Glad to see this is getting into more hands. Will want to hear lots more about AF - which so far seems very positive - and sharpness at the long end compared to the 200-600. Exciting times - I expect Sigma to put out a new sports lens soon too (maybe a 150-600 as per their DSLR line)
For those currently having this lens, pls kindly post some BIF pictures and comments how's the AF tracking on the Sony system that you shooting with. Thanks in advance!
So I've gotten a hold of a copy to test this weekend.
I shot over 700 shots today with this lens and my A6600. All handheld
And I'm not particularly impressed. I'm impressed with my Sig 100-400 DN and just wanted the extra 100mm and better AF. I've uploaded 12 shots to Flickr
Some of the photos you posted look pretty good, but of course we can get good photos from any of these lenses. Can you explain more why you were not impressed - particularly compared to the Sigma - and how it performed differently than the 200-600?
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Some of the photos you posted look pretty good, but of course we can get good photos from any of these lenses. Can you explain more why you were not impressed - particularly compared to the Sigma - and how it performed differently than the 200-600?
Thanks but all those photos were worked on in Post to achieve the results. The orange berry shot was the one shot that didn't take much Post work. So only a few shots out of 700+ isn't impressive. Mostly it comes down to sharpness/detail but I haven't given up on it yet and this was just my initial impressions of it.
Well ... I started off with doing charts off a tripod with stabilization off and on. This copy of the Tamron is just plain off at any focal length compared to my Sig 100-400 DN.
It's really hard to tell if the VC does anything as there isn't much difference handheld with it on or off. I've tried low ISO, Aperture mode, off the tripod and I don't see any reason to keep trying with the lens. At some $700 more than my Sigma and at 1.5 lbs. heavier it's a no brainer to give it back. Maybe it's a bad copy? But I haven't been impressed with any shots in it's Flickr group or online shots.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
It's killing me I still have not got out really to test this lens out properly. Had it about a week.
DPR just put out their review though.
I looked at the JPEGs on the online review. Zoomed in for birds and stuff. It's very sharp. Of course, there is no BIF shots, but if you want a walk around tele for perched birds, this looks pretty sweet of a setup.
More fun tracking seagulls with my old A7RII... When I think that a big majority of my photography is with all manual Voigtlanders I must say I am quite happy with results...
Must admit I am considering upgrading my camera - should I get the RIII or RIV each has it`s +/- and the RII is a heck of a good camera to start with so not an easy choice...
zz wrote:
I believe so, but that's where Topaz Denoise comes in! It's a much cheaper alternative compared to upgrading from an R3 to the R4.
Already got the Topaz Denoise, all of these Tamron shots went through it, but I guess I could be more "aggresive" with denoising...
I am leaning more towards RIV over RIII for bigger croping ability (as there is no TC for this Tammy), better EVF (mostly photographing with manual lenses) and better AF tracking. One huge reason for even thinking about upgrading is the poor battery life of the RII - I`m kinda tired of carrying 4-5 batteries with me
bobek13 wrote:
Already got the Topaz Denoise, all of these Tamron shots went through it, but I guess I could be more "aggresive" with denoising...
I am leaning more towards RIV over RIII for bigger croping ability (as there is no TC for this Tammy), better EVF (mostly photographing with manual lenses) and better AF tracking. One huge reason for even thinking about upgrading is the poor battery life of the RII - I`m kinda tired of carrying 4-5 batteries with me
A.
I went straight from the RII to the RIV. The cropping ability is very helpful, but I've also enjoyed the much better tracking. The noise is a little more, but if you downsample to 30-40 MP you cant notice the difference.
Have you maybe got this Tammy? Just wondering if there are also focusing issues like with the sony 2-6 lens.
wdshuck wrote:
I went straight from the RII to the RIV. The cropping ability is very helpful, but I've also enjoyed the much better tracking. The noise is a little more, but if you downsample to 30-40 MP you cant notice the difference.
Would the noise be much more pronounced in high ISO shots with the RIV?
Cheers, A.
---------------------------------------------
zz wrote:
I believe so, but that's where Topaz Denoise comes in! It's a much cheaper alternative compared to upgrading from an R3 to the R4.
---------------------------------------------
wdshuck wrote:
The noise is a little more, but if you downsample to 30-40 MP you cant notice the difference.
I didn't really notice any difference in noise in photos with the A7R3 and A7R4 when resolution normalized.
Here, only the A73 looks very slightly better, the A7R4 and A7R3 look pretty similar to me. DxO also shows less than 1/10th of a stop difference in high iso performance between the R3 and R4, though between the A7R4 and A73 the difference grows to 0.15 of a stop
To put another way, at high ISO, the resolution advantage of the A7R4 goes away, and you end up with an equivalent picture to the R3 and R2.
EDIT: cut and paste the link to get the comparison set up:
I didn't really notice any difference in noise in photos with the A7R3 and A7R4 when resolution normalized.
Here, only the A73 looks very slightly better, the A7R4 and A7R3 look pretty similar to me. DxO also shows less than 1/10th of a stop difference in high iso performance between the R3 and R4, though between the A7R4 and A73 the difference grows to 0.15 of a stop
To put another way, at high ISO, the resolution advantage of the A7R4 goes away, and you end up with an equivalent picture to the R3 and R2.
It really doesn`t look like a real issue judging from the dpreview comparison tool - but the colors sure look completly different between these two cameras...
each has it`s +/- and the RII is a heck of a good camera to start with so not an easy choice... 
zz wrote:
