even at 600mm which really surprised me. It takes some getting used to as it is quite heavy, but I have got a lot of really top class birds in flight pictures after quite a bit of practice. All my shots are hand held, if that is any help.

Though I have never tried one all the reveiws suggest that the Canon 100-400mm Mk 2 is a superb lens, far better than the Mk1 version. If I was buying now and using an APS-C sensor then I would probably opt for the Mk2 Canon, but I use a Canon EOS5DMkIII so the Tamron gives me that little bit extra reach, as we are often quite a long way from the birds, so I would not hesitate to buy that for myself.

In the end it is waht you want to use it for and what other equipment you have that shold really determine your purchase - and, of course, what you can afford!!!
 
Mk2 and perhaps a 1.4 mk3 converter if you really need the extra length. Tamron (and the equivalent Siggy) are both IMO too heavy for the use you're putting it to.

Edit..was going to point you to another recent post, but it's yours!!

Not sure what can be added to that thread, Matt!!
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
Tamron G2 is weather sealed and has the best IS
Click to expand...

Anecdotally or factually?

Things I would consider, the useful focal range, especially paired with a 1.4x/2x, the max aperture native and extended, the AF.

The latter I would pay particular attention to, leaping salmon for the classic bear shot, needs to be bang on.

Final edit, thought about renting if you're unsure and feel pressure for one trip?
 
Last edited:
anisah said:
In the end it is waht you want to use it for and what other equipment you have that shold really determine your purchase - and, of course, what you can afford!!!
Click to expand...

As I'll be selling when I come back the cost isn't a huge problem. I just need to ensure the used value is good enough for whatever I purchase.
 
George said:
Mk2 and perhaps a 1.4 mk3 converter if you really need the extra length. Tamron (and the equivalent Siggy) are both IMO too heavy for the use you're putting it to.

Edit..was going to point you to another recent post, but it's yours!!

Not sure what can be added to that thread, Matt!!
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, I do have a thread somewhere on here don't I!

I've been going over my trip plan today and given the hikes I suspect the decision is fairly simple, and that it's the Canon. I just need to try and find one used. The Tamron does look good though, and I was under the impression it wasn't weather sealed, but if it is then it makes it an interesting option. I suspect given the walking I'll be doing that it's too big and heavy though.
 
Last edited:
Yup, Matt, I thought I had lost the plot!!......yes I think you've made the best choice, and hope you have a great time..

George.
 
Gogster said:
Anecdotally or factually?

Things I would consider, the useful focal range, especially paired with a 1.4x/2x, the max aperture native and extended, the AF.
Click to expand...
F,8 is the max the 7D2 will AF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top