# EF 400mm f/5.6L USM vs Tamron 150-600?



## sanjosedave (Dec 11, 2014)

I've started kicking the tires for a super telephoto - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM vs Tamron 150-600?

The reviews on Amazon for both are great. With either, I'd try a 2x III converter, which I already have.

I would be using it for sports, birds and wildlife at National Parks/wildlife refuges and zoos.

I will be using it with 60D/6D, which I have today, and maybe/probably later, the 7DII

Feedback?

Thx


----------



## dcm (Dec 11, 2014)

The Canon converters don't work with the Tamron.


----------



## tayassu (Dec 11, 2014)

I would forget the 2x converter, you'd have no AF on any Canon camera...
As good as the 400mm is optically, I'd never buy a telephoto lens without stabilisation. Never ever.
The Tamron would be a no-brainer for me there, although I'd consider the new Sigma 150-600's and the new Canon 100-400.


----------



## sdfreeland (Dec 11, 2014)

The Canon 2x won't even fit on the Tamron. You would have to use 3rd party like a kenko, but even then many of the kenkos would just give you an error. You have to find the correct version.

There are a some tests out there that show a 2x on a crop camera for lenses like these will give you the same quality as just doubling the size of the photo and cropping. The main difference you'll see between these two lenses is weight, focus speed and image stabilization. The 400 5.6 will be a lot lighter and compact with super quick focus. The Tamron has more reach but is a little bit slower in focusing and is larger. Optically the 400 5.6 at 400mm is slightly better, but for most real world scenarios the difference would be negligible. 

I have the 150-600mm now and would recommend it. It's pretty tough for birds in flight and fast moving objects at short distances, but it's still pretty good.


----------



## -Gamer- (Dec 11, 2014)

I have the Canon 400 f/5.6L with the 7D Mark ll, and am happy with the combination. It doesn't have image stabilization and the minimum focus distance is 11.5 feet, both of which are not a problem for me but it's something that might be an issue for you depending on your shooting conditions and hand holding technique. Could always rent both and try em' out and see which best suits you, there's also the new Canon 100-400 zoom. 

Here's a video on Youtube testing out the Tamron along with the Canon

http://youtu.be/1fmMG5jgDwk


----------



## NancyP (Dec 11, 2014)

The EF 400 f/5.6L takes some getting used to if you haven't shot non-stabilized supertelephotos handheld. With practice at holding and panning, one can get tack-sharp shots of birds in flight. Generally with adequate technique one can shoot 1/500 sec and get keepers on an APS-C body, and I have shot as low as 1/125 sec with a few keepers. The lens is very well balanced on larger prosumer bodies (mine is on a 60D - I think that I wouldn't like it on an SL1, though). I can carry this lens all day and not mind the weight. I bought this lens about 3 years ago, well before the Tamron debuted. I haven't handled the Tamron, but I would imagine that there is a trade off between more weight and the IS, versus light (1.2 kg) and no IS. Tamron gives you some versatility lacking in the prime. I happily use the 400 prime specifically for birding, and have a 70-200 zoom and 1.4x II extender for when I need versatility.

Could you stretch your budget to the EF 100-400L IS II? If so, wait until one shows up at the rental house or shop, and try it. The MTF curves (contrast and resolution) look very promising indeed.


----------



## sanjosedave (Dec 11, 2014)

Today, I use my 70-200 with the 2x converter on the 60D for max range, no IS, handheld. The attached pic is an example of this combo. 1/2500 sec; f/5.6; ISO 1000

I'm pretty sure I had AF using the converter.


----------



## Jan Jasinski (Dec 11, 2014)

tayassu said:


> As good as the 400mm is optically, I'd never buy a telephoto lens without stabilisation. Never ever.


Why never ever? I use the 400 f/5.6L and get some sweet results...
I easily get sharp photos at 1/100 or lower:


R E V E R S E by Jan Jasinski, on Flickr



M A J E S T I C by Jan Jasinski, on Flickr



D I R T Y by Jan Jasinski, on Flickr

Even manage at *1/15th...*


T R I P L E by Jan Jasinski, on Flickr


----------



## nc0b (Dec 11, 2014)

I cannot comment on the Tamrom, but I do own the 400mm f/5.6 and both a 60D and 6D. I have better results with my 6D and 400mm for BIF than with the 60D. Elk and antelope in a field work just fine with the 60D. I do use a 1.4X TC III on both my 70-200 IS f/4 & f/2.8 II on occasion, but I generally prefer to grab my 300mm f/4 IS or 400 5.6. Don't let anyone tell you the 400mm 5.6 is no good since it has no IS. I have some really sharp golden eagle shots taken with the 400 and the 6D. How many decades have photographers been shooting wildlife without IS lenses and with modest ASA film speeds? I did sell my 2X TC III since it only worked with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and the slow AF for BIF just didn't compare to the 400mm. Unfortunately I never heard back from the local photog who bought my 2X to use on his 500mm II and 1DX.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Dec 11, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> I've started kicking the tires for a super telephoto - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM vs Tamron 150-600? With either, I'd try a 2x III converter, which I already have.



I have a 5D3, the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM and the 2x III converter. Here's my 2 cents regarding the 400/2x converter:

1) You lose autofocus so unless you are good at MF (which I'm not) you're not gonna like the combo.
2) You will shoot at a minimum f11 so you better have good lighting.
3) IQ doesn't suffer (at least IMHO) as much as you'd think.
4) As someone else mentioned, your converter will not work with the Tamron (at least I don't think it will).

That being said, the 400 lens is AMAZING! Well worth the money. (I should probably just sell the 2x converter, I doubt I'll ever use it again.)

Can't help you with the other lens . . .


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 11, 2014)

I have plenty of experience with the 400/5.6L, and it is a pleasure to handle.

The Tamron 150-600: I have only touched it briefly on a friends Nikon D7100. So it won't be an ultimately fair or thorough comparison, but it feels a lot heavier (without checking I think it's about 700grams heavier) and behaves a bit front-heavy on her camera. The IS is mighty nice on it and it could "save" a lot of shooting opportunities. We didn't have the chance to experiment much since it was after sunset, and we were trying to stalk a flock of mostly dark furred Fallow deers against a dusky forest background (and I think it should mostly be considered a fair weather, sunny, mid-day lens with that aperture), but her initial response was that it was hard to keep it steady on the subject at max zoom. I could manage it a bit better, but it will surely benefit from being attached to a mono- or tripod.
Can't say anything about IQ after only a handful of shots and they were only looked at on her cameras screen.

Oh, and it takes 95mm filters.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2014)

I had a 400mm f/5.6, it was sharp enough, not as good as my 100-400mm L, but close. without IS, the issue is having to crank up the shutter speed to 1/1000. Unless its a bright day, I have to use ISO levels that are too high.

Then, there was the issue of MFD. Its worthless for small birds or objects because you can't get close. I don't see Canon updating the lens, its a bargain for the price, and few would pick it over the 100-400mm L for about the same price. 

I've yet to see a sharp photo from the Tamron at 600mm. At 400mm, its pretty much equal to the 400mm f/5.6.


----------



## jackb (Dec 11, 2014)

The comparison at TDP shows the 400L and Tamron IQ the same at 400L f5.6 and the 400L sharper at 560mm f8 with 1.4x converter than the Tamron at 600mm f8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

When I purchased my 400L 9 months ago, I was unable to find a single sharp image on the Net taken with the Tamron at 600mm. The 400L has been very sharp and very fast and accurate AF (on 5D3).

I have 2 friends who shoot the Tamron (on 70D) and they say at 600mm they need to stop it down to at least f8 for decent IQ. The TDP chart shows it is better at f11.


----------



## dpc (Dec 11, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> I've started kicking the tires for a super telephoto - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM vs Tamron 150-600?
> 
> The reviews on Amazon for both are great. With either, I'd try a 2x III converter, which I already have.
> 
> ...



The 400 is a good lens. Nice and sharp. I had one for a while but didn't like the lack of IS. I know you can get good shots with it with good technique, but I wasn't as consistently successful as I'd like. I traded it for a 300mm f/4 IS with a 1.4x Mark III teleconverter. The IS is an old version, obviously, but I've used this combo consistently for BIF and other wildlife photography and had a lot of success with it. I recommend it. I think, though, that I may replace it with either the Sigma 150-600 or the new Canon 100-400 Mark II for the added versatility. I'll wait for some reviews and think about things a bit.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

I have the 400 5.6 and love it. It's very sharp and pretty light weight. It's very easy to hand hold and shoot birds in flight or any fast moving subject. It focuses very fast. I Have the 100-400L too and I find the 400 5.6 sharper and feels better to shoot with. Now if you go with a 7d2 get the 1.4 extender and it'll auto focus with that not the 2x. Go to lens rentals sight type in the lenses you're looking at and roger cicala has a short description of the 400 5.6 and other lenses. For indoor sports if it's not well lit you may want to consider the canon 300 f4L IS. That'll double your light and if you need to add a 1.4 extender then you'll have a 420 5.6 IS. As far as the 400 5.6 not having IS I've never found it a problem for action cause I either pan or use a fast shutter speed to freeze the action. Of you can afford the new 100-400 coming out I might wait and see what the reviews are like. So for me between the two your asking about is go with the canon because of the compact size for handholding action shots, faster focus and being a little sharper than the tamron.


----------



## dpc (Dec 11, 2014)

I'm posting a few pictures from the 7D with the 300mm L f/4 + 1.4x Mk III.


----------



## dpc (Dec 11, 2014)

One more.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

dpc said:


> I'm posting a few pictures from the 7D with the 300mm L f/4 + 1.4x Mk III.



Great shots


----------



## dpc (Dec 11, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> dpc said:
> 
> 
> > I'm posting a few pictures from the 7D with the 300mm L f/4 + 1.4x Mk III.
> ...




Thanks. I really do like this lens/teleconverter combination. So much so that the thought of trading the 300 off is quite painful. I guess we'll see how much pain there really is when it comes to the crunch.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

dpc said:


> Ryan85 said:
> 
> 
> > dpc said:
> ...



Lol I hear you


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 11, 2014)

Adding a little extra: My 400/5.6L has taken a serious beating, and no matter what Canon will release in the near future (I might have to eat this statement later) I will sell mine and buy a new identical one (minus misaligned elements and metal dents), and build around it with other lenses that suits me. So I would say that the 400/5.6L in comparison with the Tamron is well worth the money even though it lacks IS and has no zoom.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Adding a little extra: My 400/5.6L has taken a serious beating, and no matter what Canon will release in the near future (I might have to eat this statement later) I will sell mine and buy a new identical one (minus misaligned elements and metal dents), and build around it with other lenses that suits me. So I would say that the 400/5.6L in comparison with the Tamron is well worth the money even though it lacks IS and has no zoom.



+1


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2014)

jackb said:


> The comparison at TDP shows the 400L and Tamron IQ the same at 400L f5.6 and the 400L sharper at 560mm f8 with 1.4x converter than the Tamron at 600mm f8:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2
> 
> ...


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Dec 11, 2014)

I love the 400 5.6l lens. it has gone beyond every thing I expected of it . I wanted the Tamron but it was on back order and a huge waiting list at the brick and mortar store I do my camera buying and losing time on the fall migration I bought the 400 and its been a great addition to my line up. Now I just bought the 1.4 tele lll for longer reach static shots on a tripod. it pairs well with my 70D and t1i and the 70-200 f4 is.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> I love the 400 5.6l lens. it has gone beyond every thing I expected of it . I wanted the Tamron but it was on back order and a huge waiting list at the brick and mortar store I do my camera buying and losing time on the fall migration I bought the 400 and its been a great addition to my line up. Now I just bought the 1.4 tele lll for longer reach static shots on a tripod. it pairs well with my 70D and t1i and the 70-200 f4 is.




Are you happy with the sharpness of the lens with the extender?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2014)

jackb said:


> The comparison at TDP shows the 400L and Tamron IQ the same at 400L f5.6 and the 400L sharper at 560mm f8 with 1.4x converter than the Tamron at 600mm f8:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2
> 
> ...



If you haven't used a lens, don't give advice about it based on your inadequate scanning of the net. There are now lots of very sharp images from the Tamron at 600mm on the net. Here is a thread from Canonrumors. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.msg426389#msg426389

Many of these shots were taken at distances too close for the 400mm f/5.6 L and under conditions where the lack of IS would have made it unusable. The 400mm L f/5.6 is a very popular lens, much loved by many members of Canonrumors and so must be more than satisfactory. The Tamron 150-600mm is an excellent lens, best used at f/8, and is more flexible than the 400mm L, but heavier and more bulky. My copy of the Tamron is just as sharp at 400mm as was my 400mm L f/5.6. The new 100-400mm L II has far better MTFs than the old 400mm L and four stops of IS and a minimum focus distance much, much shorter. Art Morris, the doyen of bird photography, now insists on IS. You don't have to follow his advice.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Dec 11, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> beforeEos Camaras said:
> 
> 
> > I love the 400 5.6l lens. it has gone beyond every thing I expected of it . I wanted the Tamron but it was on back order and a huge waiting list at the brick and mortar store I do my camera buying and losing time on the fall migration I bought the 400 and its been a great addition to my line up. Now I just bought the 1.4 tele lll for longer reach static shots on a tripod. it pairs well with my 70D and t1i and the 70-200 f4 is.
> ...



on my 70-200 yes but I have not been back to plum island to try out the 400 1.4 combo yet
what little I did use it on the 400 on cape cod it was ok just not in extreme low light f8 is a bear and using live view for auto focus I have yet to master.
but manual focus works well


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

I think he/she will be happy with either lens. It just depends on what it'll be used for


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 11, 2014)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> Ryan85 said:
> 
> 
> > beforeEos Camaras said:
> ...



Got you. I was thinking about useing it with the 1.4 extender with a tripod for still subjects like elk beded down.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Dec 13, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> beforeEos Camaras said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan85 said:
> ...



yes it will be good here is a hand held with the 1.4iii at sunset sorry not having any wild life shots but its the best I can show. this was taken about 2 hours after I bought the extender still getting used to it and trying to rember manual low light focus.


----------



## lescrane (Dec 17, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> I would be using it for sports, birds and wildlife at National Parks/wildlife refuges and zoos.
> 
> I will be using it with 60D/6D, which I have today, and maybe/probably later, the 7DII
> 
> ...



Sanjosedave,

Sounds like you want to use this for many subjects, so without getting into arguments over what is sharper, eg a 400L + Tc or Tamron 150-600...at 600, my read is that you really need a *zoom* not a fixed focal length lens. For example, if you are at the zoo and close up , 400mm may be too much. If you are taking birds at a wildlife refuge(or anywhere), the question is: what kind of birds? Great Blue Herons or warblers? How close will you be??

I owned the 400mm L years ago. of course it's super sharp and super light. However, many times I wished it was longer. If I needed shorter and was stuck with the TC on, what would I do? Reach for a second camera on my neck. Also, I do not like using tripods and the lack of IS hurt.

I also owned the 100-400L. It was great for zoos, great for large, tame birds. Now I have the Tamron 150-600 and it has opened new worlds to me that I could not afford before. I can get smaller birds; I can get any bird from further away w/.o having to sneak up on it and have it fly off. It is much heavier of course than the fixed 400L, I don't know if that matters to you. I use it w/a monopod to get the weight of my arms/back.

In general I find that zooms have gotten so much better over the years w/optics and stabilization that I have no more use for fixed lenses. That being said, if I had the $$$ for a 400 DO II I'd buy one.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 17, 2014)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> Ryan85 said:
> 
> 
> > beforeEos Camaras said:
> ...



Thanks for sharing and letting me know


----------

