After consideration I've just ordered the tamron for use with my RP and wondering do I need the tap in console?Also what are others experiences with this lens.

Any particular reason not going for the Canon RF 100-400mm instead?The Canon is almost half weight, has shorter nearest focusing distance, gives you full "integration" of optical IS and IBIS (= better image stabilization), have very good AF-performance and are surprisingly good optically even at the longest end wide open.Well, you probably went for the Tamron because of the 2/3 stops extra light I guess, but I have to ask?

The RP doesn't have Ibis so no benefit there for the RF in that regard, also the Tamron is weatherproof.

I brought the Tamron EF 100-400mm new 1 year ago and it came with the latest firmware and worked well with my EOS R6. I already owned the Tap Console. It is quite heavy and long with the adapter but worked really well and was very affordable. The RF100-400mm didnt exist when i brought mine.

cmcm789 wrote:After consideration I've just ordered the tamron for use with my RP and wondering do I need the tap in console?Also what are others experiences with this lens.Have you asked the dealer whether they can check/update the firmware for your.In Australia (don't know where you are) there are some Tamron dealers who will do this check/update for free.

fotoword wrote:The RP doesn't have Ibis so no benefit there for the RF in that regardGood point

fotoword wrote:The RP doesn't have Ibis so no benefit there for the RF in that regard, also the Tamron is weatherproof.Not to mention it's slightly faster - f4.5-6.3 vs f/5.6-8 for the Canon.

Stig Nygaard wrote:Any particular reason not going for the Canon RF 100-400mm instead?The Canon is almost half weight, has shorter nearest focusing distance, gives you full "integration" of optical IS and IBIS (= better image stabilization), have very good AF-performance and are surprisingly good optically even at the longest end wide open.Well, you probably went for the Tamron because of the 2/3 stops extra light I guess, but I have to ask?The wider aperture helped but also i have a kenko 1.4TC i use with my 70-200 currently which i hope to be able to occasionally use with the Tamron. If it hadn't been for the TC i probably would have went for the RF 100-400 as it was less expensive.

fotoword wrote:cmcm789 wrote:After consideration I've just ordered the tamron for use with my RP and wondering do I need the tap in console?Also what are others experiences with this lens.Have you asked the dealer whether they can check/update the firmware for your.In Australia (don't know where you are) there are some Tamron dealers who will do this check/update for free.Ordering online (import) as lack of stock is an issue. I'm thinking the main benefit of the Tap In module seems to be correcting focus issues for back/front focusing. I had a 17-50mm f2.8 tamron years ago and had numerous issues with focus having to get it calibrated and then replaced. On my M5 never had an issue. So hoping focus will be accurate out of the box with Mirrorless cameras.

cmcm789 wrote:fotoword wrote:cmcm789 wrote:After consideration I've just ordered the tamron for use with my RP and wondering do I need the tap in console?Also what are others experiences with this lens.Have you asked the dealer whether they can check/update the firmware for your.In Australia (don't know where you are) there are some Tamron dealers who will do this check/update for free.Ordering online (import) as lack of stock is an issue. I'm thinking the main benefit of the Tap In module seems to be correcting focus issues for back/front focusing. I had a 17-50mm f2.8 tamron years ago and had numerous issues with focus having to get it calibrated and then replaced. On my M5 never had an issue. So hoping focus will be accurate out of the box with Mirrorless cameras.In my experience with the RP (and the M6 Mark 2) and Tamron 100-400 I didn't have any issues with front/back focusing (or any other mirrorless camera and lens combo) as focusing is directly off the sensor and not a separate processor/sensor.Having said that, I didn't use it too much with the RP because of the low fps and no real live view (no electronic shutter) but more with the M6 (but mostly was using it with my Fuji X-T4 and a/f adapter)It has been great with the R7 though.What's the Kenko 1.7 TC like? Are they still available?  I was going to pick up the Tamron 1.4tc if I was happy with the R7.CheersPaul

Stig Nygaard wrote:Any particular reason not going for the Canon RF 100-400mm instead?The Canon is almost half weight, has shorter nearest focusing distance, gives you full "integration" of optical IS and IBIS (= better image stabilization), have very good AF-performance and are surprisingly good optically even at the longest end wide open.Well, you probably went for the Tamron because of the 2/3 stops extra light I guess, but I have to ask?What part of "I've just ordered" did you not comprehend? Why would you burn the OP's joy with a factually dopey post?OP, The 100-400 worked admirably on an EOS R that I used for a month. It did get softer at the 400mm end but was still respectable. I'd take your time and get to know the lens before you start worrying about it. Also, the TAP is meant to deal with front / back focusing on mirrored bodies from my understanding. So my advice would be to enjoy the lens that you havealready boughtand if you have any issues, reach out again and tell us where you see deficiencies if in fact you do actually see any. As others have mentioned, you may get the latest and greatest firmware and if not, the seller or a local club might be happy to assist you there.I'm sure you will take some wonderful shots with your new lens.

BracketsAhoy wrote:Stig Nygaard wrote:Any particular reason not going for the Canon RF 100-400mm instead?The Canon is almost half weight, has shorter nearest focusing distance, gives you full "integration" of optical IS and IBIS (= better image stabilization), have very good AF-performance and are surprisingly good optically even at the longest end wide open.Well, you probably went for the Tamron because of the 2/3 stops extra light I guess, but I have to ask?What part of "I've just ordered" did you not comprehend? Why would you burn the OP's joy with a factually dopey post?OP, The 100-400 worked admirably on an EOS R that I used for a month. It did get softer at the 400mm end but was still respectable. I'd take your time and get to know the lens before you start worrying about it. Also, the TAP is meant to deal with front / back focusing on mirrored bodies from my understanding. So my advice would be to enjoy the lens that you havealready boughtand if you have any issues, reach out again and tell us where you see deficiencies if in fact you do actually see any. As others have mentioned, you may get the latest and greatest firmware and if not, the seller or a local club might be happy to assist you there.I'm sure you will take some wonderful shots with your new lens.Isn’t the TAP-in also the mechanism for doing firmware updates and changing AF and stabilization behavior?  It might be worth having.

fotoword wrote:cmcm789 wrote:fotoword wrote:cmcm789 wrote:After consideration I've just ordered the tamron for use with my RP and wondering do I need the tap in console?Also what are others experiences with this lens.Have you asked the dealer whether they can check/update the firmware for your.In Australia (don't know where you are) there are some Tamron dealers who will do this check/update for free.Ordering online (import) as lack of stock is an issue. I'm thinking the main benefit of the Tap In module seems to be correcting focus issues for back/front focusing. I had a 17-50mm f2.8 tamron years ago and had numerous issues with focus having to get it calibrated and then replaced. On my M5 never had an issue. So hoping focus will be accurate out of the box with Mirrorless cameras.In my experience with the RP (and the M6 Mark 2) and Tamron 100-400 I didn't have any issues with front/back focusing (or any other mirrorless camera and lens combo) as focusing is directly off the sensor and not a separate processor/sensor.Having said that, I didn't use it too much with the RP because of the low fps and no real live view (no electronic shutter) but more with the M6 (but mostly was using it with my Fuji X-T4 and a/f adapter)It has been great with the R7 though.What's the Kenko 1.7 TC like? Are they still available? I was going to pick up the Tamron 1.4tc if I was happy with the R7.CheersPaulI've had the Kenko 1.4tc and used it with no problems with my old 55-250 stm and a tamron 70 200 f2.8. I now use it on my canon 70 200 f4l. Si havent noticed any issues with sharpness and focus speed when shooting my sons football matches. However, every so often (maybe 2 or 3%) of shots when using auto iso the camera will over expose by a stop. ISO will be the same value but it's almost as if it has shot at f4 instead of the f5.6 allowing for the converter.

cmcm789 wrote:After consideration I've just ordered the tamron for use with my RP and wondering do I need the tap in console?Also what are others experiences with this lens.I really used the Tamron a lot on my 90d. I also have an R and the Tamron did need a firmware update when the R first came out. By now Tamron probably ships them sufficiently updated for the RP. If not the dock isn’t that expensive. The lens is very good. Check out the Dustin Abbott review.

cmcm789 wrote:Stig Nygaard wrote:Any particular reason not going for the Canon RF 100-400mm instead?The Canon is almost half weight, has shorter nearest focusing distance, gives you full "integration" of optical IS and IBIS (= better image stabilization), have very good AF-performance and are surprisingly good optically even at the longest end wide open.Well, you probably went for the Tamron because of the 2/3 stops extra light I guess, but I have to ask?The wider aperture helped but also i have a kenko 1.4TC i use with my 70-200 currently which i hope to be able to occasionally use with the Tamron. If it hadn't been for the TC i probably would have went for the RF 100-400 as it was less expensive.I had the Tamron 100-400. It was fine on the 80D. With RP while everything works, it is slow to focus. Coincidentally I have the Kenko 1.4 as well. The one with the blue dot. While it can still AF, it is even slower and hunts a lot and more so in low contrast and low light situation.If you goal is stationary objects I guess it will be ok without the TC. With the TC even stationary objects will be an exercise in frustration under most circumstances.I had the tap in console as I also had the 24-70 2.8 G2 (a sharp lens). Had both updated to the latest firmware.I sold the Tamron 100-400 as well as the 24-70 lens as I got the RF mount 24-70 and the 100-500.The native RF lenses focuses a lot faster, focuses more accurately, gives you all the bells and whistles features of the R mount (especially so with R5, 6, 3, etc).My humble 2 cents - drop the idea of using the TC and if that perspective makes sense then reevaluate EF vs RF keeping in mind other factors such as DSLR's or EF-M mount camera etc. If you have decided to move to R completely then the RF 100-400 starts sounding like a better option in my opinion.

MannyV wrote:cmcm789 wrote:Stig Nygaard wrote:Any particular reason not going for the Canon RF 100-400mm instead?The Canon is almost half weight, has shorter nearest focusing distance, gives you full "integration" of optical IS and IBIS (= better image stabilization), have very good AF-performance and are surprisingly good optically even at the longest end wide open.Well, you probably went for the Tamron because of the 2/3 stops extra light I guess, but I have to ask?The wider aperture helped but also i have a kenko 1.4TC i use with my 70-200 currently which i hope to be able to occasionally use with the Tamron. If it hadn't been for the TC i probably would have went for the RF 100-400 as it was less expensive.I had the Tamron 100-400. It was fine on the 80D. With RP while everything works, it is slow to focus. Coincidentally I have the Kenko 1.4 as well. The one with the blue dot. While it can still AF, it is even slower and hunts a lot and more so in low contrast and low light situation.If you goal is stationary objects I guess it will be ok without the TC. With the TC even stationary objects will be an exercise in frustration under most circumstances.I had the tap in console as I also had the 24-70 2.8 G2 (a sharp lens). Had both updated to the latest firmware.I sold the Tamron 100-400 as well as the 24-70 lens as I got the RF mount 24-70 and the 100-500.The native RF lenses focuses a lot faster, focuses more accurately, gives you all the bells and whistles features of the R mount (especially so with R5, 6, 3, etc).My humble 2 cents - drop the idea of using the TC and if that perspective makes sense then reevaluate EF vs RF keeping in mind other factors such as DSLR's or EF-M mount camera etc. If you have decided to move to R completely then the RF 100-400 starts sounding like a better option in my opinion.Manny i've been going back and forth between the rf 100-400 and the tamron watching numerous videos and reading every review available (more than once). it really is a toss of the coin and having the tele converter was the thing that swayed it. I'll have a few days play with it when it arrives and if not completely sold or the IQ/focus with the TC is suspect, i may just return it and go for the RF instead.

I don't see the problem with the question. I did not see the post as negative, I guess we each read things differently. He was asking why the OP chose the Tamron over the the RF. I think the details of why the OP choose the Tamron can help others making a similar decision.

So the lens arrived this morning and i've had a quick try on the camera. First impressions:On the plus side it feels solid and well built.On the negative side the focusing is much slower than i expected. I put it up against my 70-200 f4l (mk1) and at 200mm and even 280mm equivalent (70-200 with the 1.4TC) the canon was miles ahead to acquire focus. When i tested the tamron at 400mm going between a near and far object it was painfully slow. Wouldn't be any use for following sports like football.Also it doesn't Auto Focus with the Kenko 1.4TC at all.Does anyone know how to find the firmware version of the lens so i can check if it's the latest? I assume in the exif data, but i'm at the office so won't be able to check until i get home later today.Gut instinct at this stage is it's going back and the RF 100-400 is now firmly in the running.

cmcm789 wrote:So the lens arrived this morning and i've had a quick try on the camera. First impressions:On the plus side it feels solid and well built.On the negative side the focusing is much slower than i expected. I put it up against my 70-200 f4l (mk1) and at 200mm and even 280mm equivalent (70-200 with the 1.4TC) the canon was miles ahead to acquire focus. When i tested the tamron at 400mm going between a near and far object it was painfully slow. Wouldn't be any use for following sports like football.Also it doesn't Auto Focus with the Kenko 1.4TC at all.Does anyone know how to find the firmware version of the lens so i can check if it's the latest? I assume in the exif data, but i'm at the office so won't be able to check until i get home later today.Gut instinct at this stage is it's going back and the RF 100-400 is now firmly in the running.Unfortunately I think you will need the Tamron dock to check and update the firmware version. I doubt you will find it in the exif data, but if it is there you would use the free program exiftool by Phil Harvey to find it. You would have to dump all the exif data to a text file and then read through it looking for something that might be the lens firmware version. Then you could cross reference that to the data on the Tamron support website. Definitely easier with the dock. And of course, you would still need the dock to update the firmware. Unless you want to try shipping it to Tamron for an update. Not sure they do that for dock updatable lenses.

bodeswell wrote:cmcm789 wrote:So the lens arrived this morning and i've had a quick try on the camera. First impressions:On the plus side it feels solid and well built.On the negative side the focusing is much slower than i expected. I put it up against my 70-200 f4l (mk1) and at 200mm and even 280mm equivalent (70-200 with the 1.4TC) the canon was miles ahead to acquire focus. When i tested the tamron at 400mm going between a near and far object it was painfully slow. Wouldn't be any use for following sports like football.Also it doesn't Auto Focus with the Kenko 1.4TC at all.Does anyone know how to find the firmware version of the lens so i can check if it's the latest? I assume in the exif data, but i'm at the office so won't be able to check until i get home later today.Gut instinct at this stage is it's going back and the RF 100-400 is now firmly in the running.Unfortunately I think you will need the Tamron dock to check and update the firmware version. I doubt you will find it in the exif data, but if it is there you would use the free program exiftool by Phil Harvey to find it. You would have to dump all the exif data to a text file and then read through it looking for something that might be the lens firmware version. Then you could cross reference that to the data on the Tamron support website. Definitely easier with the dock. And of course, you would still need the dock to update the firmware. Unless you want to try shipping it to Tamron for an update. Not sure they do that for dock updatable lenses.Thanks. I have the Tamron 17-35 f2.8 f4.0 as well but have never had any reason to check the firmware on it, so might be worth getting the tap in for both.I will give my local camera store a call and see how much they would charge for doing this (if they do).I stopped briefly on the way home to try it out and shot some swans, ducks and flowers. First impressions, wide open it's super sharp right through to 400mm and a nice weight to help keep the lens steady. Just need to see how the focus plays out. It is slower than the 70-200 f4l but seems to be more precise when locked on and finds the subject with greater accuracy. Might get to the park this evening and see how it is for tracking.