ryanli wrote:
Hi, I'm not sure that "obviously" that the 50-300 has worse IQ than the 50-400. Dustin Abbott's review shows poor corners on the former, but this is not corroborated by SonyAlphaBlog's review (which concludes the 50-400 is "a little bit less good optically"). I would imagine sample variation is coming into play here.
I do agree with you that if you have 400mm, you will use and like it.
The bigger barrier for me in terms of "downgrading" - something one always has to be aware of when buying third party lenses - is that resale value of the 50-400 has plummeted and grey imports in Hong Kong are being retailed at as little as GBP 650, and I don't see the retail price of the 50-300 being significantly cheaper. So in all likelihood I'd be making a financial loss if I were to "downgrade"!...Show more →
Yes, that price hike is what makes me hesitant to buy 50-300 right off the bat... 50-400 lost something like ~450€ since its debut in EU. Well, that plus those yellow-ish coatings.
ryanli wrote:
Hi, I'm not sure that "obviously" that the 50-300 has worse IQ than the 50-400. Dustin Abbott's review shows poor corners on the former, but this is not corroborated by SonyAlphaBlog's review (which concludes the 50-400 is "a little bit less good optically"). I would imagine sample variation is coming into play here.
I do agree with you that if you have 400mm, you will use and like it.
The bigger barrier for me in terms of "downgrading" - something one always has to be aware of when buying third party lenses - is that resale value of the 50-400 has plummeted and grey imports in Hong Kong are being retailed at as little as GBP 650, and I don't see the retail price of the 50-300 being significantly cheaper. So in all likelihood I'd be making a financial loss if I were to "downgrade"!...Show more →
The nice thing about this lens is that it's cheap enough that even if you lose half the value or more when you sell it, it is still easy to justify on the basis of the benefit you get in the meantime. And it weighs enough less than the 50–400 (which I have used and liked) that I don't think it's really in the same category.
If I'm willing to carry the 50-400 mm, I'm usually also willing to carry the 200–600 mm.
I own and love the 200-600 but it's sometimes difficult to carry when traveling. I'm looking for a more portable telephoto option for some trips. I also own the 70-180mm G2 which is great optically (portrait, street, landscapes, details, ...) but obviously not a good choice for wildlife and birds. So I'm considering the new 50-300mm or a used 50-400. I feel like I would be more pleased with the 50-400, quality and reach. While still being to fit in my main backpack (Wandrd 21L) with the Sigma 24-70 II.
What do you all think about this lens vs the Tamron 70-180 G2? I own the 70-180 but I mostly use it for travel, relying more on my 85mm for people photos.
I wondered if the lighter weight and longer range would be useful. Big difference in aperture though.
