p.1 #1 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
I've read and watched too many videos to be able to establish a clear favorite. My intent is to take the lens along when weight isn't much of a factor for long day hikes (but no backpacking). Which lens would you favor and why?
Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 Macro G OSS II, or
Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VC VXD G2
Thanks for the help. I haven't use a zoom in about twenty years, so I'm a bit out of my depth here.
p.1 #4 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
Thanks for your replies. While I'm unlikely to use the teleconverter option, the semi-macro ability seems like a plus. I do not think that the f/2.8 vs. f/4 difference will matter (or matter at least as much as the price difference) since I won't be interested in blurring the background for portraits. I mostly photograph landscapes with a small kit of manual focus lenses in the 25-85mm range, so this will be a bit of a leap. I think that I'm leaning towards the Sony lens at this point.
p.1 #6 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
I went through this a few years back when the GII was first released. I own it, and genuinely love it, but I also don't use it much as an all-arounder. My interest in it is predominately for the excellent close focus capabilities (not just optically, but the AF speed and stickiness and the OS as well). But, beyond the improved AF, the optical performance mid-to-infinity isn't much of an improvement over its predecessor. It's a fairly typical 70-200/4 at that point, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but, to me, it's a little too pricey if you don't plan to utilize the close focus.
p.1 #7 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
According to lenstip, the Tamron is optically a better performing lens, especially outside the center which is something to consider if your application is landscapes. On the other hand, the Tamron has higher distortion (although pretty mild by today's standards) which will eat some of that resolution advantage.
The Tamron gives you an extra stop of light, but the Sony is better at close focus and gives you a tiny bit of extra reach. Which means the Sony can act as a pseudo-macro, and the Tamron will do better as a pseudo-portrait lens. Let's say those cancel each other out.
A close call. Honestly, and please don't laugh, I'd go with the Tamron due to the 67mm filter size simply because almost all of my AF lenses take 67mm filters - no need to fiddle with different step-up rings in the field.
p.1 #8 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
To further complicate the decision I would like to suggest the Tamron 50-300. I use and like it a lot. Compact, light, practical range, good AF, semi macro.
p.1 #9 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
Altglas wrote:
To further complicate the decision I would like to suggest the Tamron 50-300. I use and like it a lot. Compact, light, practical range, good AF, semi macro.
Cosign. The Sony 70-200/4 may be better - but the Tamron is excellent, cheap, and has a much more useful focal length.
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
zugzwang2 wrote:
I've read and watched too many videos to be able to establish a clear favorite. My intent is to take the lens along when weight isn't much of a factor for long day hikes (but no backpacking). Which lens would you favor and why?
Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 Macro G OSS II, or
Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VC VXD G2
Thanks for the help. I haven't use a zoom in about twenty years, so I'm a bit out of my depth here.
Both are very nice lenses and as others have pointed out the key differences are clear. The Sony 70-200 f/4 is great for close focus work and designed with that in mind. If you often shoot close up on your hikes that is a clear advantage of the Sony lens. The Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2 has a stop faster aperture which would be useful for some portraits. If taking portraits is a big part of your hiking then that is a clear advantage of the Tamron. So, I think this decision can come down to whether you want the better close focus performance or the wider aperture. Do you think you will take more semi-macro shots on your hikes or more portraits? Both lenses will be excellent and provide similar performance for stopped down shooting of things like landscapes.
Let me add that the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3 is a quite different focal length range and a quite different max aperture on the long end. It is a different sort of lens. So, if you are open to looking at different focal length ranges and slower max apertures do let us know and we can comment more on that lens and perhaps other lenses as well.
p.1 #11 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
Do you use a tripod? The Sony lens has a tripod foot which is much better balanced than mounting from the camera base with the Tamron. There may be third party rings available to fit the Tamron but since the lens isn't designed for it, fit and rotation can be limited.
p.1 #12 · Hiking Companion: Sony 70/200 f/4 Macro or Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2?
I appreciate this helpful advice. Thanks.
FWIW, I do often hike with a tripod (I'm mostly interested in landscape work, but a tripod would work well, too, for semi-macro images; however, it seems that any of the lenses discussed here might be light enough to use without a tripod foot--but, as suggested, that might be a bonus for the Sony. I'm not so interested in portraits: my peculiar habits include hiking with a manual-focus wide angle lens mounted on my camera while also carrying a second, small camera (a Ricoh GR IIIX that is roughly 40mm equivalent) for occasional snapshots of my family.
This discussion has helped me. Although any of these lenses could work for me, I think that I'll try the Sony, largely due to its macro utility.
