I've been looking for a good all-around longer telephoto where burst shooting and AF isn't a huge priority over portability and solid IQ. This lens seems like a winner within those constraints.
corposant wrote:
I've been looking for a good all-around longer telephoto where burst shooting and AF isn't a huge priority over portability and solid IQ. This lens seems like a winner within those constraints.
Regarding portability, the Weight (1155g) isn’t that different vs a 70-200GMii (1045g) and a TC
Unclear if the 50-400 is sharper at 400mm, but the 70-200 is actually brighter at all focal lengths, even 400mm.
If the 70-200 is actually sharper at 400mm, you can have your IQ / portability cake and eat it too (burst and AF comes free)
The Tamron seems to be stronger on the wide end with a bit of performance falloff on the long end (which is imho a questionable design decision), so I think the GMII with 2xTC will be at least as sharp @ 400mm, if not in the center then in the corners.
I think the bigger differential will simply be the range, 8x available without mounting/unmounting and that 0.5x macro as a bonus...
j4nu wrote:
The Tamron seems to be stronger on the wide end with a bit of performance falloff on the long end (which is imho a questionable design decision), so I think the GMII with 2xTC will be at least as sharp @ 400mm, if not in the center then in the corners.
I think the bigger differential will simply be the range, 8x available without mounting/unmounting and that 0.5x macro as a bonus...
In Marc Alhadeff Flickr pictures there is a similar (but not same) image shot with the GMII with 2xTC at 400mm and with Tamron 50-400.
I already sold my 70-200 GMII+TC2x for tamron 50-400mm.
70-200 GMII+TC2x is not sharp enough for landscape use. I have to stop down the combo to F11 or F13 to make corner sharp but it' still not good enough. That why i sold it.
jtra wrote:
In Marc Alhadeff Flickr pictures there is a similar (but not same) image shot with the GMII with 2xTC at 400mm and with Tamron 50-400.
70-200 GMII+2x at f/5.6 vs Tamron 50-400 at f/8
The GMII shot was taken at 1000 ISO, which doens't really make it look the best honestly. The Tamron's picture was taken at 320 ISO. It just makes it look like an unfair comparison. I know I would personally prefer the utility of a 70-200/2.8 that can do double-duty as a landscape lens with the 2xTC, but opinions on that differ obviously
Focal lengths longer than about 100mm are good without any significant PF....Show more →
Hm, those purple fringes are a bit of an eyesore indeed, thanks for pointing this out. Interestingly none of the reviews I've seen so far has mentioned this
Yeah, I think that's the only review that mentions them.
I wonder if it's some kind of LaCA as they seem to be close to the edges and on contrasty surfacecs mostly...
lkunl wrote:
I already sold my 70-200 GMII+TC2x for tamron 50-400mm.
70-200 GMII+TC2x is not sharp enough for landscape use. I have to stop down the combo to F11 or F13 to make corner sharp but it' still not good enough. That why i sold it.
You're gonna make a lot of people angry here with this statement ...
j4nu wrote:
You're gonna make a lot of people angry here with this statement ...
Haha. If you shoot mostly portrait or low light 70-200/2.8 + tc2x might be a good choice but for landscape i prefer 50-400. Hopefully their image quality will be good as i hope.
aCuria wrote:
Regarding portability, the Weight (1155g) isn’t that different vs a 70-200GMii (1045g) and a TC
Unclear if the 50-400 is sharper at 400mm, but the 70-200 is actually brighter at all focal lengths, even 400mm.
If the 70-200 is actually sharper at 400mm, you can have your IQ / portability cake and eat it too (burst and AF comes free)
I agree with your points. If you’d like to subsidize the cost difference between the Tamron and the Sony 70-200 II plus two TCs, please let me know. /s
I see the biggest issue with these superzooms is that they are one trick ponies due to their weight and slow apertures. Using something like a 70-200 2.8 you can shoot portraits with it, action sports and by combining extenders, it can be used for wildlife. I see the 70-200 a much more versatile lens.
Alan Parker wrote:
The GMII shot was taken at 1000 ISO, which doens't really make it look the best honestly. The Tamron's picture was taken at 320 ISO. It just makes it look like an unfair comparison. I know I would personally prefer the utility of a 70-200/2.8 that can do double-duty as a landscape lens with the 2xTC, but opinions on that differ obviously
Yes, for me the long range needs to do double duty as I very rarely shoot landscapes at anything over 100mm. I do shoot sports where the 70-200 would be much more useful than the Tamron.
Well, I said it's gonna trigger a lot of people ...
Now, jokes aside - the only reason I want to try the Tamron is that I still don't have a tele-zoom, which I am completely happy with... It could have been another 100-400, but if it offers 50mm at only a slight loss on the long end, I'll take it (as I know I will find use for that wide end).
j4nu wrote:
You're gonna make a lot of people angry here with this statement ...
I'm not sure it's a controversial opinion – as I recall several others concluded this in the thread on that topic.
Love my 70-200 and I'd use it with a 1.4x (which I need to buy sometime), but I'd rather have a 100-400 for when I need something longer than that. Yes it's an outdoor lens only, and it's perfectly fine for folks to save some money and use a 70-200 with a 2x TC rather than buying 2 lenses, but it's not going to deliver quite the same level of results... and the 100-400 can take TCs too.
The Tamron 50-400 looks great, I'd totally pick it up over the Sigma as it appears to justify its higher price with better build quality, much better AF, and the extended range. It's the GM comparison that is tougher – if you want the best AF or to use TCs then the Sony seems to hold its own.
I wish Sigma would step up their game with the AF performance in their lenses... it's starting to really hold me back from purchasing some of their otherwise great lenses for anything other than slower use cases like portraits and macro.
In the Dustin Abbott and Jared Polin videos they were happy with the auto focus. But Stefan Malloch was very critical. We're going to need to get some user feedback since they're conflicting and you can't always trust reviews.
NastyNick wrote:
In the Dustin Abbott and Jared Polin videos they were happy with the auto focus. But Stefan Malloch was very critical. We're going to need to get some user feedback since they're conflicting and you can't always trust reviews.
Dustin and Jared both used A1. Stefan used A7iv. I can imagine that this is the complete reason for difference in outcome.
I wouldn't get too excited about AF. In my experiencee VXD motors are as fast as the latest Sony XD linear motors when it comes to "normal" usage, but fall behind when tracking (action, sports, erratic movement, esp. towards and close to the camera).
...