AZHeaven wrote:
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!
It's 1:2 magnification at 50mm (MFD: ~10"). I guess that's pretty good - obviously would prefer a close-up lens to be somewhat longer, but it's a nice feature.
Their samples and resolution charts look pretty good. Chroma looks controlled. Based on the apertures they tested, it looks like it's at f6.3 by 200mm.
I was really surprised by how small it looks in the reviewers hands. Quite a compact lens.
Any guesses on pricing? Tamron's 150-500 is $1399, I'd guess this will come in slightly lower, maybe $1299. Since we're seeing some images without the tripod foot, I'm wondering whether that's separate.
A livestream presentation here:
An interesting observation to me is that the minimum focus distance at 400mm is 1.5m, which is quite a bit more than the competition. I guess that's where some of the compromises come in?
At $1300 or €1500 (I'm guessing) this might not be the most impressive value as I first thought. We've been thinking about getting a second 100-400ish lens here at home for my fiance and I don't think this is it.
Indeed, that's pretty bad - so basically you give up the magnification ratio on the long end, in exchange for the macro mode on the wide end.
The reason I'm considering this lens is two-fold:
1) I see many people questioning the use of very slow 50mm on the wide end, but that was something I was actually missing on my recent trip (of course I'd prefer faster ). Contrary to those people, I very rarely go on photographic trips alone. It's always with my family, so there's always time for an occasional snapshot. This is where I find 100m a bit long and 50mm would simply be useful. And to answer the question why use 100-400 at all in such case, because that's the main "theme" for the surroundings, but with an occasional snap here and there.
2) This will most probably be laughed at, but the haptics of 100-400GM bother me a bit. I'm normally ok with bigger lenses, but there's something in the combination of weight, size and handling (zooming) that doesn't sit well with me for the amount of $$$ I paid for it . This is an area where the Tamron would improve at least a bit, if it's at all similar to 35-150.
... and don't get me wrong, I think the IQ of 100-400GM is unrivalled here, as I find it both sharp and smooth (a bit "nicer" than 100-400DN for example).
j4nu wrote:
This will most probably be laughed at, but the haptics of 100-400GM bother me a bit. I'm normally ok with bigger lenses, but there's something in the combination of weight, size and handling (zooming) that doesn't sit well with me for the amount of $$$ I paid for it
That is a good point; sometimes I do wish that there would be an update for the 100-400GM in the same style that the 70-200GMII got an update. I feel like for me at least I'd take it out more if the feel and handling was improved. Not that it's bad or anything, but the general drive towards ergonomics in photography recently makes some of the 'older' Sony lenses stand out.
You could see that with Canon putting a 100-500 RF lens out there and various third party options being released that have slightly different specs than your usual 100-400/4.5-5.6. I feel like a lot of Sony users might be projecting their wishes for a future 100-400GMII on all the newly released other lenses
akashyap wrote:
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.
Price is said to be $1499. It's up there way above the 28-200 in price.
My only gripe with the lens, max magnification is at 50mm, which for me is useless for me. If I'm shooting butterflies and dragonflies, having working distance is paramount, so having max magnification at 400mm is far more useful. And even if I shoot floral portraits, I would never use 50mm, the isolation and background blur in the 300-400mm range is again more appealing. Magnification at 400mm is one of the weakest in class at 0.25x, although not terrible, it pales compared to the 100-400GM @ 0.35x @ 400mm and the Nikon 100-400 Z @ 0.39x @ 400mm. It's just slightly better than the Sigma 100-400 FE. The Sony also allows TC's. Which is a huge bonus. 0.49x @ 560mm.
I don’t currently have a 100-400 so I’m deciding between this Tamron, the Sigma, or a used 100-400GM (not paying the retail price for that lens again). Agreed that the loss of magnification at the long end is a downside, but I could live with 0.25x. The Tamron in general looks more appealing than the Sigma - better macro, likely better AF, though the Sigma is quite a bit cheaper. Most likely as soon as a GMII comes out I’d trade up. Hmm…
I can't see how this lens is going to be worth $300-400 more than the Sigma 100-400. I own both the Sigma and the Sony. Gaining 50mm at the short end has no appeal to me personally. While the macro capability is neat, I'm not comfortable doing a modest 2:1 macro with a lens weighing 2.5 lbs--more with the collar.
If it focuses faster than the Sigma, might be worth consideration. I think Tamron has it priced at least $200 too high versus the competition, however.
The price here will be interesting (not announced yet, considering every online photo store (using the most popular price indexer) has the 150-500 for 1600e, as it together with most Tamron and Sigma lenses have become dearer this year. Currently two electronics stores and then Amazon.se have it for the old price, 1300e. https://www.prisjakt.nu/produkt.php?p=5763110
I wonder if this will be under 1600e here (25% VAT), we'll see,
IMHO the price is just right, still cheaper than 35-150 and different size/weight class than 150-500.
It would be cheaper if not for the 50mm and macro... but then you could buy the DN.
j4nu wrote:
IMHO the price is just right, still cheaper than 35-150 and different size/weight class than 150-500.
It would be cheaper if not for the 50mm and macro... but then you could buy the DN.
I don't know, the 150-500mm is most likely a superior lens and available for 1230€ currently, that's considerably less.
And the Sigma 100-400 can be found for 900€, thats almost 40% cheaper...
. This is an area where the Tamron would improve at least a bit, if it's at all similar to 35-150.
