Tamron 50-400mm for Sony - Pros and Cons
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 07. 2024
- In this video I discuss the pros and cons of the Tamron 50-400mm 4.5-6.3 for Sony. I talk about the differences in weight, autofocus, sharpness, and the unique focal length that make this a compelling telephoto lens.
Tamron 50-400mm: amzn.to/45sEw4u
Sony ZV-E1: amzn.to/3sv8fen
CZcams Gear (Links to Amazon)
► Main Cam: amzn.to/41WhWhO
► Main Lens: amzn.to/42T4LQ5
► Mic: amzn.to/43eddJx
► FULL LIST: nextinphotography.com/my-gear/
As an amazon affiliate I receive commissions when you click on a link and make a purchase.
00:00 Intro
00:23 What stands out
01:18 Weight Comparison
02:44 Compelling Features
05:14 Pros and Cons
07:04 Worth it?
10:38 Do I regret buying it?
the lock is for when the zoom ring eventually becomes loose, you lock it so the lens doesn't extend by itself because of movements when stored. Just an extra safety feature
Thanks for the clarification
I've used the Sony E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS on my a6600 for a few years and its a fantastic combination with great image quality in a small light package.
Totally agree!
Do you thing the Sony E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS would work on my A7IV for landscape photography ?
It would work but you may lose some megapixels. If you zoom in you'll be able to use more of the focal length, so it's really not a bad option for the A7iv
Thanks for your video. I don't mean to bicker, but there are some things worth clarifying for the sake of comparison:
When discussing FF options, you can't really compare this lens to the Sony 70-350mm, which was designed for APS-C. That lens weighs 625g, while the (FE) 70-300mm weighs 854g. Also, I find it difficult to compare it to the 70-200gm with a teleconverter, because most people wont constantly screw the converter on and off: either you tend to use it without (as a 70-200), or you use it with the converter (making it a 140-400mm, and reducing it by one f-stop). Since weight isn't the only important factor, I think it is essential to consider that the Tamron is roughly 18cm, while the Sony 70-200GM is 20cm and the 100-400GM is just slightly longer even. Both of the latter lenses offer a far inferior macro capability by the way. Just some things to keep in mind ;)
Good points. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your video. Which would you go for personally? The Tamron 50-400 or the Sony 100-400GM (not considering price)? Is the image quality of the Sony GM lens much better than the Tamron? Is the faster f5.6 aperture worth it? Is the AF on the Sony GM much better than the Tamron with better hit rates? One thing of note is that the tripod collar cannot be removed on the Sony GM lens, but you could remove the foot.
The Tamron is slightly less sharp and I believe it has a slightly lower hit rate, but I don’t have one. I’ve only compared it to my Sony 24-105 and they were both pretty similar. If money wasn’t an issue I would probably still want the 100-400 GM but it would be a tough decision.
Your review of this lens was very helpful. You mentioned the built-in VR for the lens is not that great. Does the Sony camera's in-body VR feature help overcome the lens's VR shortcomings?
It does a little but I think I’d rather have more weight in a larger maximum aperture than the weight added from VR
did you end up getting that 70-350mm? mine feels fuzzy-ish (or dicentered?) looks ok for instagram but editing on big screen looks soft/fuzzy/sort of like misfocused
Oh really. I haven’t bought it yet. It’s on my list.
Depending on whether you need 50mm on a telephoto lens. I'd say yes since I've shot some amateur tennis matches with it and very happy with the results.
It’s so useful for sports
Specific face priority has been in the Sony e-mount since a6000
What about the combo of Sony a6700 + Tamron 18-300 for wildlife?
That's a great aps-c equivalent to the Tamron 50-400. It's a lot lighter too.
@@Davidmccombs thank you 👍 planning to go for this combo for some amateur wildlife shooting. Will the 18-300 be enough in terms of reach? Especially for birds?
Try it out. I have it, this lens is amazing. At first I had my doubts. Things about it to consider: Zooming is rough at the start, smooths out with use; the lens is SHARP; it is not the fastest lens at f3.5 to f6.3, typical of many zoom lens; it focuses very fast and locks on quickly; it has macro mode though at different distances from subject at different focal lengths. It is as close to being a perfect combo as you can get with the a6700. I had no trouble photographing birds or bees with this lens.
@@bondgabebond4907 Sounds amazing man! Thank you so much for such detailed response! Means a lot 🙂
@@tanmaysakpalofficial For birds u will always want more reach than you currently have ;) I started with a crop body and a 100-400 and still have a lot of fun with it. Just go out there and get to know your gear. Have fun and work on your technique.
Think about printing your pictures. It was realy rewarding to receive my first prints :)
How did you test the vibration?
It’s a little worse than the 70-200 f4
Thanks!
No problem!
I have an A6700 (APSC) and im really considering a few lenses. I have the Sony FE 70-300 G and Tamron 150-500. I almost never use the Tamron because its just so freaking big and heavy and 150 minimum is a little close for a lot of my use. Im thinking of selling both and getting the new 70-200F4 Macro with tele.
That’s a great idea. I would also consider the 70-350 by Sony. You’ll get more range but you won’t have the f4. Tough choice.
I have both the Sony E 70-350 G and recently the Sony FE 70-200 G Macro and they are both great lenses. I am liking the "Macro" capability and controls/feel on the full frame lens that the 70-350 does not do as well and the constant F4 in a relatively small size compared to the previous internally zoomed version and the GM F2.8 beasts. I am using these lenses on my a7Rv and a6600.
I have this lens and it is great. The one thing that I found not so great is the stabilization. Maybe I am doing something wrong but I had blurry images at 50-80mm at 1/30-1/60 shutter speeds. I spent an entire day at Zion a few days ago to do abstracts and close ups. The lens delivered with flying colors minus the shaky part and sometimes soft corners beyond 300mm.
I’m having similar issues. I’ve had to bump up my shutter speeds.
@@Davidmccombs Me too. I ended up bumping the ISO up in order to bring up the shutter speeds. Thanks to Photoshop denoise, my 800 ISO images look better than if I had shot them at 100 ISO!
The resulting images are pro class, almost matching my 70-180 and 28-75 G2 in sharpness and contrast. The slight softness in the corners beyond 300mm persists though.
@@DavidmccombsI heard there was a firmware update to fix this. Is there? Are you updated?
As a user of the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS, I decided that it might be worth investing in newer equipment with a wider range of focal lengths. Below are my unbiased conclusions about the Tamron 50-400mm (in direct reference to the Sigma 100-400mm): Advantages: - available focal length 50mm-99mm - solid, sealed housing - smaller by 15mm (but the weight is the same) Disadvantages: - worse sharpness image, especially at a long telephoto (400mm) - worse image stabilization (I often had to use a shutter speed twice as fast as in the Sigma to get similar, blur-free photos) - worse colors of the photos (they have a slight yellowish-green tint) - no AF/MF switch - no focus limiter switch with the given focusing range - price about 50%!!! bigger than Sigma - darker, i.e. at 100mm it has f5.6 (Sigma has f5) - macro at 50mm is not useful (the front element must almost touch the object to obtain a 1:2 zoom, therefore it is not possible to illuminate the object with a flash, the image is sharp only in the center, outside it it clearly blurs towards the edges) - macro at 400mm is less sharp than the Sigma, which already at f6.3 has even sharpness over the entire frame - changing the focal length in a "pumping" way is less convenient than in the Sigma (it works harder and slower) - mounting the lens to the body requires more force than standard. Finally, I will add that when I bought the Sigma I had two new copies, the second of which was clearly sharper, which I kept :) ... and one more thing "bokeh" is softer & more pleasing on Sigma 100-400mm when comparing side by side test photos.
Interesting. I heard so many negative reviews of the Sigma but it sounds pretty decent.
Thanks for the video. Note, I suspect that your reasoning about the 70-350mm is incorrect. It would make sense that the APS-C sensor is designed for 4k, but some full-frame cameras can also use Clear Image Zoom to record the APS-C in 4k. The 400mm area when zoomed would then be equivalent to a 600mm APS-C lens.
Or inversely, a 70-350mm APS-C lens would be equal to 46-233mm FF when using Clear Image Zoom.
Which is worse than the Tamron 70-300mm. Unfortunately the Tamron 70-300mm doesn't have image stabilization (major bummer).
Interesting. Thanks for sharing
In my opinion, if you want a lightweight setup, forget about the full frame right away. And Sony 70-200 is twice as much as this Tamron. Plus more money for teleconverter. People buy 3rd party lenses to save money so I don't think it's really a comparable alternative.
You’re right. The best option is the 70-350. But I do like the extra bit of reach with 400mm. I wish they had a 100-400 5.6 for aps-c. I mainly use the 50-400 since I also shoot full frame.
If you wanna lighweight setup just take your phone or sport camera. The more you take with you the more quality you get. Your choice.
Both of the Sony lenses with the 2X will start at 200mm. The 70-300 will start at a field of view of 140 on an APSC camera. Not as versatile as the Tamron.
But for whattttt
Why use a volging camera with this lens lol
Whoops!
@Davidmccombs I mean to each it's own I was just wondering and awesome video
Well, thank you