Sony Telephoto Comparison 100-400GM vs 70-350G, and Tamron 50-400
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- We take a look at 2 of Sony's Telephoto options for E mount. Both very different in size, price, and even Full Frame to APSC. We also do a slight take on how the newer Tamron 50-400 makes it way into the mix.
They would be great for wildlife on an APS-C sensor. One of the advantages of the 100-400 is that it will accept a Sony teleconverter. I use the 1.4 TC on mine, frequently. That said, I have been thinking about getting the 70-350 for a travel/hiking lens on an A7RV. Would love to see image quality comparisons.
Great vid thanks! Subbed.
Been considering the tamron lens myself looking forward to a comparison soon…thanks for sharing
REallly love it when people think outside the box about using the 70-350 on full frame
Thanks for the video, I own the Sony 70-350mm G and also the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM MK2 and I bought the 2X teleconverter from sony to use it with the 70-200mm and sell the 70-350mm, but for surprise Mine, the 70-350mm at 350mm at f/6.3 and f/8.0 is so much sharper than the Sony 70-200mm + Tele 2X at 400mm at f/ 5.6 and f/ 8.0. I do not know what to do now! I think I'll return the 2X,
I also have the 70-200mkii with both TC’s. But I honestly have mostly done video and not photography. So the sharpness in 4k is just as good.
Also, I do use the 1.4x more which is definitely as sharp. The 2x does take it down a notch but it’s still quite good. If you have both and it’s not to your liking, I would recommend the 1.4x highly.
Also, I did end up keeping the 50-400 and selling the 70-350 and the 100-400GM once I also got the 70-200 with both TC’s. I really do highly recommend the 70-350 for its size and weight and overall performance.
I do think the Tamron adds just a nominal amount of size and weight for way more reach on both ends. It also is about 90% as sharp and accurate. So it is a compromise but for me is worth it. Doesn’t mean it would be for you as the Sony has its merits.
I sold SonyA6100 crop camera for SonyA7II. I have Sony 70-350 from using crop camera & thinking of trading the 70-350 in for a full frame lens but as you mention it's a very good lens & I paid $900.00 . Ah, decisions, decisions ... Thanks. This comparison is exactly what I needed.
70-350mm only covers FF at 70mm, you can correct vignetting. But the image circle quickly shrinking as you zoom out and focus at infinity, probably about 1.35x is what you can use when shooting 16:9. The lens is also getting dim pretty quickly as you zoom out. So yes, the weight and size are great, but you pay for that dearly.
I also compared 70-350mm side by side with Sigma 100-400mm. Sigma is a lot sharper even on APS-C. So, unless the weight is really bothering you, save your money and get Sigma, it's a lot better and cheaper as well (under $700 when on sale). I didn't have Tamron 50-400 at the same time, but I later compared it to Sigma, and Sigma was a definite winner again.
Maybe the Sigma might be sharper, which in my uses it wasn’t or was a wash really. But, the Sigma AF couldn’t keep up with anything quick moving in my uses. The Sony and Tamron AF motors did way better for sports and wild life than what sigma offers. Also, you mention the Sony getting dark quickly but the Sigma is almost the same f stops so not sure how that’s a limiting factor???
Also, having the best you can get Sony 100-400 GM, I found the Tamron ever so slightly less sharp. But the additional reach, great AF still, lighter weight, all outweighed and I ultimately did sell my 100-400GM for the Tamron.
You sound like someone paid by Sigma. Their 100-400 is great for the price. But the 70-350 is lighter, faster and more accurate AF, and I would argue as sharp or sharper. The Tamron is way better AF in all regards at the same weight with better reach. IQ is maybe a toss up but not clearly one way or another. At this day and age in 2023, most lenses are more than sharp enough and I would say the AF performance and handling matter more.
@@TechGearz_Levi Sigma not "maybe sharper," it's a lot sharper. I'm shooting mostly birds with long telephoto with A7Riii, I don't foresee any other use for those lenses. It's not hard to examine the pictures to see that Sigma is the only one of three that resolves details in feathers, the other two aren't even close. As to AF, I've never experienced any problems with any of those lenses. I do shoot dogs on the beach sometimes, but using 400mm lens for that is pretty ridiculous so it never occurred to me.
I'm not advertising Sigma, it's just the best light and inexpensive telephoto for Sony, which I don't even use often nowadays. On my other body I'm using Nikon Z 400/4.5 which is a lot better optically, but it also costs more.
Was looking at these and glad to find your video. Now that you've had the Tamron 50-400 for a while, have they updated the firmware to improve autofocus?
Also looking for this answer.
I was considering 100-400 over 70-350 just because almost twice better macro and 5.6 aperture, but after watching this video now thinking to keep 70-350 and buy maybe raynox attachment for closeup work.
Thanks!
Superb comparison and good insights. Definitely loved how Tamron is fitting in the middle here. I think for a casual and light weight setup, sony a6700 + tamron 18-300 all in one zoom might actually be better. And when you really want to have more longer reach then the tamron 50-400 can supplement that and still keep the lighter setup. This ofcourse is just for casual shooting focussing more on being compact and portable. What do you think ?
That Tamron 18-300 is a sleeper all-in-one lens that is great for the price and still has image stabilization. I'm more a full frame user and have the A7Cii but the 6700 with that lens was my other choice. No wrong options really. Definitely personal preference.
I just bought the 70-350 with the A6700 as a light walk about wildlife setup. I like it very much and am impressed with the results. You can get quite usable 4:3 images full frame with the lens on full frame body with just small crop at the long end. Very useful if wanting to travel light. I also have the 100-400 GM and am considering if to sell as that I was using as my walk-about lens before but prefer the 70-350 since getting. I have the absolutely wonderful 400 F2.8 gm prime for when doing serious photography.
I ended up selling the 100-400mm myself for similar reasons. That 400mm prime is elite.
Is the 70-350mm long enough for little birds ? Idk if to go olympus just for more reach but I already have sony full frame and apsc bodies. Thanks
Why not for wildlife?
Are you referring to the 70-300 Sony (either one)? The 70-350mm Sony is an APS-C lens!
I speak on that later in the video. Even though it is an APSC lens, it actually works perfectly normal in full from 70-200 actually. In video, with active steady shot, it goes all the way to about 310mm. So even though it isn’t necessarily full frame, it’s a legitimate light weight and cheaper option with super fast autofocus.