At least three UK retailers have jumped the gun ahead of official announcement tomorrow and advertised it since yesterday (some now pulled) at GBP 819, which feels reasonable assuming its IQ is as good as if not better than the 50-400. The 50mm wide end also provides genuine value add over the 70-300 VXD for anyone who shoots moving subjects.
Yes, it looks interesting. Stabilization and 50mm on the wide end make it a worthy upgrade IMHO.
I just hope Tamron managed to update its coatings as I genuinely hate the yellow-ish ones introduced with 50-400...
If the IQ is good I could be interested for a hiking telephoto lens to complement my 16-35.
I bought the 50-400 earlier this year, and I like it for days when weight doesn't really matter (events, day hikes...) but for multiple day hikes, it is way too heavy.
I really like the fact that it starts at 50 as it could stay on the camera a lot longer before becoming "too narrow". Many landscape can be taken at 50mm, when 70 starts to be really too long.
Something almost half the weight could be very tempting... but only if the IQ, field curvature and focus are great. I stayed away from the 70-300 because of those things.
moby59 wrote:
If the IQ is good I could be interested for a hiking telephoto lens to complement my 16-35.
I bought the 50-400 earlier this year, and I like it for days when weight doesn't really matter (events, day hikes...) but for multiple day hikes, it is way too heavy.
I really like the fact that it starts at 50 as it could stay on the camera a lot longer before becoming "too narrow". Many landscape can be taken at 50mm, when 70 starts to be really too long.
Something almost half the weight could be very tempting... but only if the IQ, field curvature and focus are great. I stayed away from the 70-300 because of those things....Show more →
I think you've hit the nail of the head regarding the intent and target audience for this lens. I too have a 50-400 which I lug around only once a year on our summer holiday to the Canary Islands (think extraterrestrial landscapes, exotic flora and fauna, whales and dolphins etc) and I am wondering whether it's worth "downgrading" to a 50-300 which might see more action on my camera given its lighter weight.
The 50-300 range is so versatile in fact I'm surprised that someone hadn't thought of it sooner. It would make a great pairing for any of the current lineup of 16-xx or 17-50 or 20-40 zooms (or the Sigma 28-45/1.8 for that matter!)
The max magnification is much better than the 70-300mm and, along with the wider fov, does make this a very tempting hiking lens. The image quality of the 70-300mm is very good, but not stellar. I'll be interested to see more reviews and image samples.
Joseph Marney wrote:
The max magnification is much better than the 70-300mm and, along with the wider fov, does make this a very tempting hiking lens. The image quality of the 70-300mm is very good, but not stellar. I'll be interested to see more reviews and image samples.
The 70-300's biggest weakness was the corners. It doesn't get sharp in the corners at any focal length until you stop own to f/11. Otherwise, it's very good. But this has VC, a better MFD, and a wider range so if it's decent in the corners might just be worth the upgrade.
jwpstl wrote:
The 70-300's biggest weakness was the corners. It doesn't get sharp in the corners at any focal length until you stop own to f/11. Otherwise, it's very good. But this has VC, a better MFD, and a wider range so if it's decent in the corners might just be worth the upgrade.
The better MFD is the biggest advance IMHO - the one thing I don't like about the current 70-300mm. I'll likely upgrade just for that....
The aperture range on this lens is quite similar to the 50-400. The original Tamron 70-300 is around 1/3-2/3 stop brighter despite the box spec matching, so you do pay a small price for the increase in focal range down to 50mm.
jchapell wrote:
Has anyone seen in the reviews what the aperture breakpoints are? Curious if they match the 50-400mm, or if it slows down at shorter focal lengths.
For comparison: https://www.cameralabs.com/tamron-50-400mm-f4-5-6-3-di-iii-vc-review/
"The Tamron 50-400 starts at f4.5 at 50mm focal length and reduces its focal ratio to f5.0 from 61mm, f5.6 from 87mm and f6.3 from 158mm onwards." So the 50-300 holds out at F/5.0 for longer at the short end until just below 100mm but closes down to F/6.3 sooner around midpoint of the zoom range.
cosign wrote:
It might be interesting to compare the IQ of this lens to the Tamron 28-200, which is well regarded....
I mentioned on Tamron Rocky Mountain's FB page that I was hoping for a 180-400 f4 or 4.5 to compliment their 70-180, etc. All I got back was that this lens is only one stop slower at f6.3 than at f4.
Somewhat weak corners at 50mm but they do respond some to stopping down and they appear better than on the 70-300 rxd at 70mm. No real other issues. He refers to it as potentially a cheaper alternative to the Sony 70-200/4 G II. And it might be, to some audiences. Options are always good.
All in all, obviously IQ of this lens is worse than that of the 50-400.
I am an avid pixel peeper, and with my two copies I had of the 28-200, I was really dissatisfied with the corners. 50-300 seems to be a similar story. With my 50-400, though, I was immediately astonished how good the corners are and how the performance holds up at 400mm.
So, while the compactness of the 50-300 surely is tempting, it's not an option for "downgrading" from the 50-400 if one wants really satisfying IQ.
And if you have 400mm,you WILL use it and you WILL like it, believe me 😉
hasenbein wrote:
All in all, obviously IQ of this lens is worse than that of the 50-400.
I am an avid pixel peeper, and with my two copies I had of the 28-200, I was really dissatisfied with the corners. 50-300 seems to be a similar story. With my 50-400, though, I was immediately astonished how good the corners are and how the performance holds up at 400mm.
So, while the compactness of the 50-300 surely is tempting, it's not an option for "downgrading" from the 50-400 if one wants really satisfying IQ.
And if you have 400mm,you WILL use it and you WILL like it, believe me 😉...Show more →
Hi, I'm not sure that "obviously" that the 50-300 has worse IQ than the 50-400. Dustin Abbott's review shows poor corners on the former, but this is not corroborated by SonyAlphaBlog's review (which concludes the 50-400 is "a little bit less good optically"). I would imagine sample variation is coming into play here.
I do agree with you that if you have 400mm, you will use and like it.
The bigger barrier for me in terms of "downgrading" - something one always has to be aware of when buying third party lenses - is that resale value of the 50-400 has plummeted and grey imports in Hong Kong are being retailed at as little as GBP 650, and I don't see the retail price of the 50-300 being significantly cheaper. So in all likelihood I'd be making a financial loss if I were to "downgrade"!
I think that if both the 50-400 and the 50-300 had been available when I was shopping for a tele that I would have chosen the 50-300. The weight savings would be more important to me than the reach to 400. However, I am really happy with the results from the 50-400 and don't see that changing lenses now would make sense. If it also had a better f-stop that might have been enough for me to make the change.
.