I find this lens very interesting. The close focusing was a smart move as it is one of the traits that makes the Sony 100-400 so attractive. When it comes to long lenses - that are often used also for wildlife/birding - AF speed and accuracy is so key, it really has to shine to be considered amongst the already excellent Sony lenses. Not sure I would sell my 100-400 for this, but will certainly be watching to see how it performs.
On the other hand, have had the 35-150 on backorder for months with no delivery in sight; not sure what a 'development' announcement means in terms of availability. Agree that a 16-35/50-400 pairing is amazing for a 2 lens lineup involving travel, landscapes and wildlife.
jaybr wrote:
Not me, I’m definitely interested in this lens.
I was gonna get the Sigma 100-400, but the Tamron should have faster AF and hopefully better OS.
J
I hope you get what you want/need buddy...
I think Tamron does not make very good telephoto lenses.
one_abouve_all wrote:
I hope you get what you want/need buddy...
I think Tamron does not make very good telephoto lenses.
I already own the 17-28 & 28-200, both are excellent copies and I’m very happy with them.
Plenty of other people are happy with Tamron telephoto lenses.
jaybr wrote:
I already own the 17-28 & 28-200, both are excellent copies and I’m very happy with them.
Plenty of other people are happy with Tamron telephoto lenses.
J
I'm glad you are happy with the glass you have. You do not need to be defensive about it. It is just my opinion that Tamron makes not really that good glass (telephoto). Do you think I can/should have my own opinion? Or I must think like you because you might get upset about my thoughts on the topic?
one_abouve_all wrote:
I hope you get what you want/need buddy...
I think Tamron does not make very good telephoto lenses.
I have owned a good number of Tamron telephoto lenses over the years. I primarily own Sony GM lenses both prime and telephoto for my A1 system these days. On average, the Tamron lenses are not up to my current generation GM lenses. They are more in line with the G lens line. However, when I travel and my main goal is size and convenience with broad coverage, and good IQ, I take my 17-28 and 28-200 Tamrons. I have never been disappointed in my results with that pair. In fact I have won competitions with images created with them.
The Tamrons have earned a place in my bag for a reason. To say that Tamron doesn't make good telephoto lenses is just not correct. In fact in my opinion they make the best super zoom telephoto lenses in the industry.
As a bonus they back that up with long warranty periods (for me as a platinum vip member its lifetime) and superb customer service.
one_abouve_all wrote:
I hope you get what you want/need buddy...
I think Tamron does not make very good telephoto lenses.
You can have your own opinion but it's not a fact.
Tamron makes very good lenses, that's a fact. Not the best(Sony GM) but very good. Also when it comes to versatility / weight / image quality zooms - Tamron makes the very best for Sony FE.
Immortal wrote:
You can have your own opinion but it's not a fact.
Tamron makes very good lenses, that's a fact. Not the best(Sony GM) but very good. Also when it comes to versatility / weight / image quality zooms - Tamron makes the very best for Sony FE.
If you think Tamron makes very good lenses I"m ok with that.
"You can have your own opinion but it's not a fact" - sorry but it is a fact.
The last good telephoto lens produced by Tamron was 300mm F2.8. I used to have one, it was a good glass, not the best but good. Tamaron never did anything else like that anymore. The new ones 150-600mm are OK I guess. I tried two of those and found it is - well, it is a Tamron! I'm fine if you like it. I think you should have your opinion and I respect that.
By the way, GM is not the best glass, images coming from GM lenses are flat, just bad-looking crap. One needs a lot of time to make them pleasing to the eye. Thank God we have the Zeiss line available for Sony! But I guess You are a Tamron guy and you do not care about Zeiss, and it is fine with me.
Typically when I’m shooting with my 100-400, I never wish I could go wider. I’m usually at the 200-400 range. When shooting around the 50mm range, I typically want to be anywhere from 24mm to 85mm…so I really am not seeing the real value of this lens going to 50mm, at least from the way I’d use a telephoto zoom.
I, on the other hand, would find the extra 50mm range on the wide end super-useful on my recent summer vacation trip. However, I don't really believe the Tamron will be in the same league (IQ) as the GM or even the Sigma (100-400) due to that extra range.
Let's see though, maybe the zoom king surprises me again ...
Going to 50 means I can leave one lens at home. I think the other potential appeal of this is better AF compared to the Sigma and lower price compared to the GM. Assuming weight/size and IQ are equal I'd pick one up. Otherwise I'm thinking of getting the Sigma.
itai195 wrote:
Going to 50 means I can leave one lens at home. I think the other potential appeal of this is better AF compared to the Sigma and lower price compared to the GM. Assuming weight/size and IQ are equal I'd pick one up. Otherwise I'm thinking of getting the Sigma.
But carrying a bigger heavier lens with the off chance of needing the 50mm range is just too much to sacrifice for the odd chance of needing 50mm when shooting the telephoto ranges. Typically for me the 50mm range involves people and pointing a bazooka at them while trying to have them act "normally" is a persciption for failure.
chez wrote:
But carrying a bigger heavier lens with the off chance of needing the 50mm range is just too much to sacrifice for the odd chance of needing 50mm when shooting the telephoto ranges. Typically for me the 50mm range involves people and pointing a bazooka at them while trying to have them act "normally" is a persciption for failure.
Totally agree, but it depends on your personal use case for a lens like this. My typical landscape kit is a wide zoom or a couple wide primes, a 50, and a telephoto zoom. In theory, I'd be able to leave the 50 at home with this lens. That depends on how the image quality ends up, though.
Going to 50 won't make much difference to me for action or wildlife, but if it comes without any significant performance penalties then it doesn't matter.
one_abouve_all wrote:
By the way, GM is not the best glass, images coming from GM lenses are flat, just bad-looking crap. One needs a lot of time to make them pleasing to the eye. Thank God we have the Zeiss line available for Sony! But I guess You are a Tamron guy and you do not care about Zeiss, and it is fine with me.
So now also Sony GM lenses are just bad looking crap. That statement helps me understand where you are coming from.
You are aware of course tha Tamron is the largest lens maker in the World. They build some of the highest reviewed and most respected lenses in the World for other brands.
Do you consider Zeiss Batis glass to be superior to Sony GM lenses?
Personally I love the Zeiss colors. Some of my Zeiss manual focus lenses are very special. Others I have tried not so much. Way too many aberations when shooting wide open.
You realize of course that Zeiss is really not a lens nmaker for cameras any more. Zeiss liscenses their brand to other manufactures. It is generaly believed that Cosina for Otus, Milvus and possibly Loxia. Cosina also manufactures Zeiss M mout lenses. Tamron for Zeiss Batis, and Touit.
one_abouve_all wrote:
If you think Tamron makes very good lenses I"m ok with that.
"You can have your own opinion but it's not a fact" - sorry but it is a fact.
The last good telephoto lens produced by Tamron was 300mm F2.8. I used to have one, it was a good glass, not the best but good. Tamaron never did anything else like that anymore. The new ones 150-600mm are OK I guess. I tried two of those and found it is - well, it is a Tamron! I'm fine if you like it. I think you should have your opinion and I respect that.
By the way, GM is not the best glass, images coming from GM lenses are flat, just bad-looking crap. One needs a lot of time to make them pleasing to the eye. Thank God we have the Zeiss line available for Sony! But I guess You are a Tamron guy and you do not care about Zeiss, and it is fine with me. ...Show more →
I guess you have not tried the 35-150? It gets great praise by a number of forum members here. Also the 28-200 is a very good lens. The lenses you have used are dated and not designed for the current E mount lenses.
"So now also Sony GM lenses are just bad looking crap" - yes (Whatever I tried I did not like it but I did not try them all, I have never tried 50mmf1.2 but what I see is the same, Sony glass produces flat images.)
"Do you consider Zeiss Batis glass to be superior to Sony GM lenses" - yes
It does not really matter where Zeiss makes lenses. It is like Toyota, it makes cars everywhere but they all are Toyota-made cars. Not Ford/Sony but Toyota/Zeiss. Not all Zeiss lenses are awesome. Some are really good some not good. As always, nobody makes all perfect lenses or cameras.
one_abouve_all wrote:
"So now also Sony GM lenses are just bad looking crap" - yes (Whatever I tried I did not like it but I did not try them all, I have never tried 50mmf1.2 but what I see is the same, Sony glass produces flat images.)
"Do you consider Zeiss Batis glass to be superior to Sony GM lenses" - yes
It does not really matter where Zeiss makes lenses. It is like Toyota, it makes cars everywhere but they all are Toyota-made cars. Not Ford/Sony but Toyota/Zeiss. Not all Zeiss lenses are awesome. Some are really good some not good. As always, nobody makes all perfect lenses or cameras. ...Show more →
I guess everyone sees a little differently. Some see “flat” while others see “3D”. Of the same image!🙂. Different strokes and all that.
For me, my Sony GM lenses have all been stellar and never “flat”. The 24, 35, and 50 GMs all have a quality that I can see instantly.
Just out of curiosity, do you find these images flat? No offense taken if you do.
one_abouve_all wrote:
I'm glad you are happy with the glass you have. You do not need to be defensive about it. It is just my opinion that Tamron makes not really that good glass (telephoto). Do you think I can/should have my own opinion? Or I must think like you because you might get upset about my thoughts on the topic?
I’m just responding to your claim that “Tamron does not make very good telephoto lenses”, by stating that I own two excellent copies of Tamron zoom lenses, and that I’ve seen plenty of other people posting that they are happy with Tamron telephoto lenses. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
I don’t get upset about comments about lenses (life’s too short for that), there’s plenty of more important things in the world to get upset about.
itai195 wrote:
Totally agree, but it depends on your personal use case for a lens like this. My typical landscape kit is a wide zoom or a couple wide primes, a 50, and a telephoto zoom. In theory, I'd be able to leave the 50 at home with this lens. That depends on how the image quality ends up, though.
Going to 50 won't make much difference to me for action or wildlife, but if it comes without any significant performance penalties then it doesn't matter.
corposant wrote:
Curious what the MFD will be (the 100-400 has always intrigued me for the range but also the close-up capability)
Curious as well. My Sony 100-400 lives on my A7IV 99% of the time. And I love the MFD on this lens. I left it home for a trip to visit family in Santa Clarita. Took only my Sony 24-105. Also went to the Aquarium of the Pacific. There were times I wish I had the 100-400!
Was ready to purchase a Canon 70-300L as my landscape tele zoom (really love the colors and contrast from the Flickr pictures) when this was announced. While I love how squat and packable the 70-300L is, I should probably consider this lens for updated optics and lack of adapter.
All Tamron zooms have been punching above their weight & price recently, but I’d love to see a premium price tag on this lens closer to the 35-150 than the 28-200.
...
