Hi,8 months on, how did it all end?Did you stick with the tamron 100-400mm (after maybe updating firmware)ordid you end up going for the rf100-400?

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 bought this lens brand new in 2018 but only used it once with 5Ds for Alaskan cruise. Fast forward to about three weeks ago when I bought R6MKII.  Didn't realize then that the Tamron had a firmware update in 2019. So I recently bought a tap-in console to update it. So far from my tests it focuses better with the R6MKII than before I updated it. I look forward to taking it to a park once we get a bit warmer temps.

I have 3 tamrons regular use on eos r  and eos r7, I bought the tap in and updated all lenses all work fine, being 17-35mm, 35-150mm and 100-400mmI found the experience of tamron100-400mm not so great with the R ( more the R than the lens) , but on the R7 the 100-400mm works quite OK, but I prefer using rf800mm f11.... My interest in the thread is someone has real world experience of tamron 100-400 vs rf 100-400mm because there really doesn't seem to be anyone answering this exact question so far.For example can say rf100-400 is much quicker focus speed or not worth the switch?

DarrenCZ wrote:I have 3 tamrons regular use on eos r and eos r7, I bought the tap in and updated all lenses all work fine, being 17-35mm, 35-150mm and 100-400mmI found the experience of tamron100-400mm not so great with the R ( more the R than the lens) , but on the R7 the 100-400mm works quite OK, but I prefer using rf800mm f11.... My interest in the thread is someone has real world experience of tamron 100-400 vs rf 100-400mm because there really doesn't seem to be anyone answering this exact question so far.For example can say rf100-400 is much quicker focus speed or not worth the switch?I understand.In my case, I hope the Tamron 100-400 would really work. I don't do BIFs but looking forward to using mine for occasional activities like the zoo, a little bit of wildlife at the park and maybe outdoor events like the races. From my tests I am confident that it will work. I really don't want to buy another 100-400 lens if the Tammy is working. Besides I don't do a lot of these activities. If I'm satisfied with the performance of the Tammy, I might consider selling my 300/2.8 L IS.

HelloI have Tamron 100-400 and RP,  using Ommlite adapter. AF is very slow. Firmware version for lens is 3, the latest. Do you have similar issue or not, if not, please share information which adapter do you use.

Devaluator wrote:HelloI have Tamron 100-400 and RP, using Ommlite adapter. AF is very slow. Firmware version for lens is 3, the latest. Do you have similar issue or not, if not, please share information which adapter do you use.I just tried out my Tamron 100-400 lens yesterday. See my post here:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66949646BTW what is an Ommlite adapter? Mine is the Canon EF to RF adapter.

Devaluator wrote:HelloI have Tamron 100-400 and RP, using Ommlite adapter. AF is very slow. Firmware version for lens is 3, the latest. Do you have similar issue or not, if not, please share information which adapter do you use.Think you mean Commlite adapter.

DarrenCZ wrote:I have 3 tamrons regular use on eos r and eos r7, I bought the tap in and updated all lenses all work fine, being 17-35mm, 35-150mm and 100-400mmI found the experience of tamron100-400mm not so great with the R ( more the R than the lens) , but on the R7 the 100-400mm works quite OK, but I prefer using rf800mm f11.... My interest in the thread is someone has real world experience of tamron 100-400 vs rf 100-400mm because there really doesn't seem to be anyone answering this exact question so far.For example can say rf100-400 is much quicker focus speed or not worth the switch?I can tell you from my personal experience that the RF100-400 is super fast focusing and fully uses the tracking abilities of the R5,6,7, and 10. On the RP the AF is just as fast, but the tracking is less sticky, but that is a function of the camera body. I can’t see any reason why a 3rd party alternative would be preferable given the excellent performance and price of the RF lens, and no adapter needed.

DarrenCZ wrote:Hi,8 months on, how did it all end?Did you stick with the tamron 100-400mm (after maybe updating firmware)ordid you end up going for the rf100-400?I did buy the Tamron in the end. Unfortunately the local store didn't have any stock for me to test or order so i had to order online.Lens had a great feel to it and sharpness was excellent fully open right through the focal range. However..........The focusing was awful. At 100mm it wasn't so bad, but as soon as i zoomed in a bit it slowed way down. At 400mm it was taking over 3 seconds to cycle from near to infinity and back. Honestly it was that bad and if i can find the video at home i will upload it.Checked the model number and confirmed it had the latest firmware. Checked Tamron's site for compatibility with the RP and it was listed. Then after numerous tests with focal limiter on/off, IS on/off etc i tried it on a friends 5Diii and another's R6. Lens worked fine and was as fast at 100mm as it was at 400mm on these cameras.I googled to see if it was a common issue with the RP but little turned up. Retailer tried to say the lens was fine and wouldn't offer an exchange or refund. Paypal eventually got involved and i got my full money back.Also, the Kenko 1.4TC wouldn't work with it (a big reason i chose it over the rf) even though it worked on the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 i had before.Still don't know if it was just a faulty lens (brand new) or an RP compatibility issue. Quite disappointed.Went out later and bought an RF 100-400mm for £200 off retail price (trade in offer) and happy enough with it. Does what it says, is compact and fully compatible.After all my trawling i found this video which highlighted the problem i had:https://youtube.com/shorts/YdBW5lnvzXc?feature=share

cmcm789 wrote:DarrenCZ wrote:Hi,8 months on, how did it all end?Did you stick with the tamron 100-400mm (after maybe updating firmware)ordid you end up going for the rf100-400?I did buy the Tamron in the end. Unfortunately the local store didn't have any stock for me to test or order so i had to order online.Lens had a great feel to it and sharpness was excellent fully open right through the focal range. However..........The focusing was awful. At 100mm it wasn't so bad, but as soon as i zoomed in a bit it slowed way down. At 400mm it was taking over 3 seconds to cycle from near to infinity and back. Honestly it was that bad and if i can find the video at home i will upload it.Checked the model number and confirmed it had the latest firmware. Checked Tamron's site for compatibility with the RP and it was listed. Then after numerous tests with focal limiter on/off, IS on/off etc i tried it on a friends 5Diii and another's R6. Lens worked fine and was as fast at 100mm as it was at 400mm on these cameras.I googled to see if it was a common issue with the RP but little turned up. Retailer tried to say the lens was fine and wouldn't offer an exchange or refund. Paypal eventually got involved and i got my full money back.Also, the Kenko 1.4TC wouldn't work with it (a big reason i chose it over the rf) even though it worked on the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 i had before.Still don't know if it was just a faulty lens (brand new) or an RP compatibility issue. Quite disappointed.Went out later and bought an RF 100-400mm for £200 off retail price (trade in offer) and happy enough with it. Does what it says, is compact and fully compatible.After all my trawling i found this video which highlighted the problem i had:https://youtube.com/shorts/YdBW5lnvzXc?feature=shareHiI just checked the focussing of my Tamron 100-400 with my Canon RP.Yes I found focussing from near to far was indeed quite slow.  I found the small area af (the small square with the 4 points around it) to give the best result but it was still slow.I tried it on my Eos M6 mark ii (Not R6) and it was about the same maybe very slightly faster, not sure.From near to far it was about acceptable (not good, not great, not brilliant) and probably a little above bad lol.I have a Fujifilm X-T4 with an Eos-EF to Fuji-X adapter (Fringer Pro ii) and it was surprisingly fast.  With this combination I would rate it as good to great.The thing is I still got some good shots with it on the RP when travelling with it.If I was already focussing close to where the subject was then it was reasonable.These were in Alcatraz (San Francisco USA)And plenty of very average ones.I underexposed it unfortunately due to the bright sky so had to recover it in postI got one shot at a Red-Tailed Hawk but the focus definitely was way to slow and the bird was terribly soft and heavily backlit and then it flew away. (very heavily cropped and processed in Topaz AI)If I was buying now I very likely would get the RF 100-400 as I usually shoot this lens at f8 anyway.CheersPaul

I agree with drsnoopy on this 100%, I have owned both Sigma and Tamron ef 100-400's and there is only one reason to buy one, "Moisture-Resistant". Notice its not listed as proof just resistant. Meaning if gets water inside there will be no helpThe RF 100-400 is about half the weight. To use the Ram or Sig on an RF body you will need the adapter adding 1"and 100g.One more thing to add is the RF 100-400 works perfect with the Canon rf 1.4x.  The rf 1.4X is quantum over the  Kenko1.4 and 2.0.  So to use an 1.4x on the Tam you need the adapter and extender.Yes I know he has already bought the Tam.This post is for people still looking and may read this.

davel33 wrote:I agree with drsnoopy on this 100%, I have owned both Sigma and Tamron ef 100-400's and there is only one reason to buy one, "Moisture-Resistant". Notice its not listed as proof just resistant. Meaning if gets water inside there will be no helpThe RF 100-400 is about half the weight. To use the Ram or Sig on an RF body you will need the adapter adding 1"and 100g.One more thing to add is the RF 100-400 works perfect with the Canon rf 1.4x. The rf 1.4X is quantum over the Kenko1.4 and 2.0. So to use an 1.4x on the Tam you need the adapter and extender.Yes I know he has already bought the Tam.This post is for people still looking and may read this.Disappointing about the Tamron, I was hoping there would be an alternative to the small apertures on the RF.

Mark B. wrote:davel33 wrote:I agree with drsnoopy on this 100%, I have owned both Sigma and Tamron ef 100-400's and there is only one reason to buy one, "Moisture-Resistant". Notice its not listed as proof just resistant. Meaning if gets water inside there will be no helpThe RF 100-400 is about half the weight. To use the Ram or Sig on an RF body you will need the adapter adding 1"and 100g.One more thing to add is the RF 100-400 works perfect with the Canon rf 1.4x. The rf 1.4X is quantum over the Kenko1.4 and 2.0. So to use an 1.4x on the Tam you need the adapter and extender.Yes I know he has already bought the Tam.This post is for people still looking and may read this.Disappointing about the Tamron, I was hoping there would be an alternative to the small apertures on the RF.The Tamron is only 2/3 stop faster.

DarrenCZ wrote:I have 3 tamrons regular use on eos r and eos r7, I bought the tap in and updated all lenses all work fine, being 17-35mm, 35-150mm and 100-400mmI found the experience of tamron100-400mm not so great with the R ( more the R than the lens) , but on the R7 the 100-400mm works quite OK, but I prefer using rf800mm f11.... My interest in the thread is someone has real world experience of tamron 100-400 vs rf 100-400mm because there really doesn't seem to be anyone answering this exact question so far.For example can say rf100-400 is much quicker focus speed or not worth the switch?I had the Tamron. It was OK on the R and R7. I sold it and bought the RF 100-400. That is much much faster focusing, much lighter, and definitely sharper. Better in every way, except for being 2/3 stop darker. But with modern sensors and processing, that’s not a big factor for me. And it’s cheaper. If it had been available when I bought my Tamron, I would have bought it instead. As it is, I didn’t take too much of a loss on selling the Tamron, and ended up with a much better lens, that I actually enjoy using.

You should not need to do any focus micro-adjustments using the lens on a mirrorless body.  I have the Tamron and the matching 1.4X teleconverter and it is indeed a very fine lens optically.  However I am selling it because I purchased the RF 100-500 for my R7. I also have the tap-in console.

Hi,My Rf 100-400mm arrived today but I only had about 15 minutes free time to play with it at lunch, on quite a sunny day.Af is much quicker than the tamron, tracking on Bif also seems great with the R7, I had struggled a bit with the tamron.IQ wasn't really able to compare, as wasn't very well setup and all test shots were a bit rushed.Seem's like a great choice to me so far, and it is very light and compact.Ordered a lens hood and also an arca slider bar to make the setup sit on gimbal a bit better, so hopefully have a chance to do more testing in coming week.

Alastair Norcross wrote:Mark B. wrote:davel33 wrote:I agree with drsnoopy on this 100%, I have owned both Sigma and Tamron ef 100-400's and there is only one reason to buy one, "Moisture-Resistant". Notice its not listed as proof just resistant. Meaning if gets water inside there will be no helpThe RF 100-400 is about half the weight. To use the Ram or Sig on an RF body you will need the adapter adding 1"and 100g.One more thing to add is the RF 100-400 works perfect with the Canon rf 1.4x. The rf 1.4X is quantum over the Kenko1.4 and 2.0. So to use an 1.4x on the Tam you need the adapter and extender.Yes I know he has already bought the Tam.This post is for people still looking and may read this.Disappointing about the Tamron, I was hoping there would be an alternative to the small apertures on the RF.The Tamron is only 2/3 stop faster.But it's still 2/3 of a stop from f/8.  Given the comments here though, the slow AF on the Tamron doesn't make up for that.  The RF is super small & light and a pretty good lens for the money.