A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Canon 100-400 vs Tamron...

Featured Equipment Deals

Introduction to Lightroom: Importing Images (Video Tutorial) Read More

Introduction to Lightroom: Importing Images (Video Tutorial)

Learn the basics of importing your images to Lightroom, from how you'd like to view your images to how to add a copyright to your metadata.

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

5 Tips for Combating Red-Eye Read More

5 Tips for Combating Red-Eye

Red-eye doesn't have to ruin your photos. Learn 5 simple tricks to avoid and eliminate this undesirable photographic effect.


Canon 100-400 vs Tamron 200-500

Anesh P , May 26, 2007; 06:46 a.m.

I haven't seen comparisons made between these two obvious contenders for wildlife photographers. IS aside I'd like to know about the optical quality and AF speed of the Tamron compared to the Canon.

Responses

Wojtek Kalinowski , May 26, 2007; 08:06 a.m.

I haven't used the Tamron,but I have used the Canon.Great build quality,great optics.If you get it in focus you're pretty much guaranteed a good photo.Get it and you'll never regret it.W

Ralph Jensen , May 26, 2007; 10:21 a.m.

There are 12 user reviews of the Tamron and 147 reviews of the Canon at fredmiranda; might be worth a look:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27

Ralph Jensen , May 26, 2007; 10:23 a.m.

That was the link to the Canon reviews; the Tamron reviews are here:

(link)

Peter Lyons , May 26, 2007; 10:29 a.m.

Bob Atkins reviewed both lenses separately at least... you can read both and give it some thought based on that.

http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/ http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/100-400.html

You can find numerous online reviews of the 100-400... just google it.

My personal account is that I own the 100-400, and use it all the time--easily 20,000 shots by now. It's my main lens for what I do, and I'm very pleased with it. Is it perfect? Of course not. But I think it's a well-made compromise. A prime would be sharper, and a twist zoom instead of a push-pull would probably make for better weather-sealing (I've managed to get salt deposits in between lens elements from shooting around salt spray), but hey, it's doing its job, and I'm happy with it.

Mark Chappell , May 26, 2007; 11:05 a.m.

Both lenses are reviewed pretty thoroughly at Photozone. Personally, I'd take the 100-400; mine has served me well over a number of years.

Sitthivet Santikarn , Jun 07, 2007; 08:39 p.m.

I have used both. And the IS in the 100-400 is the decider for me, because I do not like to use a tripod. For the 1.6 crop camera I think 100-400 IS is perfect match. If you use tripod, and FF camera then the Tamron's extra reach may come in handy. The Tamron's optics are very good, but I also prefer the zoom/focus action of the Canon lens (for wildlife photography).

Mike Broderick , Jun 08, 2007; 12:58 a.m.

I have no experience of the Tamron, but the 100-400L was one of the first three lenses I bought back in 2002. I've never regretted it. i vouce for the lens.

Mark Wakefield , Jun 09, 2007; 01:10 a.m.

I have the 100-400, the IS is the clincher. I have no regrets about buying this lens whatsoever.

Back to top

Notify me of Responses