p.1 #1 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
Hello folks,
I'm wrestling with a classic gear dilemma: prioritize practicality or maximum focal length coverage for my landscape kit?
I'm looking to fund my next purchase by selling my underutilized Sony 100-400mm GM lens.
Current Setup (Sony E-Mount)
Body 1: Sony 24-105mm f/4 G + Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Art
Body 2: Zony 16-35mm f/4 +
The Decision Point
I need a zoom lens to complement the 16-35mm on my second body.
The choice is between:
A 25-200mm zoom (the practical choice)
A 50-300mm zoom (the reach choice)
Both options (plus the 16-35mm) result in a similar total weight of ~1.5kg plus the camera body, so weight is a factor but not a tie-breaker.
My uncertainty comes from the 100-400mm: I'm not sure if I avoid it because of its weight/bulk or simply my shooting style/preference for wider angles. I do want to start capturing more personal, intimate landscape shots that require reach (or do I? ).
Pros and Cons
The 25-200mm : High Practicality / Fewer lens changes. / My limited 100-400mm shots were usually below 200mm.
The 50-300mm zoom : Exceptional Reach (16-300mm total range). / Minimal overlap.
Ultimately, I'm trying to figure out if I will actually use the 300mm reach if I didn't use the 400mm.
What are your thoughts on practicality vs. completeness in a landscape kit? All advice is welcome!
Bonus points if you can share any compelling landscape photos taken over 200mm to convince me of the value of that extra reach!
p.1 #2 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
The Tamron 28-200 is my most used lens by far in my kit. My longer options include the 70-200GMii + 1.4TC and the 200-600. I’ve never owned the 100-400GM, nor have I ever had any desire to own one.
The majority of my photography is travel photography, which includes quite a lot of “run and gun” landscapes, and landscapes that are taken on day hikes and multi-day hikes that have happened on trips. I do occasionally punch in to 280mm with APS-C mode on the A7Rv, but I have noticed that these are far outnumbered by full frame shots between 150mm and 200mm.
I personally do A LOT of shots between 28mm and 50mm, so for my own uses, I have not been interested in the 50-300 or the 50-150GM.
Something else to consider is that the new 25-200 is quite a lot slower than the 28-200, especially at the longer end, i.e. 100mm+. Personally, if I was shooting a two body system and wanted to get some options for the wide end, I would have the 28-200 on one body and the 16-25G or a Tamron / Sigma competitor on the other.
p.1 #3 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
Have you thought of the Sony 70-200/4Gii? If you have an A7R5 or 4 you still have 26mp when using crop mode. That gets you to 300mm with a nice small-ish lens of very high quality.
p.1 #4 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
I have the Tamron 28-200 which I occasionally use for local walks or family times as a one-lens solution, and I have the Tamron 50-300 which I pair with the Sony 16-35 PZ as my lighter landscape set (my main heavier pack is Tamron 50-400, Sony 24-105, and the 16-35 PZ or Sigma 14-24).
Whether one uses the longer teles for landscape is really a personal preference/vision, it’s certainly not everyone’s cup of tea. For me the focal lengths greater than 200mm are essential for some work where I'm selecting an aesthetically pleasing piece out of the whole. You asked for examples so here are a few at focal lengths of 500, 400, 365, 282, 268.
ILCE-7RM5500mm F5.6 DG DN OS | Sports 024 lens500mmf/8.06s100 ISO+0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM5E 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 A067 lens268mmf/16.01/80s320 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5500mm F5.6 DG DN OS | Sports 024 lens500mmf/5.61/125s320 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5E 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 A067 lens282mmf/8.01/200s320 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5E 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 A067 lens365mmf/16.01/50s320 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5E 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 A067 lens400mmf/10.01/80s100 ISO0.0 EV
p.1 #6 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
Maybe just keep the 100-400? Go out and shoot landscapes or wildlife with ONLY that lens and you may discover new things about the landscape and yourself.
p.1 #7 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
rhawidantas wrote:
Thanks for the comments everyone.
And Ross, your shots are fantastic man. I have to say that with examples like this I am back at the start. haha
Thank you! I know how tough lens decisions can be, I go through it a lot, and admittedly I have too many and really need to pare down, but that decision making process is tough because each choice has it’s own set of benefits. I’ve been using the Tamron 50-400 all this year and love it, but then I made the mistake of adding a used 100-400 GM which is great also in some different ways, and now I’ve forced myself back into that decision mode. The Tamron is lighter and smaller than the GM and I’m finding I use that 50-99mm range quite a bit also.
p.1 #8 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
I'd suggest the 50-300 over the 25 or 28-200. But I have an A7Riv. The 50-300 could then go with either the 24-105 or 16-35 and get to 300mm. With the the 16-35, 61mp might permit you the 35 to 50mm jump. Using two bodies might allow fewer lens swaps and more flexibility in body/lens combinations for different situations. Incidentally, the 28-200 would be my one lens/one body choice if forced for landscapes. Or general travel. But with two or more lenses and two bodies, the 50-300 opens things up long. I'd think in urban or "wide" spots you've got several close lenses so more choices. I wouldn't disregard the 24-105 on one and 50-300 on the other.
p.1 #9 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
I have the 50-300, and it, along with the Sony 20-70/G and the Sony 16/1.8G or Vittrox 14/4 make up my lightweight travel kit. That being said, I am thinking I will sell the 50-300, and likely the 20-70, for the 25-200 or 20-200 and stick to one lens for light travel.
I also have the 16-35, 24-70, 35-150 and 100-400; and will still will use other lenses given the situation.
That being said, if you are willing to change lenses, the 50-300 is truly excellent. However, if I am not birding, when even the50-300 is too short, 200 or 300 is not such a big difference for landscapes and street.
?s=eyJpIjo1MzkxMjU4NjM0NCwiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTcxMiwicyI6IjE3OWI4ZWM4NjU1Zjc0MWZjNTZjMjU4ZTFiZDAzNzVkZWVjODhmYTIiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Dragonfly 4a by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1MzkxNDE2NTY0MywiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTc0MywicyI6ImJjOWZhMDg5ZjE5OTA3MTVjMGYzMjBmYjlmNzgyMjViNGNiZjVmNjAiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Sunrise 10 Aug 24 3C by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1MzkyMDg2MDQwNywiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTc3NSwicyI6IjQ3YTM4N2YyMmVlMWYxZmYwNDgyMTFhZWEzMWMxZGNkYzA0ZDllOWQiLCJ2IjoxfQ">11 Aug Sunrise 22C by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1Mzk1ODI2ODE2NywiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTgzMywicyI6IjA2ZTE3MjFiOTg4OWFhNGY4NzVjOWY1YmJkNGI3NjczNDhlZDI4YTIiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Sunset on the Hudson 4a by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1Mzk3ODM4OTU3NywiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTg1MywicyI6IjEwYjlmNzgwMTU3YTMzMzRkMTg1MWExZTFiN2Q4Njk2NTAwMGU1MzYiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Fort Tryon Sunrise 1p by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDAzMTEyNjYxMiwiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTg4NSwicyI6Ijk1ZmY4OTkyZjI0YzJlZjM4ZWYxNTZkOGU0M2IwYzkxNjVkYjVhYTQiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Early Autumn Tree 5a by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDA2MDI0NTYyMiwiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTkxOSwicyI6Ijg4NzQ3NTM2NGViY2IwYzA5YzJkZjY3NDNkODQzYzEzOGE3NWU0OTUiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Sunrise 9 Oct 6a by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDE0NTI0NzU2MiwiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTg4NSwicyI6IjMwZGM0MDdkMjM2ZWQzMjMzNDY2YjRhZWQ2ZjE0MjAzNzIxNWJiZDMiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Inwood Waking Up 2a by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDE4MzYxMTA1MiwiZSI6MTc2Mzg0OTk4NSwicyI6ImUzZTFlNjM4MGM0OTAwNzg3YzAyOGEzZGI1NTY2YWExNmQ5MzAxNTUiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Bee Chowing Down 6C by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDIzMDM5OTU0NywiZSI6MTc2Mzg1MDAxMywicyI6ImFhYzMyY2U2MDFhYjY1MWRlOTg4YTJmNzNlYjY5MmIzMzJjZmM0MzEiLCJ2IjoxfQ">DUMBO View 16pa by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDM1MzczNzY5NiwiZSI6MTc2Mzg1MDAxMywicyI6IjgxY2JiMGNlMzQ4YmE3NmQ1MTAxOGJlMDMzZjVkNzQ2OWU1NTJhM2MiLCJ2IjoxfQ">34st St Sunset 25 Feb 4c by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDc2Mzg2MDE5MSwiZSI6MTc2Mzg1MDEzNiwicyI6ImYxMTllNjc2MmNmMGQ1OTYwNWM0NGEwYzFlMWVmNTE2MGFhOWZjNDIiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Marigold 2a by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
?s=eyJpIjo1NDg2NDUxOTk3MSwiZSI6MTc2Mzg1MDE0NywicyI6IjBhZjViZmFiMTNjNDMzMWRkYWE4MWRkNTE3MGE4NDhkNDlmMDAzZDQiLCJ2IjoxfQ">Fall along the brook 4a by Brian Laguardia, on Flickr
p.1 #10 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
I use the Tamron 50-300 along with the 16-35GM mk1 as my main landscape kit on 2 bodies. I can see the draw of having just 1 lens for landscape with 1 body and would probably consider the Sigma as it goes to 20mm. Advantage of the Tamron 25-200 is having f2.8 at 25mm
p.1 #11 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
Ross Martin wrote:
..longer teles for landscape is really a personal preference/vision.. focal lengths greater than 200mm are essential selecting an aesthetically pleasing piece out of the whole..
Lovely shots Ross!
Many times I have overlooked / missed shots of “trees while in a forest” during travels. Once one sees it (repeated patterns), it's a matter of zooming in and cropping on location.
These are times I wished I owned (and brought) a Sony RX10 or a Nikon Coolpix P950 ~ P1100 with me..
p.1 #12 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
mojoh wrote:
Lovely shots Ross!
Many times I have overlooked / missed shots of “trees while in a forest” during travels. Once one sees it (repeated patterns), it's a matter of zooming in and cropping on location.
These are times I wished I owned (and brought) a Sony RX10 or a Nikon Coolpix P950 ~ P1100 with me..
Thanks! Yes, I think once you start seeing this way it becomes really fun to create the selective compositions.
p.1 #13 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I have the 50-300, and it, along with the Sony 20-70/G and the Sony 16/1.8G or Vittrox 14/4 make up my lightweight travel kit. That being said, I am thinking I will sell the 50-300, and likely the 20-70, for the 25-200 or 20-200 and stick to one lens for light travel.
I also have the 16-35, 24-70, 35-150 and 100-400; and will still will use other lenses given the situation.
That being said, if you are willing to change lenses, the 50-300 is truly excellent. However, if I am not birding, when even the50-300 is too short, 200 or 300 is not such a big difference for landscapes and street.
p.1 #14 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
Hi Brian,
Were all the above pictures taken with Tamron 50-300?
Piotr
Hi Potr, they were. I keep flicker albums for each lens I use - please feel free to thumb through. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjBARi1
I am also thinking about the 20-200 or 25-200 as my knock around lens to replace the 20-70 and 50-300. I may pick up both a view towards returning one and test them against these two lenses.
p.1 #15 · Tamron 25-200 vs 50-300 : what to choose?
Frankly, I wouldn´t expect from the wide end of Sigma 20-200 so much. In a critical landscape role, I would rather take a dedicated wide-angle lens + longer telephoto/Tamron 25-500mm (I believe Tamron is above Sigma 20-200 in terms of picture and build quality). Thus nowadays I take just my Sony 16mm 1.8 and Tamron 50-400, or Tamron 25-200 if I want to take a lighter kit. 25-200 in your bag offers great flexibility.
).
