gordec wrote:
Anyone know if this is metal or plastic body?
Although Sigma has some newer metal lens bodies, Tamron uses plastic in all of the lenses I am familiar with. I own the 70-180mm and find its construction to be first rate.
Alas, few lenses are metal these days but I don't miss it so much if everything else is top notch.
So few reviews of this lens. I am holding off on the purchase of the excellent 200-600 until I hear more about this - would have been nice if the lens had made the usual rounds prior to availability...
TravelinBriNY wrote:
So few reviews of this lens. I am holding off on the purchase of the excellent 200-600 until I hear more about this - would have been nice if the lens had made the usual rounds prior to availability...
It comes out in June. Sure there will be reviews ready upon release. I'm intrigued by it, too. I like the 150-500 range better than 100-400. On the downside it's 10 ounces heavier than the Sony and that's a bummer to me.
Do you have a body with large sensor? On my A7RIV in APS-C mode the Sony converts to 150-600 f4.5-5.6 while still delivering a 26.1 MP file! So I'm likely to stick with it but who knows. . .
gordec wrote:
Anyone know if this is metal or plastic body?
This Tamron lens will definitely be plastic.
There are hardly any metal-bodied auto-focusing lenses anymore. Even if they're metal on the outside, it is a mostly cosmetic, light-weight aluminium shell with plastic internals (Sony ZA lenses e.g.) - "engineered plastic", as they call it, is pretty much superior these days. MF lenses like CV and Loxia though still tend to be proper metal with a bit of plastic in a few places.
«Plastic» lenses can accomodate bumps and being dropped better than an all metal lens, and survive where a metal lens will get dinged or the focus helicoid get scewed or ruined. «Plastic» is more flexible than metal, and can more easily return to its original shape after a bump. Metal not so much.
onthebeam wrote:
It comes out in June. Sure there will be reviews ready upon release. I'm intrigued by it, too. I like the 150-500 range better than 100-400. On the downside it's 10 ounces heavier than the Sony and that's a bummer to me.
Do you have a body with large sensor? On my A7RIV in APS-C mode the Sony converts to 150-600 f4.5-5.6 while still delivering a 26.1 MP file! So I'm likely to stick with it but who knows. . .
Yes, I shoot with the A7R3, but find I want more reach - and sometimes better focus - than the Sigma 100-400 I currently shoot with. I tend to be more likely to crop in post than in the field. The Tamron is smaller and lighter than the Sony 200-600 - the lens I am comparing it against - but I am not sure about IQ or AF yet. Also wondering if 500 would feel closer to 400 then 600...
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Yes, I shoot with the A7R3, but find I want more reach - and sometimes better focus - than the Sigma 100-400 I currently shoot with. I tend to be more likely to crop in post than in the field. The Tamron is smaller and lighter than the Sony 200-600 - the lens I am comparing it against - but I am not sure about IQ or AF yet. Also wondering if 500 would feel closer to 400 then 600...
When you talk about focusing with the Sigma are you talking about the older or the new version?
I have been debating between the newer Sigma and the Tamron 150-500, but when I saw what the Tamron weighed especially with the mount on it, that has dissuaded me from it. I may just stick with the Sony 70-350 which has less reach but with the A7rIV gives you 525 at 26mp. I might add that even at maximum reach it still covers more than 26mp -- amount depending on the image ratio.
I have the new Sigma 100-400 DG DN - I don't feel I get as many in sharp focus as I should (70% on a good day, 50% on a lousy day); could certainly be user error (and I do not think the A7R3 was designed for fast moving subjects(.
Michael Everet wrote:
I have been debating between the newer Sigma and the Tamron 150-500, but when I saw what the Tamron weighed especially with the mount on it, that has dissuaded me from it. I may just stick with the Sony 70-350 which has less reach but with the A7rIV gives you 525 at 26mp. I might add that even at maximum reach it still covers more than 26mp -- amount depending on the image ratio.
I'm so glad you wrote about this option, Michael. I am strongly considering this, too, despite owning the three pound 100-400. To have 105-525 f6.3 at only 22 ounces is astounding, if the quality is as good. I found a Mark Galer video singing its praises, yet just as it was being released. It has Sony's fastest focusing motor.
I started a thread just now to try to see if others here have experience with it on the A7R4 or A1.
Please weigh in if you see this. For $900, I'm REALLY intrigued about this for travel. But sharpness has to be as good as the 100-400 or I know I won't use it.
onthebeam wrote:
I'm so glad you wrote about this option, Michael. I am strongly considering this, too, despite owning the three pound 100-400. To have 105-525 f6.3 at only 22 ounces is astounding, if the quality is as good. I found a Mark Galer video singing its praises, yet just as it was being released. It has Sony's fastest focusing motor.
I started a thread just now to try to see if others here have experience with it on the A7R4 or A1.
Please weigh in if you see this. For $900, I'm REALLY intrigued about this for travel. But sharpness has to be as good as the 100-400 or I know I won't use it....Show more →
If you are concerned about coverage on FF I did a test a while back, at https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1645188/0#15216898
The 70-350 covers a good bit more than APS-C, as that test showed. Probably more if you remove the rear plate, but I haven't tried that.
I also compared the 70-350 to the 70-300 which I had at the time and the 70-350 was sharper.
bobek13 wrote:
Found a "sports" video in German if anyone's interested...
I had a look at that yesterday too. Do they really expect people to think a professional would use a third-party lens for work? It doesn't seem the most likely to me. The video was a little unbelievable.
I mean the pictures look good, but it tells us nothing about the performance for fast paced action.
zz wrote:
I had a look at that yesterday too. Do they really expect people to think a professional would use a third-party lens for work? It doesn't seem the most likely to me. The video was a little unbelievable.
I mean the pictures look good, but it tells us nothing about the performance for fast paced action.
I listened to him and I wasn’t convinced, as he sounded more like a marketing rep.
In Norway the Tamron 150-500/5-6.7 is 2/3 the price of the Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3,
This lens has close focus of 60cm at 150mm 1:3.1 vs about 1m for 100-400GM at 100mm. Does that mean they are very close in terms of macro capabilities?
I could be wrong, but I think at the wide end the 150-600 beats the 100-400 GM for minimum focus distance (I think both are right around 1 meter). But where the 100-400 GM really shines is that it maintains that same minimal focus distance at 400, where the 150-600 shifts to about 2 meters.
zz wrote: