# Everyone Else Has One, Why Not us? Tamron to Announce 100-400mm F/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 13, 2017)

```
We’ve <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-tamron-100-400mm-f4-5-6-3-vc/">seen the patent</a>, and soon we’ll see the lens. Tamron is going to join Sigma and Canon with their own 100-400mm lens. The Tamron will be faster than the Sigma at the short end with an f-stop of 4.5 and slower than Canon at the long end at f/6.3. The new lens will obviously be image stabilized and no doubt it’ll be priced aggressively.</p>

<p>Now that Tamron and Sigma are both stepping on Canon’s 100-400mm toes, it’s time Canon get stepping on theirs with a 150-600mm zoom lens. Do you agree?</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 13, 2017)

I'd consider a Canon 150 or 200-600mm lens, but I doubt that it would be as affordable, and if its f/5.6, much larger and heavier, not to mention the $3500 price.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 13, 2017)

How about a insanely sharp 200mm f2.8 on a 100 mp body capable of 5x digital zoom?


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 13, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> How about a insanely sharp 200mm f2.8 on a 100 mp body capable of 5x digital zoom?



5x crop from a 100MP sensor only leaves you about 4MP worth of data.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 13, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > How about a insanely sharp 200mm f2.8 on a 100 mp body capable of 5x digital zoom?
> ...



This is with the 5DS- maybe about 4x. Considering it's with my old 100-400, I would expect at least this quality in a digital zoom.



Thom Richard Hot Stuff screen shot 5172 web © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 13, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-tamron-100-400mm-f4-5-6-3-vc/">seen the patent</a>, and soon we’ll see the lens. Tamron is going to join Sigma and Canon with their own 100-400mm lens. The Tamron will be faster than the Sigma at the short end with an f-stop of 4.5 and slower than Canon at the long end at f/6.3. The new lens will obviously be image stabilized and no doubt it’ll be priced aggressively.</p>
> 
> <p>Now that Tamron and Sigma are both stepping on Canon’s 100-400mm toes, it’s time Canon get stepping on theirs with a 150-600mm zoom lens. Do you agree?</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


I think 150-600 would be a mistake. 70-200 lenses are a staple in most camera bags and by making the zoom 200-600, you change it from a 4X zoom to a 3X zoom and should be able to make it a sharper lens.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 14, 2017)

Tamron's recent lenses are all fairly nice for the price, so sure, why not make a competitive 100-400. The older Canon was never that good and the mark II ramped the price up and, unsurprisingly, hasn't set the world on fire as a result. If Sigma and Tamron want to come in and take on that roughly-£1000 price tier which Canon has abandoned, sure, go for it. Here's a real easy prediction: it'll be better than the Canon mk I, worse than the mk II, and the only people who will really complain about it will be the ones who haven't used it. (Just like every other Sigma, Tamron, and Samyang lens.)


As for Canon, 200-500 is the way to go in terms of making a competitive product. Right now, thanks to their 200-500, D500 and now D850, wildlife and open field/long-distance sports photographers are switching, in droves, to Nikon. As someone with more serious (as in 'National Geographic and the BBC fight for their time' serious) wildlife photographers in my address book than I care to count, it's been really shocking to see how many have switched over in the last 12 months. To the best of my recollection at this moment, I only know two pros who haven't yet switched, and for one of those I know it's only until the 7D3 comes out and then they'll be making their decision based on the spec of that. Less verifiably, conversations I've had recently with several highstreet store managers and a couple of Sigma reps also suggest (but it's third-hand reporting) there's been a huge swing from Canon to Nikon in terms of these kinds of lenses and the bodies they're mostly used with. Yes, Canon is still the #1 for every beginner, most product photographers and most wedding/event photographers, but the wildlife and sports markets are being way better served by Nikon right now.

Myself, as a product pro who happens to dabble in wildlife as a hobby, even I'm eyeing up those Nikons and thinking it might be worth the switch.

It's already too late for many—Canon really should not have left it this long for the 7D3—but all is not entirely lost. Of course for shorter-range sports, Canon is still dominating the market with the 1DX2, and a used 7D and used 400mm f/5.6 or 100-400(mk I) is still the go-to for beginners. But everything between those two extremes is slipping away. If Canon wants to keep what remains of that vast middle portion of the sports/wildlife market, they need a combination which can at least match the Nikon combos. A 7D3 with no low-pass filter and a 200-500 f/5.6 IS at a good price (remember, that Nikon zoom costs the same as the Canon 400mm prime in most countries, yet is undeniably better in every single regard; Canon have been using the reputation of their big white lenses to price gouge for years) could be enough, assuming they're built well of course.
Going for 150-600 just means lower image quality, bigger bulk, and a higher price. At best you could eliminate one of those aspects by increasing the other two; image quality can be upped at the cost of size and price, size can be brought down at the cost of image quality and price, or price can be brought down at the cost of image quality and size. You don't get to have a super fun time with all three. That focal length simply can not be the quality, size, _and_ price all at once that Canon needs in order to be competitive with Nikon's current golden child.

Of course, if the 7D3 turns out to have a low-pass filter then it's all irrelevant anyway. That'll be Canon willfully giving away the entire sports and wildlife markets other than the absolute beginners and the few indoor pros.


----------



## slclick (Sep 14, 2017)

Love my Sigma 100-400, don't miss my Canon Mk 2 at all.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 14, 2017)

The Nikon 200-500 is amazing for the price and I think Canon needs something similar. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600 also get very high reviews. As someone has said, I think 200-600 (instead of 150-600) would be great. Honestly I think a fixed 600 f5.6L would be killer and sell very well. It would be lighter and cheaper than the 600 f4L with the same build quality and sharpness. Or maybe even the same in a 500 f5.6L to keep price down.


----------



## Talys (Sep 14, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> As for Canon, 200-500 is the way to go in terms of making a competitive product.



Frankly, I think the grass is always greener on the other side. The 100-400LII is the finest zoom lens I've ever owned -- including the 70-200/2.8 IS II, and the 1.4x extender option gives it a very flexible focal range. The weight, size and MFD are spectacular, plus 100-200mm is an amazingly useful if you want to keep the lens on the body without swapping a lot. Plus it fits in holsters and spaces designed for 70-200/2.8 (which is a lot), and uses 77mm filters.

Its weakness is tree-fold: the price gives people who aren't really serious a double-take, the extender takes it to f/8 on the long end, and there is a natural greediness of wanting a longer telephoto. I'll admit it; that's why I bought the 150-600 Sigma instead, first.

But until I used the 100-400 II, I really didn't appreciate how good it was for handheld shooting. As a result, it's become my carry-around and stays with me almost all the time -- it's in my passenger seat holster, and nearly always the lens that I have in a backpack, messenger or holster most accessible to me. I could never do that with any lens with 500mm+, unless it was something fancy like DO.

On planned outings, I still take my 150-600 and appreciate the focal length, but like a 200-500 (if Canon made one similar in size to Nikon), that would just be too large a lens to carry everywhere, which just reduces a lot of shooting opportunities.

An example, today -- tons of traffic, so instead of going home, I pulled into a park on the way for half an hour to allow it to mellow out, and just snapped a few pictures. Got lucky and caught some nice pictures a hawk and a Killdeer (didn't know what that was, had to ID it after) 

If I didn't have the 100-400LII, I would have ended up either waiting it out in a restaurant or toughing it out on the highway, neither of which is as fun or good for my health as a short hike 




MrFotoFool said:


> The Nikon 200-500 is amazing for the price and I think Canon needs something similar.



I agree. I think the price point is what it all comes down to. Add $250+ just for clear and polarizing filters, though.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2017)

Talys said:


> On planned outings, I still take my 150-600 and appreciate the focal length, but like a 200-500 (if Canon made one similar in size to Nikon), that would just be too large a lens to carry everywhere, which just reduces a lot of shooting opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Nikon with hood and ring weighs 2.4 kg, 0.4 kg more than the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm. It's very sharp close up (if you don't get a dud, and one site had 2 duds out of 5) but is less sharp than the Tamron at longer distances. Several review sites recommend the Tamron 150-600mm over the 200-500 f/5.6. So, I don't think Canon needs one like that!


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 14, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > On planned outings, I still take my 150-600 and appreciate the focal length, but like a 200-500 (if Canon made one similar in size to Nikon), that would just be too large a lens to carry everywhere, which just reduces a lot of shooting opportunities.
> ...


Depends on what format you are shooting, Tamron 150-600 seems to work better on FF cameras. Also from what I have been seeing with Nikon shooters here most prefer to buy Nikon lenses as they hold their value better than Tamron/Sigma lenses which you can buy for nearly half the price of new lens on used market.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 14, 2017)

I am still waiting for that _"The zoom ring goes in the wrong direction (compared to Canon). DOA!"_ faction ;D



Canon Rumors said:


> ... Now that Tamron and Sigma are both stepping on Canon’s 100-400mm toes, it’s time Canon get stepping on theirs with a 150-600mm zoom lens. Do you agree?


Every new lens is interesting, so bring it on, Canon. 
But I really don't believe that Canon is planning to play in the same market as SigRon with their 150-600mm lenses. 
But as discussed before there is a lot of space between them and the big whites, in function, IQ and price.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2017)

Depends on what format you are shooting, Tamron 150-600 seems to work better on FF cameras. Also from what I have been seeing with Nikon shooters here most prefer to buy Nikon lenses as they hold their value better than Tamron/Sigma lenses which you can buy for nearly half the price of new lens on used market.
[/quote]

I use my 150-600mm on a 5DSR, which has the same pixel size as APS-C, and its relative performance to my Canon lenses is the same as on my 5DIV - and I nearly always severely crop.

The financial investment argument breaks down if you are comparing a cheap easy to sell used lens with a far more expensive Canon or Nikon. If you lose half the price of a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm, you lose about $400, and they are easy to sell. Buy a big white, and you lose 3-5x that as soon as you unwrap it. 

Anyway, on eBay UK completed listings, used Sigma 150-600mm Cs routinely have sold at £650-700 whereas new cost £799-899. So, they are holding their prices well.


----------



## Talys (Sep 14, 2017)

AlanF said:


> The Nikon with hood and ring weighs 2.4 kg, 0.4 kg more than the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm. It's very sharp close up (if you don't get a dud, and one site had 2 duds out of 5) but is less sharp than the Tamron at longer distances. Several review sites recommend the Tamron 150-600mm over the 200-500 f/5.6. So, I don't think Canon needs one like that!



Sadly, there is a ritual dance of buying a first party lens because of the price. I've been there and done it myself.

The 200-500/5.6 is like a Canon 70-300/5.6. There's nothing really spectacular about it except the price/value proposition. It's pretty easy to convince yourself that it's all you'll need, because somewhere, someone endorses it (you'll ignore all the folks who might suggest a superior 3rd party lens), and it IS possible to take some good pictures with it.

From there, one of two things happen. 

1. You weren't really seriously interested in photography anyways, and after a brief flirtation with the gear, you now are a happy and proud owner of another expensive gadget you don't use, sitting beside the Xbox you don't play on and the Surface Studio that you use to check email.

2. You are serious about photography, use it for a while, then eventually upgrade to something better.

The difference between the Canon 100-400 II and the Nikon 200-500 is that there are plenty of pros that think the 100-400 II is a top-shelf zoom, while there are very few pros that would consider ever carrying the 200-500. But that doesn't really matter; for the hobbyist and occasional user, "Nikon" and "200-500mm" is all they need to see, much like "xx Megapixels".

It's a great marketing thing, and a stepping stone, so Canon needs to make one  Besides, no matter how crappy the IQ, they'll sell tons.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Sep 14, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Now that Tamron and Sigma are both stepping on Canon’s 100-400mm toes, it’s time Canon get stepping on theirs with a 150-600mm zoom lens. Do you agree?</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>



I do not agree. Canon could make much more money with "slow" primes below 2000$ like the following:


300mm 4L IS ii (with or without integrated 1.4 extender)
400mm 5.6 L IS (with or without integrated 1.4 extender)
500mm 5.6/6.3 L IS

The 150-600ers are already quite good.

Cheers.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Sep 14, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Right now, thanks to their 200-500, D500 and now D850, wildlife and open field/long-distance sports photographers are switching, in droves, to Nikon.



Do you have any supportive evidence to this claim or it's it merely opinionated flatulence?


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 14, 2017)

camerabug said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, thanks to their 200-500, D500 and now D850, wildlife and open field/long-distance sports photographers are switching, in droves, to Nikon.
> ...



of course not and it's only speculation because such data does not exist

nowhere when buying the D500 + 200-500mm are you asked: "are you buying this because you're switching from *stupid* canon 7d2 + 100-400mm and because 500mm?"


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 14, 2017)

I am certain that a 150-600 or 200-600 would be popular, but I will continue to wait for a:

300mm f/3.5 or f/4 with or without IS, with or without DO
400mm f/5 or f/5.6 with or without IS, with or without DO
500mm f/5.6 with or without IS, with or without DO

All with decent AF, of course, and a reasonable price.

I realize that I will be waiting a long time. Possibly as long as AHSanford has been waiting for a new 50mm 1.4, which I think is a sizeable fraction of eternity.



Canon Rumors said:


> Now that Tamron and Sigma are both stepping on Canon’s 100-400mm toes, it’s time Canon get stepping on theirs with a 150-600mm zoom lens. Do you agree?</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>
> [/html]


----------



## Phil995511 (Sep 14, 2017)

"Now that Tamron and Sigma are both stepping on Canon’s 100-400mm toes, it’s time Canon get stepping on theirs with a 150-600mm zoom lens. Do you agree?"

It is certain that the more Canon takes time to release a 200-600 mm more they lose market share in favor of Sigma and Tamron, just as they lose market share in favor of Sony by refusing to intruduce advanced video functions in high-end boxes like the 5D MK IV. The paying C-Log firmware is a very bad advertisement for Canon and many other video functions would be needed (cf magic lantern for example).

Contrary to the announcements made, I will be very surprised that they release this model to F5,6 but rather to F6,3. They would risk to compete too much the lenses of type 500mm F4, 600mm F4, etc, unless they sell it at a very high price, as some of suggest it. They can compete with Sigma and Tamron only by offering an affordable price...


----------



## browndt (Sep 14, 2017)

I'd rather have a smaller 400mm f5.6. In the same way Nikon reduced the size of their older 300mm f4 by half, I'd like the same for the 400mm.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 14, 2017)

Talys said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > As for Canon, 200-500 is the way to go in terms of making a competitive product.
> ...



I more-or-less confirm everything in this post.

The lens on my 5DMk3 (95% of the time)? The Canon 100-400 II. This lens, along with the EOS M 11-22 (which is on my EOS M2 95% of the time), is 'tied for first' as far as favorite lenses are concerned.

Speaking of the 100-400II, when attached via adapter to an M10...this combination produced decent eclipse photos (one shown below):


----------



## Plainsman (Sep 14, 2017)

...why not a 100-450? 
That extra 50mm would really bring the customers to Tamron even at the slightly increased price.


----------



## -1 (Sep 15, 2017)

A Canon 200-600mm could show some "responsibility" in keeping it 3x while beating Nikon at the long end. Would be a double jab that would not cannibalize on exiting glass... )

It would probably not be hard for Canon to beat Nikon in both IQ and QC!


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 15, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Depends on what format you are shooting, Tamron 150-600 seems to work better on FF cameras. Also from what I have been seeing with Nikon shooters here most prefer to buy Nikon lenses as they hold their value better than Tamron/Sigma lenses which you can buy for nearly half the price of new lens on used market.



I use my 150-600mm on a 5DSR, which has the same pixel size as APS-C, and its relative performance to my Canon lenses is the same as on my 5DIV - and I nearly always severely crop.

The financial investment argument breaks down if you are comparing a cheap easy to sell used lens with a far more expensive Canon or Nikon. If you lose half the price of a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm, you lose about $400, and they are easy to sell. Buy a big white, and you lose 3-5x that as soon as you unwrap it. 

Anyway, on eBay UK completed listings, used Sigma 150-600mm Cs routinely have sold at £650-700 whereas new cost £799-899. So, they are holding their prices well.
[/quote]
Here in India Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm can be purchased for nearly half off the price of new lens. I havent purchased any big white(only rent it from time to time) so no idea how much they lose their value. Although from time to time I see 500mm f/4 on sale and the prices are really tempting.


----------

