I’ve got the Tamron 150-600 G2. It may not be as sharp as the Canon, but you can still get excellent results as long as you’ve got good light. And it’s half the price of the Canon :)
The question becomes durability. You can’t tell how well a lens is made by the outer casing. Yes, if it looks bad, that’s one thing. But manufacturers can cover problems in design and construction with a nice outer shell. I’m not as familiar with Tamron, but Sigma is all over the place in mechanical and optical quality. You may get a great one, but you may get a poor one. Before keeping it, check it our carefully with a lot of pictures and make sure edge to edge focus, for one thing. I prefer polycarbonate lens hoods. They momentarily deform when smacked into something solid, whereas metal hoods pass much more impact to the lens, and then get damaged themselves. So instead of a switch which makes a slight click, the Tamron makes a loud “smack” when the ring is engaged. That’s better?
@@melgross Yep, my Sigma was terrible. I sent it in for repair and it came back with same problem. It also got mould inside whereas none of my Canon lens kept in the same way did.
Very helpful and informative, I have the Tamron 150 - 600 G2 its great in good sun light, I usually shoot about 7.1 - f8. Manual with Auto iso. Many thanks for sharing. Greetings from Norfolk UK 🇬🇧
Good review.... only one thing .... you should have added the tamron 100-400 for comparisson..... it really stands its ground against the canon 100-400 II.... I own both..... but a question.... which do you prefer.... the tamron 150-600 G2 or the sigma 150-600 C?
Well done Tomas, very detailed. I own the Tamron 150-600 original version and I find it rather soft at anything over 450mm. As much as I liked your review, I was distracted by the TV behind you. You were great but it is just me who gets distracted easily. You and the lens, or camera, should be the main focus. Try to avoid any distractions like that in the future.
UV filters degrade image quality unless they are brand new, perfectly clean and are the most expensive multi layer anti reflective coated types. Basically, dont use UV filters. Circularly polarised filters do offer a net improvement in image quality by reducing glare an incresing contrast.
What many reviews miss are that the canon lens will have built in lens correction for light falloff and CA which the aftermarket lens will have to be done in post.
Thank you Tomas for your review here. Having rented the Tamron lens last year for a Yellowstone trip I wanted to try out the Canon 100-400 for this years trip. I think you just convinced me on what lens to rent this year. While I might lose some on the Focal length I pick up in image quality with the Canon. Have you used the 1.4 converter with this lens and were you happy with the results? I have watched a lot of these videos and would say that your photo examples here are some of the best I've seen. The photos depicting the catch of the day are fantastic.
great review and comparison. I have the Tamron 100-400 on my 80D for buy birds, and i also find i have to shoot at F8 or 9 at least for reasonably sharp shots. great lens at $900 (Canadian), but it's still not sharp enough and the AF just doesn't nail the focus enough (blame the 80D a bit as well)...I think the Canon 100-400 is next on my list as well.
Hi Andrew ! did you buy the canon 100-400mm ...what are your thoughts? I am also planning to buy the same lens as I also own 80d ...waiting for ur reply🙂
@@akshitas8063 i haven't. I've put it on hold until i decide what my next camera is - either Canon mirrorless (in which I'll get the 100-500RF), or Sony (in which I'll get the 200-600). The tamron isn't perfect, but for the money its a good lens. I have a couple L lens (incl the 70-200 2.8 IS iii) so they have set my lens expectations high. I don't think you could go wrong with the 100-400 either on the 80d.
Great reviews! One correction, tho. UV filters do not give you better photos. All they are good for is scratch protection. If anything, they make your photos more likely to get glare in them by adding extra glass. That’s why you rarely see pros using them.
@@nickblyth166 yes, without a filter except for dust or sand and especially sea sand. In any case, damage to the filter is cheaper than damage to the objective glass.
great & helpful comparison! I have rented the sigma contemporary with my 90D and was very happy with it. I have had my heart set on the canon lens, but 600mm does make a difference, it depends on what focal length you specifically need. I have heard the sports version is superior in image quality, but I have actually taken some of my best photos with this lens (using a monopod/handheld). If you were on a budget, the sigma contemporary is really a fantastic option (minus the lack of weather seal if that matters to you), I might still buy it :)
@@tomaskoeck haha that is seriously my dream lens for the 90D! Currently renting the 300mm f4L IS and the 1.4xIII extender...while it's an incredible lens, it certainly does not produce what the mkII zoom can, with or without tc (I'm making the assumption it's because it's an older lens model?), soooo i guess it's time to admit I need the lens and start saving...I wish they would drop the price back down again!
I sold all of my camera equipment and have been agonizing over which of these 3 lenses to buy, and what platform to put it on. I had it narrowed down to the Nikon d500 and Tamron 150-600 G2. Then I watched this video and now I'm back on the Canon train. I'm sure I'll change my mind at least ten times before tomorrow...
How do these lenses work with the new R5 and R6 body's bird eye autofocus system? Does it make any sense to get the EF 100-400 vs. the RF 100-500? Do the RF lenses work better with the new autofocus features of the R5 and R6?
Thank you for the video. I need more reach than the Canon 70-200mm that I use. You have convinced me to go with the Canon 100-400 instead of just buying a 2X teleconverter. And I thought that 600mm is necessary. Awesome breakdown of the different makes!!!
I too have the Canon 70-200 but need more reach for a wildlife trip. I would not go with a 2x converter ever as pretty much every review I've read all say that they are not the best choice. Go with a 1.4. Tomas stated in the video that he has a hi pixel camera so keep that in mind with the cropping of your photos I think you're suggesting here in losing the 600 focal length. He mentioned 30 and above. I currently have the 7D which is no where near that number but having used the 70-200 for so long it's hard to beat that Canon glass.
Dear Thomas, thanks for the wonderful comparison with great examples, it's very informative. I recently bought Canon EF 100-400mm IS ii lens and am using it with Canon EOS R. Somehow my photos are not sharp. I am not sure if it is because of some camera settings or something else. I would request your help and advice here. Please do the needful in throwing up some light.
In your opinion, is there a place in a bag for the Tamron if the Canon 100-400 II is already there? For birding, I am pretty happy with the Canon - when the subject isn't a country mile away, but feel a need for more length, which is why I'm considering the Tamron. I've tried the Canon with a 1.4 TC with OK results, but I think the 100-400 by itself is sharper - even after the more aggressive crop. Do you think the Tamron is as sharp as the Canon with the Tamron @ 600 and a less aggressive crop? I'm primarily using a 7Dii.
Canon is generally more sharp, sometimes it’s all about studying wildlife behavior and choosing the best settings for the situation to get the best results!
Every Tamron 150-600mm gs video I've watched only focuses on taking wildlife pictures. I take lots of sports shots of my grandsons. How does the Tamron compare to the Sigma Sports lens in this aspect?
I wonder if the combination of the Canon 100-400mm MII with the Canon 1.4 converter (mark III)(= 560 mm on full frame) is giving extra sharp photos too (comparable sharpness to the Tamron and / or Sigma photos at same length) ? It is a pitty that this combination was not touched (I know the combination is much more expensive than the price of the Tamron and Sigma lenses). I already dispose of the Canon 100-400mm mark II and I am considering either to buy the Canon extender or to buy either the Tamron or the Sigma 150-600mm. Can you advise ? Thanks in advance.
I have owned the sigma sport 150-600, and used it with a canon 7d mk2. I was often unhappy with the quality of the pictures beyond 500 mm. Not that the lens was optically bad, but it was not well paired with the 7d mk2, despite micro af tuning and adjusting by the sigma service. I ended up selling it against a 100-400 mk2. The addition of the 1.4x tc version 3 gives a 560 f8, that gives consistently better results than the sigma at equivalent focal length and aperture. I would advise you to buy a 1.4 x tc version 3. Used ones are affordable. Make sure however that your camera can af at f8. If not, then I would not add the tc to my kit.
@@rolandsahli2456 Thanks a lot for your very useful comments. I have a "Canon Eos 5D mark IV" (and for backup a "Canon Eos 7D"). With the 5D the AF at F/8.0 will certainly not be a problem I suppose. So I will go for the Canon 1.4 converter (mark III).
I have a " Canon EOS 70D " dslr and I want to buy a new "Tamron SP 150-600mm f / 5-6.3D VC USD GG ". But in the future I will replace my camera body with a Canon Mirrorless body. then may I use the same lens for both of them ?
Great session Tomas as always. I bought 90D last week and my old first version Canon 100-400 IS 1 is not working well with this big MP size. Would you suggest if Tamron 150-600 G2 would be worth a buy. Looking for that 25% more reach.
I’ve shot film before and never needed a UV filters. People insist that you need uv filters for better images and protect the lens. First, uv filters cause ghosting and flares, they are also not as scratch resistant as the lens itself.
i tested Tamron 150-600 G2 used in an airshow & for wildlife only advantage is that having that extra reach of 600 mm .its not comparable to canon lenses problem with this lens . 1) not that much sharp , looking for an average sharpness ....go for it ( I have DGS hsm art 1.4 ,50 mm sigma lens... its sharp as a razor ).. 2) focusing performance is not accurate and consistent 3) what ever you are getting that extra reach ,not worth if you consider the image quality , low light performance & IS performance . i never tested 100 -400 is2 , but i think its the best option ...killer option ..
I was incredibly disappointed by the Sigma 150-600 Sport, it's too slow, has quite alot of focus breathing, not very sharp and incredibly heavy for what it is. That Sigma is as heavy as my old EF 500 f4 MK2, making it just excessive for the quality the Sigma provides, the EF 100-400 MK2 is sharp enough that you can crop in and still maintain good quality at 600mm, the Sigma & Tamron? Eh.
Hi Thomas.. I have a Canon M50.. I love photographing wildlife.. And I would love a zoom lens, which one would you recommend from these three lenses?? Than you
So this is my question-I own the 100-400 II, and love it for sports. Is there enough difference that it would be worth it to also buy the Sigma 600? Perhaps save on some cropping when I can't get close enough to the field? I would appreciate opinions. Thank you!
What are your thoughts on the new RF f11 800 and 600mm? Are these new ones (RF 800 and 600) any better or would you recommend one of the ones mentioned in your video instead?
They are nice lenses, I did a review on the 800mm you should check out. The one thing I don’t like is that they aren’t weather sealed. Paired with the right camera there was no problem finding light (because ISO was pumped very high and mirrorless full frame cameras can handle it). As far as replacing any of these cameras it depends on what you use the lens for
I have the canon 70-300 I got for landscapes, incredibly sharp.. the 100-400 isn’t enough of a difference to the lens I already have. Maybe a second hand 200-400/1.4 is the way to go.
I've got the 70-300 Canon IS USm latest lens (with digital readout) for my 5dm3. I may consider getting a converter and trying it. I'll do some research to find if anyone else has done it.
It must be embarrassing! Canon: time 15:18 and 15:38 annonces an F/5.6@500mm. Now it's just that the lens is a 100-400mm. so where do they get the 500mm. from??? It may be my language skills that are not good enough as my native language is Danish
They are both around the same price, Tamron is a bit more expensive. I’ve heard great things about that lens, but I’ve had great personal experience with the Tamron
@@mrrimon6 yes it's fully weather resistant. Go for tamron 150-600g2. I'm from India. I'm researching about telephoto lens in budget from last 7,8 months. It's the best lens from everything u would get. Take it without any hesitation. I'm also getting it.
Hi , I have actually a canon 70-300 and a saw on internet , a " doubleur ×2 III" I don't know how to say it in English sorry , so , can that thing can replace a Canon 100-400 or Sigma 150-600 ? I don't have a looot of money and my parents have other priorities.. And your video is very well explicated thank you all :)
I just purchased the tamron 150-600mm lens, it hasnt gotten here yet though. I cant wait to use it!!! All i have is a 18-105mm and 70-300mm Nikon lens. They are a step up from kit lenses so i got lucky when they came with my first camera (Nikon d7000). (The 70-300mm AF-S 1:4.5-5.6G VR ED is a very sharp lens with no color fringing or chromatic aberration) i also have a canon 70-300mm lens and it is a kit lens BUT its a total piece of JUNK!!!!!😡 I don't know why a company would even build a lens like it, the chromatic aberration and color fringing is TERRIBLE in that lens!!!!! (I'd give it to someone that don't have a 300mm lens lol)! I just bought a Nikon d7500 and its a beast!!! It has a deeeeeeeep buffer and 8fps shooting. Its also great in low light. Only thing is its only 20 megapixels. (I guess ya have to make sacrifices somewhere) I enjoyed your video! Very helpful, THANK YOU! 💕😁
You do know that the 75-300 was actually kit lens for EOS film cameras like my 300V. It was released in the 90s. It’s a crap lens because it’s a first gen lens
Hi Tomas, Came from Michael's FB group. Exceptional Images !!. You did not mention about the AF performance of any of the lenses when combined with the 90D. Which one gave best performance in terms of consistency and speed. I would assume the Canon would be the best as its 1st party but how do the Tamron and Sigma compare.
Hey there! Canon is the fastest, then Sigma, then Tamron. But the Tamron is still VERY fast so you can’t go wrong, just something to consider! Canon was the best fit for birds in flight.
Additionally, the onlines specs have the Tamron weighing in at 2,000g vs the Sigma at 1,800g. I'm confused why Tomas is so hefty on the weight disadvantage for the Sigma when the Tamron is heavier (?) P.s. I own the Tamron G2 and love it, however the weight is definitely a downside for me and main reason to upgrade to Canon 100-400 in time to come :)
🎖🦅Thanks Young guy, old guy-68- here who's considering that Canon or Tamron after Years of using Tamron G1 150-600. Fine teaching, enjoy my Hummingbirds Hawks video free on RUclips, in search put SUN FLiGHT STEVE, hey, even has my music played by Michael Jackson 's guitarist Jennifer Batten. Shot with Canon40D, 7D, 7D2, & 6D, and post video,currently with a 5D4, so your video very helpful on the choice of Lens upgrade. Be well, keep Teaching Steve McC in Los Angeles
99% of these informations was already well known for anyone who did just a bit of research on these glasses. I was hoping to see IQ comparison,AF comparison etc...
I don't have to watch this I always choose CANON for Canon, NIKON for Nikon, SONY for Sony. Spare parts for repairs are readily available and I have Canon gear that's 50 year old and still function today. I tried 1 Tamron and 1 Sigma lens both of which failed within three years of purchase and no repairs were available because they had been discontinued. You get what you pay for. Kinda like Biden the President you have in office today.
I’ve got the Tamron 150-600 G2. It may not be as sharp as the Canon, but you can still get excellent results as long as you’ve got good light. And it’s half the price of the Canon :)
So true, I’ve taken some of my favorite images with the Tamron, it always has a place in my camera bag
The question becomes durability. You can’t tell how well a lens is made by the outer casing. Yes, if it looks bad, that’s one thing. But manufacturers can cover problems in design and construction with a nice outer shell. I’m not as familiar with Tamron, but Sigma is all over the place in mechanical and optical quality. You may get a great one, but you may get a poor one. Before keeping it, check it our carefully with a lot of pictures and make sure edge to edge focus, for one thing.
I prefer polycarbonate lens hoods. They momentarily deform when smacked into something solid, whereas metal hoods pass much more impact to the lens, and then get damaged themselves.
So instead of a switch which makes a slight click, the Tamron makes a loud “smack” when the ring is engaged. That’s better?
@@melgross Yep, my Sigma was terrible. I sent it in for repair and it came back with same problem. It also got mould inside whereas none of my Canon lens kept in the same way did.
Very helpful and informative, I have the Tamron 150 - 600 G2 its great in good sun light, I usually shoot about 7.1 - f8. Manual with Auto iso. Many thanks for sharing. Greetings from Norfolk UK 🇬🇧
Which body do you use.
Great video and exactly what I’ve been looking for to compare these 3 lens.
Why use the Sima Sport when the Contemporary is more like the Tamron in weight and performance?
Contemporary isn’t fully weather sealed I believe.
Good review.... only one thing .... you should have added the tamron 100-400 for comparisson..... it really stands its ground against the canon 100-400 II.... I own both..... but a question.... which do you prefer.... the tamron 150-600 G2 or the sigma 150-600 C?
Richard. How do you like the 100-400. I'm looking for daytime glass for field sports. Thx Paul
Well done Tomas, very detailed. I own the Tamron 150-600 original version and I find it rather soft at anything over 450mm.
As much as I liked your review, I was distracted by the TV behind you. You were great but it is just me who gets distracted easily. You and the lens, or camera, should be the main focus. Try to avoid any distractions like that in the future.
Totally agree, thanks for sharing
Make more videos like this. You did a fantastic job Tomas.
I appreciate that Kevin! You can help by sharing this video!
UV filters degrade image quality unless they are brand new, perfectly clean and are the most expensive multi layer anti reflective coated types. Basically, dont use UV filters. Circularly polarised filters do offer a net improvement in image quality by reducing glare an incresing contrast.
Filter are use to soften the image.
Good for sandstorms, but few people venture out. A hood proves good protection without 10% loss in sharpness
What many reviews miss are that the canon lens will have built in lens correction for light falloff and CA which the aftermarket lens will have to be done in post.
Which lens do you think won? Which lens is your favorite?
Canon
Canon and my favorite is Canon
sigma or canon
Thank you Tomas for your review here. Having rented the Tamron lens last year for a Yellowstone trip I wanted to try out the Canon 100-400 for this years trip. I think you just convinced me on what lens to rent this year. While I might lose some on the Focal length I pick up in image quality with the Canon. Have you used the 1.4 converter with this lens and were you happy with the results? I have watched a lot of these videos and would say that your photo examples here are some of the best I've seen. The photos depicting the catch of the day are fantastic.
great review and comparison. I have the Tamron 100-400 on my 80D for buy birds, and i also find i have to shoot at F8 or 9 at least for reasonably sharp shots. great lens at $900 (Canadian), but it's still not sharp enough and the AF just doesn't nail the focus enough (blame the 80D a bit as well)...I think the Canon 100-400 is next on my list as well.
Hi Andrew ! did you buy the canon 100-400mm ...what are your thoughts? I am also planning to buy the same lens as I also own 80d ...waiting for ur reply🙂
@@akshitas8063 i haven't. I've put it on hold until i decide what my next camera is - either Canon mirrorless (in which I'll get the 100-500RF), or Sony (in which I'll get the 200-600). The tamron isn't perfect, but for the money its a good lens. I have a couple L lens (incl the 70-200 2.8 IS iii) so they have set my lens expectations high. I don't think you could go wrong with the 100-400 either on the 80d.
Thank you for your response...🙂
Great reviews!
One correction, tho. UV filters do not give you better photos. All they are good for is scratch protection. If anything, they make your photos more likely to get glare in them by adding extra glass. That’s why you rarely see pros using them.
Depends on the person, appreciate the input!
If your lens hood is very deep then you have no need for a filter
@@nickblyth166 yes, without a filter except for dust or sand and especially sea sand. In any case, damage to the filter is cheaper than damage to the objective glass.
Awesome videos man, you should post more often if possible. You're gonna kill it👍
U skipped the photos taken by the canon lens 😅 in the begining
great & helpful comparison! I have rented the sigma contemporary with my 90D and was very happy with it. I have had my heart set on the canon lens, but 600mm does make a difference, it depends on what focal length you specifically need. I have heard the sports version is superior in image quality, but I have actually taken some of my best photos with this lens (using a monopod/handheld). If you were on a budget, the sigma contemporary is really a fantastic option (minus the lack of weather seal if that matters to you), I might still buy it :)
You might be surprised, I would try the Canon 100-400 ii if I were you!
@@tomaskoeck haha that is seriously my dream lens for the 90D! Currently renting the 300mm f4L IS and the 1.4xIII extender...while it's an incredible lens, it certainly does not produce what the mkII zoom can, with or without tc (I'm making the assumption it's because it's an older lens model?), soooo i guess it's time to admit I need the lens and start saving...I wish they would drop the price back down again!
I sold all of my camera equipment and have been agonizing over which of these 3 lenses to buy, and what platform to put it on. I had it narrowed down to the Nikon d500 and Tamron 150-600 G2. Then I watched this video and now I'm back on the Canon train. I'm sure I'll change my mind at least ten times before tomorrow...
Haha we’ve all been there!
Need more videos for the 90d
Yeah. Need it.
I consider the Tamron G2, right now i use the sigma 400 mm and i have just loved it so much
How do these lenses work with the new R5 and R6 body's bird eye autofocus system? Does it make any sense to get the EF 100-400 vs. the RF 100-500? Do the RF lenses work better with the new autofocus features of the R5 and R6?
Should have added the Sigma 150mm-600mm Contemporary to the comparison, or instead of the "Sport" since it's more in competition with the Tamron G2.
Informative of the details of lenses,
Thank you for the video. I need more reach than the Canon 70-200mm that I use. You have convinced me to go with the Canon 100-400 instead of just buying a 2X teleconverter. And I thought that 600mm is necessary. Awesome breakdown of the different makes!!!
I too have the Canon 70-200 but need more reach for a wildlife trip. I would not go with a 2x converter ever as pretty much every review I've read all say that they are not the best choice. Go with a 1.4. Tomas stated in the video that he has a hi pixel camera so keep that in mind with the cropping of your photos I think you're suggesting here in losing the 600 focal length. He mentioned 30 and above. I currently have the 7D which is no where near that number but having used the 70-200 for so long it's hard to beat that Canon glass.
Dear Thomas, thanks for the wonderful comparison with great examples, it's very informative.
I recently bought Canon EF 100-400mm IS ii lens and am using it with Canon EOS R. Somehow my photos are not sharp. I am not sure if it is because of some camera settings or something else. I would request your help and advice here. Please do the needful in throwing up some light.
Great video keep them coming!!!
Great video, very informative and balanced without hype or fluff.
fantastic job. detailed information. thank u.
Thanks!
Awesome review! Thanks! What is the different between Tamron 150-600 g2 and the previous version of the same brand?
The most recent model is much much better. Sharper images, better quality
In your opinion, is there a place in a bag for the Tamron if the Canon 100-400 II is already there? For birding, I am pretty happy with the Canon - when the subject isn't a country mile away, but feel a need for more length, which is why I'm considering the Tamron. I've tried the Canon with a 1.4 TC with OK results, but I think the 100-400 by itself is sharper - even after the more aggressive crop. Do you think the Tamron is as sharp as the Canon with the Tamron @ 600 and a less aggressive crop? I'm primarily using a 7Dii.
Canon is generally more sharp, sometimes it’s all about studying wildlife behavior and choosing the best settings for the situation to get the best results!
Excellent, well balanced and very informative
Every Tamron 150-600mm gs video I've watched only focuses on taking wildlife pictures. I take lots of sports shots of my grandsons. How does the Tamron compare to the Sigma Sports lens in this aspect?
I wonder if the combination of the Canon 100-400mm MII with the Canon 1.4 converter (mark III)(= 560 mm on full frame) is giving extra sharp photos too (comparable sharpness to the Tamron and / or Sigma photos at same length) ? It is a pitty that this combination was not touched (I know the combination is much more expensive than the price of the Tamron and Sigma lenses).
I already dispose of the Canon 100-400mm mark II and I am considering either to buy the Canon extender or to buy either the Tamron or the Sigma 150-600mm. Can you advise ? Thanks in advance.
I have owned the sigma sport 150-600, and used it with a canon 7d mk2. I was often unhappy with the quality of the pictures beyond 500 mm. Not that the lens was optically bad, but it was not well paired with the 7d mk2, despite micro af tuning and adjusting by the sigma service. I ended up selling it against a 100-400 mk2. The addition of the 1.4x tc version 3 gives a 560 f8, that gives consistently better results than the sigma at equivalent focal length and aperture. I would advise you to buy a 1.4 x tc version 3. Used ones are affordable. Make sure however that your camera can af at f8. If not, then I would not add the tc to my kit.
@@rolandsahli2456 Thanks a lot for your very useful comments. I have a "Canon Eos 5D mark IV" (and for backup a "Canon Eos 7D"). With the 5D the AF at F/8.0 will certainly not be a problem I suppose. So I will go for the Canon 1.4 converter (mark III).
I have a " Canon EOS 70D " dslr and I want to buy a new "Tamron SP 150-600mm f / 5-6.3D VC USD GG ". But in the future I will replace my camera body with a Canon Mirrorless body. then may I use the same lens for both of them ?
Nice review. Thank you.
Great vid Tomas!
I like the thumbnail to this video, that fish looked shocked 🤣🤣🤣
How do you feel about using a 1.4 with the canon lens.
Great video man ! Keep on ! :)
Nice video i got one question are the whole Tamron lens water protected, or is it only mounting that is resistent ?
Great session Tomas as always. I bought 90D last week and my old first version Canon 100-400 IS 1 is not working well with this big MP size. Would you suggest if Tamron 150-600 G2 would be worth a buy. Looking for that 25% more reach.
I have the sigma 150-600 C and I am planning to buy a 90D this week.
how did u like the 90D?
The canon 100-500 ii works the best with the 90D's high density MP. You will find that you will get some serious sharp photos with that set up.
Liked the video. It was distracting to have the tv in the background running commercials.
Yes I agree, not planning on doing that again
7:10 UV filter for digital cameras . . . that's a myth from film cameras, right?
I’ve shot film before and never needed a UV filters.
People insist that you need uv filters for better images and protect the lens. First, uv filters cause ghosting and flares, they are also not as scratch resistant as the lens itself.
@@nickblyth166 Yeah, not sure this guy can be trusted if he is pushing UV filters in 2021
i tested Tamron 150-600 G2 used in an airshow & for wildlife only advantage is that having that extra reach of 600 mm .its not comparable to canon lenses
problem with this lens .
1) not that much sharp , looking for an average sharpness ....go for it ( I have DGS hsm art 1.4 ,50 mm sigma lens... its sharp as a razor )..
2) focusing performance is not accurate and consistent
3) what ever you are getting that extra reach ,not worth if you consider the image quality , low light performance & IS performance .
i never tested 100 -400 is2 , but i think its the best option ...killer option ..
I bought my Tamron used for only $400. Best deal ever.
Very good review mate!
Agree, great video
I was incredibly disappointed by the Sigma 150-600 Sport, it's too slow, has quite alot of focus breathing, not very sharp and incredibly heavy for what it is.
That Sigma is as heavy as my old EF 500 f4 MK2, making it just excessive for the quality the Sigma provides, the EF 100-400 MK2 is sharp enough that you can crop in and still maintain good quality at 600mm, the Sigma & Tamron? Eh.
Can’t help feeling uneasy looking at how the background of your video is tilted
Is there any difference in image quality between the sigma contemporary and the sport?
Hi Thomas..
I have a Canon M50..
I love photographing wildlife..
And I would love a zoom lens, which one would you recommend from these three lenses??
Than you
It matters on how much you are willing to spend!
So this is my question-I own the 100-400 II, and love it for sports. Is there enough difference that it would be worth it to also buy the Sigma 600? Perhaps save on some cropping when I can't get close enough to the field? I would appreciate opinions. Thank you!
Hmm that is a good question. It may be worth to rent a sigma 600 just to see if there is a difference for how you shoot!
What are your thoughts on the new RF f11 800 and 600mm? Are these new ones (RF 800 and 600) any better or would you recommend one of the ones mentioned in your video instead?
They are nice lenses, I did a review on the 800mm you should check out. The one thing I don’t like is that they aren’t weather sealed. Paired with the right camera there was no problem finding light (because ISO was pumped very high and mirrorless full frame cameras can handle it). As far as replacing any of these cameras it depends on what you use the lens for
@@tomaskoeck, thank you. I will check it out
Hii Tomos bro you give me a rf 15 35 les
If acid is falling on our camera gear, I suspect that wildlife capture might not the biggest of our concerns at the time. ;-)
What if there's an owl at a sewage plant?
I have the canon 70-300 I got for landscapes, incredibly sharp.. the 100-400 isn’t enough of a difference to the lens I already have. Maybe a second hand 200-400/1.4 is the way to go.
I've got the 70-300 Canon IS USm latest lens (with digital readout) for my 5dm3. I may consider getting a converter and trying it. I'll do some research to find if anyone else has done it.
@@keithwiebe1787 My 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM L lens is on my R5 with a RF-EOSR adaptor. Works flawlessly.
It must be embarrassing! Canon: time 15:18 and 15:38 annonces an F/5.6@500mm. Now it's just that the lens is a 100-400mm. so where do they get the 500mm. from??? It may be my language skills that are not good enough as my native language is Danish
Probably a typing error. There is an actual 100-500 but what is in the photo is a 100-400
What is the different between Tamron 150-600 g2 and sigma 150-600 Contemporary.
Fan from Bangladesh ❤❤
They are both around the same price, Tamron is a bit more expensive. I’ve heard great things about that lens, but I’ve had great personal experience with the Tamron
I want to bye a Super telephoto lens for Wildlife. My budget around 1500$.
Which one will be best for me.
I using Canon 90D CS
MD Habibur Rahman you got a couple options. Tamron is great you can get that for under 1500 dollars.
Thank you brother.
Is tamron 150-600G2 is weather resistance??
@@mrrimon6 yes it's fully weather resistant. Go for tamron 150-600g2. I'm from India. I'm researching about telephoto lens in budget from last 7,8 months. It's the best lens from everything u would get. Take it without any hesitation. I'm also getting it.
Did you ever have trouble focusing with the tamron G2 at long distances?
Nope. Check this:. photos.app.goo.gl/d7B9uBu4BGkywtL47
is the tamron first gen worth it? 600$ used
how does the sigma 150-600 Contemporary compare to the sport?
Practically identical optically
Hi , I have actually a canon 70-300 and a saw on internet , a " doubleur ×2 III" I don't know how to say it in English sorry , so , can that thing can replace a Canon 100-400 or Sigma 150-600 ? I don't have a looot of money and my parents have other priorities..
And your video is very well explicated thank you all :)
Hey David! I bet if you saved up for the Tamron or sigma which are cheaper than the canon, you’ll still get great shots! Don’t give up!
@@tomaskoeck Okay thank's
I'll try to get the Sigma or Tamron for less than 800 hundred euros into 3 years, I'll save a lot haha
Very Cool!
Hi what do you recommend for 5D Mark IV since it does not have a crop factor
The sigma 150-600
I use it on my 6D Mk2
Is the a review in your near future?
Working on one right now!
Exquisite video
Can we use sigma 150-600 contemporary with canon m50 mark ii ?
With the adapter, yes
I just purchased the tamron 150-600mm lens, it hasnt gotten here yet though. I cant wait to use it!!! All i have is a 18-105mm and 70-300mm Nikon lens. They are a step up from kit lenses so i got lucky when they came with my first camera (Nikon d7000).
(The 70-300mm AF-S 1:4.5-5.6G VR ED is a very sharp lens with no color fringing or chromatic aberration) i also have a canon 70-300mm lens and it is a kit lens BUT its a total piece of JUNK!!!!!😡 I don't know why a company would even build a lens like it, the chromatic aberration and color fringing is TERRIBLE in that lens!!!!! (I'd give it to someone that don't have a 300mm lens lol)!
I just bought a Nikon d7500 and its a beast!!! It has a deeeeeeeep buffer and 8fps shooting. Its also great in low light. Only thing is its only 20 megapixels. (I guess ya have to make sacrifices somewhere)
I enjoyed your video! Very helpful, THANK YOU! 💕😁
Enjoy your new lens!!
You do know that the 75-300 was actually kit lens for EOS film cameras like my 300V. It was released in the 90s. It’s a crap lens because it’s a first gen lens
I love it ..what is your openion about canon 70 to 300mm usm 2 lens?
Lower your BG music maybe? Great video otherwise
Hi Tomas,
Came from Michael's FB group. Exceptional Images !!.
You did not mention about the AF performance of any of the lenses when combined with the 90D. Which one gave best performance in terms of consistency and speed. I would assume the Canon would be the best as its 1st party but how do the Tamron and Sigma compare.
Hey there!
Canon is the fastest, then Sigma, then Tamron. But the Tamron is still VERY fast so you can’t go wrong, just something to consider! Canon was the best fit for birds in flight.
Wanna send me one of these 😂
I wish!
what do you think of sony 70-350+6400？
Sorry I’m not that knowledgeable with Sony!
The Tamron and the Canon do not weigh the same, the Canon is 400g lighter, big difference for hand holding.
Additionally, the onlines specs have the Tamron weighing in at 2,000g vs the Sigma at 1,800g. I'm confused why Tomas is so hefty on the weight disadvantage for the Sigma when the Tamron is heavier (?)
P.s. I own the Tamron G2 and love it, however the weight is definitely a downside for me and main reason to upgrade to Canon 100-400 in time to come :)
I’m 5 seconds away from offering 500 usd for a Sigma right now I just not sure lol.
🎖🦅Thanks Young guy, old guy-68- here who's considering that Canon or Tamron after Years of using Tamron G1 150-600. Fine teaching, enjoy my Hummingbirds Hawks video free on RUclips, in search put SUN FLiGHT STEVE, hey, even has my music played by Michael Jackson 's guitarist Jennifer Batten. Shot with Canon40D, 7D, 7D2, & 6D, and post video,currently with a 5D4, so your video very helpful on the choice of Lens upgrade. Be well, keep Teaching Steve McC in Los Angeles
Å
this review is full of mistakes
The alleged modem unlikely found because lilac perioperatively launch amidst a groovy tuba. teeny-tiny, abaft protest
Sigma is garbage.
99% of these informations was already well known for anyone who did just a bit of research on these glasses.
I was hoping to see IQ comparison,AF comparison etc...
I don't have to watch this I always choose CANON for Canon, NIKON for Nikon, SONY for Sony. Spare parts for repairs are readily available and I have Canon gear that's 50 year old and still function today. I tried 1 Tamron and 1 Sigma lens both of which failed within three years of purchase and no repairs were available because they had been discontinued. You get what you pay for. Kinda like Biden the President you have in office today.