jtra wrote:
In my comparison with 55/1.8ZA at f/8 (Day 2 - Scene 1 - 50mm) the Tamron was as sharp in center but very close to the sides it was weaker. However when compared with 85/1.8G (Day 2 - Scene 1 - 85mm) the Tamron was almost matching the prime. So my copy (at least) is performing better at 85mm than at 50mm.
I was talking strictly about performance at (very) close distances *and* longer focal lengths.
A sample at 200mm around 2.7m focus distance, f/6.3, WB Cloudy, best shot chosen of a couple:
Any word yet on the bokeh quality of this 50-400mm, particularly at the long end with the subject a bit further away (for wildlife)? I had the Sony 200-600, 100-400 GM and Sigma 100-400, all of which produced nice out-of-focus backgrounds, so I'm hoping this Tamron can keep up...
j4nu wrote:
Those 400mm shots look like they were shot from a close distance to me...
They have their setup described here.
They have the target chart attached on 1.5m square (not sure how much smaller is the chart compared to the square, so let's assume it is same size).
They use the same chart up to 460mm for which they use smaller one so 50-400 is not affected by this (but 100-400 with TC is affected).
So this implies about 4.15m distance at 100mm, 16.6m at 400mm. Not bad for a test chart.
jtra wrote:
They have their setup described here.
They have the target chart attached on 1.5m square (not sure how much smaller is the chart compared to the square, so let's assume it is same size).
They use the same chart up to 460mm for which they use smaller one so 50-400 is not affected by this (but 100-400 with TC is affected).
So this implies about 4.15m distance at 100mm, 16.6m at 400mm. Not bad for a test chart.
Thanks, well - it doesn't really match my experience and other reviews, so maybe a bad copy?
keepcoding wrote:
The 50-400 looks extremely soft in that comparison against other 100-400mm lenses.
[...]
Well, the cheap (but also very lightweight) Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 IS USM is worse at 400mm.
Anyway, I have added a Moon test to my review. That is about as far as you can go with test chart distance though with a problem of air distortion which is limiting factor in this test (so I have taken a lot of images from which I picked the best).
p.10 #11 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
I returned my copy of this lens. It wasn’t useful for my situation. I had excellent 24-70 gmii so this lens was meant for telephoto far reach only. Sadly iq was excellent from 50-200 but I didn’t like anything at 400. So I traded with 150-500 which is sharp overall lens.
p.10 #13 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
keepcoding wrote:
I'm still debating whether to get this Tamron 50-400 or another 100-400 GM (used). Price is about the same, so it comes down to which is better.
Sony:
- sharper at 400mm (?)
- better colors
- slightly faster (better bokeh for wildlife?)
I "re-bought" a 100-400 GM once I found a good deal. The biggest issue I have is the same as it was before - it's a heavy lens. Aside from that, I don't need macro capability at 50mm and would probably rather use my CV 65 or 85 Batis for anything between 50mm-100mm. For what amounted to just a couple hundred dollars more than a new Tamron, the GM was kind of an obvious choice. Big fan of my other Tamron lenses, though.
p.10 #14 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
corposant wrote:
I "re-bought" a 100-400 GM once I found a good deal. The biggest issue I have is the same as it was before - it's a heavy lens. Aside from that, I don't need macro capability at 50mm and would probably rather use my CV 65 or 85 Batis for anything between 50mm-100mm. For what amounted to just a couple hundred dollars more than a new Tamron, the GM was kind of an obvious choice. Big fan of my other Tamron lenses, though.
Yes, the main reasons why I sold the Sony GM some time ago were the weight and the price (mainly because I wasn't comfortable bringing a flashy 2000+$ lens when traveling to developing countries). Also, I really didn't like the long zoom throw.
Sony:
- sharper at 400mm (?)
- better colors
- slightly faster (better bokeh for wildlife?)
If you are doing wildlife and bird most of the time then just get Sony. If you want all rounder decent vacation lens then get tamron. I bought mostly for 300-400 range and tamron pic were just not sharp and didn’t like iq at all. However 50-150 was really sharp .
p.10 #16 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
keepcoding wrote:
Yes, the main reasons why I sold the Sony GM some time ago were the weight and the price (mainly because I wasn't comfortable bringing a flashy 2000+$ lens when traveling to developing countries). Also, I really didn't like the long zoom throw.
If those are your flashpoints - maybe the Tam 70-300 would be better suited for you (with some cropping, scene-dependent)?
p.10 #17 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
saltdiscus wrote:
If you are doing wildlife and bird most of the time then just get Sony. If you want all rounder decent vacation lens then get tamron. I bought mostly for 300-400 range and tamron pic were just not sharp and didn’t like iq at all. However 50-150 was really sharp .
I'm not looking for a birding lens, I only do static subjects (mostly larger mammals).
Could you please show some examples? All tests that I've seen so far indicate good sharpness.
p.10 #20 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
aCuria wrote:
If a lens doesn’t implement floating elements the close performance tends to be shit. I’m not sure that’s the case here.
It looks like the lens is just softer than the GM glass. It’s half the price of the 100-400GM, I wouldn’t expect it to perform similarly.
Except that some reviews show that it performs excellent (e.g. Dustin Abbott).
And when comparing the MTF of both lenses, they should basically perform the same:
though with a problem of air distortion which is limiting factor in this test (so I have taken a lot of images from which I picked the best).