Jack Flesher wrote:
@Steve Spencer@ @Ross Martin@ I too am intrigued by the prospect of the 16-25/2.8 combination with my 20-70 and the Tamron 50-400 as a pretty complete landscape trio. My only hesitation is astro, where I know the 16/1.8 (and 14/1.8) excel and I anticipate adding it, plus the fact I have a couple smaller primes already, the V14 and SY18 already, so the 16-25 while convenient is somewhat redundant. Nonetheless compelling though…
I currently have the 20-70mm f4 and have been planning for the 70-200mm f4 macro as a small and light set. Not really sure I need extra wide angle but was looking at the Sony 12-24mm f4 to complete this.
bcaslis wrote:
I currently have the 20-70mm f4 and have been planning for the 70-200mm f4 macro as a small and light set. Not really sure I need extra wide angle but was looking at the Sony 12-24mm f4 to complete this.
The 70-200/4 has a lot going for it for sure and I considered it: excellent IQ, takes TC’s, is compact and focuses into macro range and integrates with Sony bodies for full capability and speed. But the Tamron 50-400 is only a bit bigger and about $500 cheaper for a lot more focal range versatility. I suspect the Tamron gives up some on the IQ front to the Sony as well as being slower optically, so there is that. Users seem to like it so I’m going to test drive one this week, we will see 🤷🏼
bcaslis wrote:
I currently have the 20-70mm f4 and have been planning for the 70-200mm f4 macro as a small and light set. Not really sure I need extra wide angle but was looking at the Sony 12-24mm f4 to complete this.
The Sony 12-24mm lens is a great lens alright and the aperture of f/4 fits perfectly with the other lenses. But keep in mind that it is an older model. I had that lens and personally, I would choose the Sony 16-25mm f/2.8 G over the 12-24mm and I did. The Sigma 14-24mm Art lens is also superb and at f/2.8 is relatively fast but bulky and heavy. For an even lighter setup, the Viltrox 14mm f/4 Air is excellent if you are okay with a prime lens on the wide end. Your mileage may vary though...
Jack Flesher wrote:
The 70-200/4 has a lot going for it for sure and I considered it: excellent IQ, takes TC’s, is compact and focuses into macro range and integrates with Sony bodies for full capability and speed. But the Tamron 50-400 is only a bit bigger and about $500 cheaper for a lot more focal range versatility. I suspect the Tamron gives up some on the IQ front to the Sony as well as being slower optically, so there is that. Users seem to like it so I’m going to test drive one this week, we will see 🤷🏼
I've compared my Tamron 50-400 to my Tamron 70-180. The 70-180 is nicer optically at most apertures, but as you get out to ~ f/11 where diffraction starts to kick in there is less difference. I think, as always, it depends on your use case. However, I will say that I can hand hold my 70-180 all day long. I've done that with the 50-400, but id does get more tiring. Its not a really heavy lens, but its not lightweight either.
The difference between 12 and 16 is absolutely massive. Even 12 to 14 is quite large. So, neither of them are substitutes for a 12-24.
AGeoJO wrote:
The Sony 12-24mm lens is a great lens alright and the aperture of f/4 fits perfectly with the other lenses. But keep in mind that it is an older model. I had that lens and personally, I would choose the Sony 16-25mm f/2.8 G over the 12-24mm and I did. The Sigma 14-24mm Art lens is also superb and at f/2.8 is relatively fast but bulky and heavy. For an even lighter setup, the Viltrox 14mm f/4 Air is excellent if you are okay with a prime lens on the wide end. Your mileage may vary though...
Jul 19, 2026 at 06:50 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
shadow9d9 wrote:
The difference between 12 and 16 is absolutely massive. Even 12 to 14 is quite large. So, neither of them are substitutes for a 12-24.
Yes, 12 is quite a lot wider than 16, but Dan has previously mentioned that he finds 16 wide enough for his needs, so for him at least the 12-24 may be wider than he needs, and it is heavier than some other options, and doesn't have front filter threads complicating filter use. So, it might not be the right option for him. It might be the right option for you, however, if you value the 12mm perspective.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, 12 is quite a lot wider than 16, but Dan has previously mentioned that he finds 16 wide enough for his needs, so for him at least the 12-24 may be wider than he needs, and it is heavier than some other options, and doesn't have front filter threads complicating filter use. So, it might not be the right option for him. It might be the right option for you, however, if you value the 12mm perspective.
Sure. I didn't catch the previous posts.
I actually moved to the sony ecosystem specifically because it was the only one with a 12 option at the time(and I think this is kind of still the case, at least for first party).
And I also love how small and light the Viltrox is. Have that too for when I need to squeeze something tinier in.
Jul 19, 2026 at 07:24 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
shadow9d9 wrote:
Sure. I didn't catch the previous posts.
I actually moved to the sony ecosystem specifically because it was the only one with a 12 option at the time(and I think this is kind of still the case, at least for first party).
And I also love how small and light the Viltrox is. Have that too for when I need to squeeze something tinier in.
Canon actually has the widest first party zooms. Their 11-24 f/4L for the EF mount came out in 2015, so they have had that wide of an option for over a decade and now they have a 10-20 f/4L for their RF mount.
Nikon has tended to make their widest the 14-24 both for F mount and now for Z mount, but Tamron just introduced a 12-20mm that I am guessing will find it way onto Nikon Z mount one way or another before too long.
Right now for L mount 14-24 is the widest, but Sigma used to make a 12-24 before there even was an L mount. I am not sure why they haven't built one yet of L mount. I would expect that in time.
I personally don't count adapted lenses, as I would never adapt. I moved to Sony in 2019, and there was no Canon native option then. But interesting to know!
I have since added the laowa 9 and laowa 8-15 fisheye, which I love.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Canon actually has the widest first party zooms. Their 11-24 f/4L for the EF mount came out in 2015, so they have had that wide of an option for over a decade and now they have a 10-20 f/4L for their RF mount.
Nikon has tended to make their widest the 14-24 both for F mount and now for Z mount, but Tamron just introduced a 12-20mm that I am guessing will find it way onto Nikon Z mount one way or another before too long.
Right now for L mount 14-24 is the widest, but Sigma used to make a 12-24 before there even was an L mount. I am not sure why they haven't built one yet of L mount. I would expect that in time....Show more →
Ross Martin wrote:
Dan, you’re getting many good suggestions from folks here. I have written a quite long response detailing my thoughts and the lenses I’ve used based on your needs, PM sent.
Ross, I finally had time to dig into that PM this evening. Lots of very useful information there — thanks!
Ross Martin wrote:
You’re very welcome, Dan! So many solid choices in E mount.
Indeed. That’s the challenge, even just looking at Sony-manufactured options.
Of course part of the challenge is that being used to a particular set of lens types that I’ve used over a long period of time, I need to both see how an equivalent set is possible on Sony AND consider some alternative configurations, especially at the wide t0 normal range.
Also, you and a few other posters are correct that contemporary Sony options are, in many cases, lighter then the old Canon EF equivalents that I’ve been using. That may affect my decisions about maximum lens aperture in some cases.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed. That’s the challenge, even just looking at Sony-manufactured options.
Of course part of the challenge is that being used to a particular set of lens types that I’ve used over a long period of time, I need to both see how an equivalent set is possible on Sony AND consider some alternative configurations, especially at the wide t0 normal range.
Also, you and a few other posters are correct that contemporary Sony options are, in many cases, lighter then the old Canon EF equivalents that I’ve been using. That may affect my decisions about maximum lens aperture in some cases.
Right, there are so many possible ways to go. Based on what you have talked about, I could see one potential system being the 16-25/2.8, 24-70/2.8 GMII, 100-400/4.5 GM, 1.4x, and for the longer hikes (lighter/smaller) and up to 1:2 macro, the 70-200/4 GII. It’s not a small amount of money, but it’s a damn fine and versatile setup for the kinds of things you like to do.
Ross Martin wrote:
Right, there are so many possible ways to go. Based on what you have talked about, I could see one potential system being the 16-25/2.8, 24-70/2.8 GMII, 100-400/4.5 GM, 1.4x, and for the longer hikes (lighter/smaller) and up to 1:2 macro, the 70-200/4 GII. It’s not a small amount of money, but it’s a damn fine and versatile setup for the kinds of things you like to do.
If I had to make a purchase right this minute, that would probably be it.
Ross Martin wrote:
Right, there are so many possible ways to go. Based on what you have talked about, I could see one potential system being the 16-25/2.8, 24-70/2.8 GMII, 100-400/4.5 GM, 1.4x, and for the longer hikes (lighter/smaller) and up to 1:2 macro, the 70-200/4 GII. It’s not a small amount of money, but it’s a damn fine and versatile setup for the kinds of things you like to do.
My question for right now is how much better is the new, $4000 100-400/4.5 GM compared to the $1400 Tamron 50-400.4.5-6.3? A lot of folks seem to really like that Tammy and the price and zoom range is attractive to me...
I am happy enough now with my 20-70/4 lens even wide open, but I'm only using it on my 33MP travel cam. So when I get a 50 or 67MP cam, if it's not adequate I will more than likely spring for the 24-70/2.8 GMii -- or possibly the Sigma ver ii at about half the price, I just don't know yet. I currently feel well covered for wider than 24, so I'm not in any particular rush to fill wider than 24 with a zoom, but I respect that's me.
Jack Flesher wrote:
My question for right now is how much better is the new, $4000 100-400/4.5 GM compared to the $1400 Tamron 50-400.4.5-6.3? A lot of folks seem to really like that Tammy and the price and zoom range is attractive to me...
I am happy enough now with my 20-70/4 lens even wide open, but I'm only using it on my 33MP travel cam. So when I get a 50 or 67MP cam, if it's not adequate I will more than likely spring for the 24-70/2.8 GMii -- or possibly the Sigma ver ii at about half the price, I just don't know yet. I currently feel well covered for wider than 24, so I'm not in any particular rush to fill wider than 24 with a zoom, but I respect that's me. ...Show more →
Here’s how I see the advantages of these two lenses in a comparison:
Tamron 50-400:
- significantly lighter and smaller
- good sharpness
- very versatile focal length range
- stealthy black
- great value for the price
- 67mm filter thread (Sony is 95mm front or use drop-in)
Sony 100-400/4.5:
- more light gathering - a full stop faster at 400mm
- likely higher resolution above the diffraction range
- faster AF for following action (higher end focusing motors)
- accepts the 1.4x converter beautifully (not possible with Tamron)
- no limit on frames per second (Tamron limited by Sony to 15fps)
- better background bokeh with f/4.5
Dan’s talked about leaning toward the new Sony because it will work beautifully for his birds and birds-in-landscape work (especially with 1.4x capability), and at 1,840g it’s not that outrageous to use as his tele landscape lens when working within a mile or less of vehicle. He could switch to the light/small 70-200/4 for longer hiking.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If I had to make a purchase right this minute, that would probably be it.
That is a really good kit and I think you would be happy with it. There are alternatives for each lens, but I don't think you would be disappointed with any of the ones you picked here. The hardest choice I think is the 100-400 f/4.5 GM. It is physically a large lens that is an internal zoom so it isn't compact in the bag, but if you want to use the lens with a 1.4X TC I do think having the max aperture be f/6.3 instead of f/8 with the TC may well be worth the extra weight and bulk over the older 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM lens.
Ross Martin wrote:
Here’s how I see the advantages of these two lenses in a comparison:
Tamron 50-400:
- significantly lighter and smaller
- good sharpness
- very versatile focal length range
- stealthy black
- great value for the price
- 67mm filter thread (Sony is 95mm front or use drop-in)
Sony 100-400/4.5:
- more light gathering - a full stop faster at 400mm
- likely higher resolution above the diffraction range
- faster AF for following action (higher end focusing motors)
- accepts the 1.4x converter beautifully (not possible with Tamron)
- no limit on frames per second (Tamron limited by Sony to 15fps)
- better background bokeh with f/4.5
Dan’s talked about leaning toward the new Sony because it will work beautifully for his birds and birds-in-landscape work (especially with 1.4x capability), and at 1,840g it’s not that outrageous to use as his tele landscape lens when working within a mile or less of vehicle. He could switch to the light/small 70-200/4 for longer hiking.
I’ve done enough birds that I know 800 is the answer for me, so I would go with the 400-800 plus 1.4x. I’m leaning toward the Tammy for the compact size and added versatility and it eliminating the needs for the 70-200/4 and 100-40/4.5. In turn that saves me around $4500 net which basically pays for another body 🤷🏼
The 100-400/4.5 GM and Tamron 50-400.4.5-6.3 should not even be in the same paragraph, much less in the same sentence.
50-400mm is just ok at 400mm. It's there if you only occasionally need 400mm for static subjects. If you are looking for an economical 400mm zoom, Sigma 100-400mm is far better.
Jack Flesher wrote:
My question for right now is how much better is the new, $4000 100-400/4.5 GM compared to the $1400 Tamron 50-400.4.5-6.3? A lot of folks seem to really like that Tammy and the price and zoom range is attractive to me...
I am happy enough now with my 20-70/4 lens even wide open, but I'm only using it on my 33MP travel cam. So when I get a 50 or 67MP cam, if it's not adequate I will more than likely spring for the 24-70/2.8 GMii -- or possibly the Sigma ver ii at about half the price, I just don't know yet. I currently feel well covered for wider than 24, so I'm not in any particular rush to fill wider than 24 with a zoom, but I respect that's me. ...Show more →
