# 100-400mm: Canon vs Tamron vs Sigma



## AlanF (Dec 22, 2017)

I have been doing many comparisons of my Canon 100-400mm II (I have looked at 3 copies over the years) and my new Tamron 100-400mm, and looking at the records of the 5 copies of the Sigma 100-400mm I have tested. 

On the 5DSR and 5DIV, the Canon has the best IS and is the most stable in the viewfinder, the Tamron next best, perhaps a stop worse in practice, and the Sigma the poorest. The AF of the Canon is the fastest, the Tamron next and the Sigma somewhat behind. The IQs are quite similar.

Matters are different on the M5. The Tamron really comes into its own and has at least equal IQ to the Canon at longer distances. The Sigma is hopeless and doesn't focus properly and gives blurred images - something I found early on with liveview but ignored. I have just been told on one of my exceedingly rare visits to Fred Miranda that it is known that some Sigma lenses are not compatible with liveview.

In a big surprise this evening, I found that at 1.6m close up, not only is the Tamron sharper than the Canon on both the 5DSR and M5, the image is 20% bigger in linear dimensions (the Canon is known to have severe focus breathing). At 19m, the Tamton's image is 4.6% larger. In practice, the magnification of the Canon at its MFD is no greater than the Tamron at its longer MFD because of the focus breathing.

I think the Tamron 100-400mm is by far the best long telephoto for the M5. It is light, balances very nicely, the focus speed is limited by the camera and so the faster AF of the Canon lenses is neutralised. The Tamron seems more sensitive to mirror slap on the 5DSR, and this doesn't affect the image from the M5.


----------



## jasny (Dec 22, 2017)

That's interesting and a little bit suprising (Canon vs Tamron). But I use Canon with 1.4x III extender quite a lot. Surely, Tamron will not autofocus with any TC on 80d. How about different TCs on M5?

As for Canon focus breathing, I can confirm. It is significant even at distance of 50m (!), I can easily spot the difference in framing between 400/5.6 prime and zoom.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 22, 2017)

The Tamron won't work with the 1.4xTC III as it registers f/13 on both the M5 and 5DSR and won't focus.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 22, 2017)

F/13? Interesting. A compatibility issue? Given that the Tamron presumably lies to the camera that it's f/5.6 at the tele end (like other 3rd party f/6.3 lenses) it seems to me that adding an 1.4x would make the combo nominally f/8 and thus OVF AF capable (and the "real" aperture would be f/9).


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 23, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I think the Tamron 100-400mm is by far the best long telephoto for the M5. It is light, balances very nicely, the focus speed is limited by the camera and so the faster AF of the Canon lenses is neutralised. The Tamron seems more sensitive to mirror slap on the 5DSR, and this doesn't affect the image from the M5.



Can you adjust the AF of the lens through the tap-in console? I know you can with the 150-600G2, and it greatly improved the accuracy of the AF.... I was wondering if the same held true for the 100-400


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I think the Tamron 100-400mm is by far the best long telephoto for the M5. It is light, balances very nicely, the focus speed is limited by the camera and so the faster AF of the Canon lenses is neutralised. The Tamron seems more sensitive to mirror slap on the 5DSR, and this doesn't affect the image from the M5.
> ...



I haven't bought the Tap-in console yet. Tamron advertises the console as an accessory for the lens so you must be able to adjust AF. There is a 6 AFMA change from 400mm to 100mm so my copy needed AFMA. According to Dustin Abbott you can gain an extra half-stop of stabilization by changing the VC to image priority so I might buy the console.

A big thing for me is that I am responsible for cameras for my wife as well, and the M5-Tamron weighs 780g, 1 3/4lb, less than the 5DSR-Canon 100-400mm II, and even less with the tripod foot removed. This is also going to be very important for next November as I am booking a bird tour of Tanzania for next October and the luggage for the internal flights is limited to 15 kg per person, including any carry on items. I am even toying with the idea of an Olympus OMD EM-1 Mk II + 300mm f/4 for me because of the weight, but I am hoping that Canon will bring out something new before then - its own high speed mirrorless.


----------



## ecqns (Dec 23, 2017)

FWIW I use the Sigma 100-400 on a Sony a7r2 and have nothing but sharp images. Works just fine with the EVF so I don't see why it wouldn't work with Live View.
This lens replaced the Canon 70-300 L for me.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2017)

ecqns said:


> FWIW I use the Sigma 100-400 on a Sony a7r2 and have nothing but sharp images. Works just fine with the EVF so I don't see why it wouldn't work with Live View.
> This lens replaced the Canon 70-300 L for me.



Please try your Sigma 100-400 on Canon liveview and report back whether it works fine or not as it would be of interest of as to whether it is a general problem or not.


----------



## ecqns (Dec 24, 2017)

AlanF said:


> ecqns said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW I use the Sigma 100-400 on a Sony a7r2 and have nothing but sharp images. Works just fine with the EVF so I don't see why it wouldn't work with Live View.
> ...



[/quote]

Sorry! I'm Sony/Metabones/Canon lens (with some Fuji X on the side) guy for the last few years. No focus issues using the EVF and AF is almost as good as a native lens. I'm actually quite impressed with the Sigma IQ especially compared to the Canon 70-300L which cost almost double.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 24, 2017)

I don't see why it shouldn't work either but I have seen bad focussing twice with the Sigma 100-400 with liveview. I've checked my Sigma 150-600mm C and it focusses well on my M5.

Do you know why Sigma doesn't make E-mount lenses to fit Sony directly?


----------



## ecqns (Dec 24, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Do you know why Sigma doesn't make E-mount lenses to fit Sony directly?



No but it doesn't bother me as I never take the metabones adapter off of the Sony. It's basically a Canon EF camera with a different sensor and EVF (for those reasons i switched).
I'm considering replacing my Canon 11-24 with the Sigma 12-24.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 24, 2017)

Thanks for sharing Alan. Now I'm thinking about adding a Tamron 100-400 for use on my M5.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2017)

I did some tests today using the 5DIV for BIF. I wasn't too happy with the results and had very few keepers. So, whereas I think it is a great lens on the M5 - because it focusses so well and the M5 is too slow for action photography anyway - and very satisfactory for static shots on a 5D, it isn't from what I have seen a great lens for action shots.


----------



## exquisitor (Feb 25, 2018)

Thank you for the sharing of your experience! Do you still have the Tamron 100-400? Did you try it also with 1.4x extender? I am trying to find out if it makes any sense or it's just better to crop.
Searching through the reviews of this lens it also seems to have quite a sample variance. The tendency shows that it is easier to find a sharp Sigma than a sharp Tamron considering the performance at 400 mm. Do you have the same experience?



AlanF said:


> I have been doing many comparisons of my Canon 100-400mm II (I have looked at 3 copies over the years) and my new Tamron 100-400mm, and looking at the records of the 5 copies of the Sigma 100-400mm I have tested.
> 
> On the 5DSR and 5DIV, the Canon has the best IS and is the most stable in the viewfinder, the Tamron next best, perhaps a stop worse in practice, and the Sigma the poorest. The AF of the Canon is the fastest, the Tamron next and the Sigma somewhat behind. The IQs are quite similar.
> 
> ...


----------



## slclick (Feb 25, 2018)

I sold my 10 month old Sigma for $20 more than I paid for it, good riddance.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 25, 2018)

exquisitor said:


> Thank you for the sharing of your experience! Do you still have the Tamron 100-400? Did you try it also with 1.4x extender? I am trying to find out if it makes any sense or it's just better to crop.
> Searching through the reviews of this lens it also seems to have quite a sample variance. The tendency shows that it is easier to find a sharp Sigma than a sharp Tamron considering the performance at 400 mm. Do you have the same experience?
> 
> 
> ...



It requires the dedicated Tamron extender and I haven't bought it - the Canon won't fit and the Sigma doesn't AF. By the way, I have done more BIF testing and the Canon 100-400mm II is in a different league, whatever Dustin writes. I aim at birds and not a running dog.


----------



## exquisitor (Feb 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> It requires the dedicated Tamron extender and I haven't bought it - the Canon won't fit and the Sigma doesn't AF. By the way, I have done more BIF testing and the Canon 100-400mm II is in a different league, whatever Dustin writes. I aim at birds and not a running dog.



I see... I had rather the Kenko extender in mind. It is compatible with virtually every EF lens and has a good optical quality. Have you used Sigma 100-400 with an extender? Can you recommend it?
As you indicated a good synergy with M5, I might as well get a M100 to use as an 1.6x extender.

I was also sceptical about Dustin's AF comparison with Canon 100-400. But for my usage (80% landscape + 20% some moving object like animals or people) Tamron would be definitely sufficient. Sigma has obviously more problems with AF, as you indicated and from different reviews. Better IS and AF is the reason I favour the Tamron, even if IQ is a bit worse than Sigma.


----------

