# Lensrentals.com Compares Lenses at 400mm



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 18, 2016)

```
Lensrentals.com had some fun and tested various lenses at 400mm, some are zooms and others are primes. As you might expect the 400mm f/2.8 lenses came out on top, in price and performance.</p>
<p>From Roger:</p>
<blockquote><p>I don’t think we really did too much here today except to have some fun and confirm, in numbers, what most people already know. The 400mm f/2.8 lenses, if you can afford one and don’t mind carrying it, are amazing. Canon’s new 400mm f/4 DO IS II is also superb, at least as good as the 300mm f/2.8 IS II with a teleconverter.</p>
<p>Canon’s 100-400 IS II is, from an MTF standpoint, the best zoom at 400mm, but the Nikon 200-500 and both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s are also really good, far less expensive, and have greater range. The Nikon 80-400 VR II is not quite as good at 400 as the competition. <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/">Read the full article at Lensrentals.com</a></p></blockquote>
<p>This is a great era in lens design, as it appears to be really hard to make the wrong decision.</p>
<p>Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II: <strong>USA:</strong> <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732109-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2buZN2O">Amazon</a> <strong>UK:</strong> <a href="http://tidd.ly/6aa33e2b">Park Cameras</a> <strong>Germany: </strong><a href="https://ad.zanox.com/ppc/?39064896C77526565&ULP=[[https://www.calumetphoto.de/product/Canon-EF-400-mm/2-8L-IS-USM-II/CAN40028ISUSMII]]">Calumet</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 18, 2016)

Interesting comparison, looking at how bad Nikon 80-400 is no wonder Canon didnt release their 100-400mm replacement for that long.


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 18, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>This is a great era in lens design, as it appears to be really hard to make the wrong decision.</p>



True story.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 18, 2016)

Thanks for sharing.

Yeah, nothing too surprising here, if you pay top dollar you get an awesome lens. But also just as good, that a $1k gets you into the 400mm club with a lens that is very solid and is capable of delivering some solid images. Sigma and Tamron have really added an extra dimension.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 18, 2016)

I've reviewed most of these save the super teles, and I think it is telling that I chose the 100-400L II personally more over ergonomic choices than absolute optical performance. Tamron (and then Sigma) really did an exceptional job with their budget long telephoto zooms. Interesting article, and helps confirm the advice that I give to people regarding choosing their telephoto zoom by other factors than optical performance.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I've reviewed most of these save the super teles, and I think it is telling that I chose the 100-400L II personally more over ergonomic choices than absolute optical performance. Tamron (and then Sigma) really did an exceptional job with their budget long telephoto zooms. Interesting article, and helps confirm the advice that I give to people regarding choosing their telephoto zoom by other factors than optical performance.



Yes, lenses like the Tamron are fantastic bang for the buck....

One thing not covered was resistance to dust and moisture..... The Canon primes, with their constant length, are quite resistant, while the Tamron and Sigma, and to a lesser extent the 100-400, are dust pumps!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2016)

I've been shooting a ef 400mm f2.8 LIS for many years now and it's one of my most used lenses. From and optics and af performance point of view...it doesn't get much better than this.


----------



## candc (Aug 18, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I've reviewed most of these save the super teles, and I think it is telling that I chose the 100-400L II personally more over ergonomic choices than absolute optical performance. Tamron (and then Sigma) really did an exceptional job with their budget long telephoto zooms. Interesting article, and helps confirm the advice that I give to people regarding choosing their telephoto zoom by other factors than optical performance.
> ...



I like my tamron a lot but it really has gathered a lot of dust behind the front element. It might not be visible in photos but I think it is causing some extra flaring and bright spots at times. I am going to send it to tamron for the latest firmware and have them clean it as well.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 19, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I've reviewed most of these save the super teles, and I think it is telling that I chose the 100-400L II personally more over ergonomic choices than absolute optical performance. Tamron (and then Sigma) really did an exceptional job with their budget long telephoto zooms. Interesting article, and helps confirm the advice that I give to people regarding choosing their telephoto zoom by other factors than optical performance.



You might review but I actually do bird photography at least twice weekly and own both the 100-400mm II and the Sigma 150-600mm C. My choice is the Sigma apart from the odd occasions when I want to carry a smaller lens or need better water resistance. The Sigma is indistinguishable from the Canon at 400mm in both optical quality and AF but has 600mm, which is oh so useful for extra reach.


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 19, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I've been shooting a ef 400mm f2.8 LIS for many years now and it's one of my most used lenses. From and optics and af performance point of view...it doesn't get much better than this.



+1 for the II.

Nothing better exists.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

expatinasia said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I've been shooting a ef 400mm f2.8 LIS for many years now and it's one of my most used lenses. From and optics and af performance point of view...it doesn't get much better than this.
> ...



I have a mk I version. There are no differences optically, although some say the mk I is a wisker sharper. But the mk II is a LOT lighter and easier to carry / handle.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 20, 2016)

AlanF said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I've reviewed most of these save the super teles, and I think it is telling that I chose the 100-400L II personally more over ergonomic choices than absolute optical performance. Tamron (and then Sigma) really did an exceptional job with their budget long telephoto zooms. Interesting article, and helps confirm the advice that I give to people regarding choosing their telephoto zoom by other factors than optical performance.
> ...



I owned the Tamron 150-600 prior to the 100-400L II. The biggest deal to me was really about transporting it. I can lay the mounted 100-400L II in the top pouch of my backpack, while the longer Tamron (or Sigma) would have to stand upright in the bottom compartment reaching up into the top. But you're right; I'm not a birder, so I don't often need the longer reach, so the extra hassle isn't worth it for me. I throw an 1.4x III on there when I want a little more reach.


----------



## j-nord (Aug 22, 2016)

Great review! It's like a 1 stop shop for 400 comparison. Used to have to really dig around to get a good picture of how all these lenses compared to one another. It's unfortunate that the Sigma 150-600 Sport couldn't be included because it always interested me more than the cheap sig/tam super zooms.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 23, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Great review! It's like a 1 stop shop for 400 comparison. Used to have to really dig around to get a good picture of how all these lenses compared to one another. It's unfortunate that the Sigma 150-600 Sport couldn't be included because it always interested me more than the cheap sig/tam super zooms.



I can definitely see Roger's point, though. The Sigma 150-600 S is the most front heavy lens I've ever used; it makes handholding more difficult even than the weight suggests because you have to support a lot of weight quite far out from your body when the lens is zoomed out.

But yes, it is really solid optically and has a fantastic build. The only other disappointment I had with it is that it doesn't hold aperture values very long (even compared to the other 150-600s) and arrives at f/6.3 earlier than any of the rest.


----------

