I would not expect great optical performance, especially wide open and the aperture limitations are likely going to require higher ISO for some images. This makes such a purchase as unlikely, except when you consider two parameters, size and weight. This lens might be with you when carrying heavier, larger lenses is not possible, or desired. A good example would be travel photography where long telephoto isn’t central to what you are shooting. So, I don’t expect stellar optics, after all they didn’t even put it in the ‘G’ family, but it might still make it into my bag.
This may not hit my bag immediately. Or at all. I have several potential uses and no immediate need, actually. Several years ago, pre-adding ff, I added a 70-350 to use with my 18-135 and A6400, later A6700 - fitting in when the 200-600 was too big and too heavy which was a lot of the time. I added the 70-350, knowing it was aps-c but that the them available 70-300s and 100-400s weren't all that inspiring., for me. More recently having added ff, A7Riv then A7Rvi and 28-200 and 20-70, not necessarily in that order. The 50-300 is an interesting fit with the 20-70 by numbers and the 70-300s and prior 100-400s or 50-400, well, still big or heavy or expensive or not much better a fit.
Perhaps in competition with the 50-300 replace the 70-350? Most of the time, I use my 28-200. Far more often than the 20-70. So 100-xxx may aggravate the 20-70 crossover to a second lens.for urban where I go back and forth over 70mm a lot but a nice fit with the 28-200 for the less frequent longer stuff.
I'm not sure how the TCs and "too slow" apertures will play together and it may go different for the lower res (not A7R/A7CR) users.
A potential trip to Maui during whale-watching season has this lens on my radar...I travel light as possible, but would need reach in good light. Plus I could throw in the 1.4TC if the situation was desperate and called for it. Price seems fair too, but I need to watch/read more reviews.
I'll probably get one closer to next summer, hopefully there will be some used ones lurking for around $600-$700. Looks pretty acceptable for the kind of landscape stuff I like to do, and I think it will be fine for the occasional opportunistic wildlife shots I might want to grab. Doesn't look spectacular, just looks like it has good enough image quality while being really versatile.
The Tamron 50-300 weighs 665 grams, so for all intents and purposes the same weight as this new lens. At the same time massively better IQ, brighter, better versatility (the extension to 50mm makes it possible to go with just two zooms and have the whole range from 16 to 300mm), even smaller, even cheaper. Just sayin'.
hasenbein wrote:
The Tamron 50-300 weighs 665 grams, so for all intents and purposes the same weight as this new lens. At the same time massively better IQ, brighter, better versatility (the extension to 50mm makes it possible to go with just two zooms and have the whole range from 16 to 300mm), even smaller, even cheaper. Just sayin'.
But it's only 300mm so not enough reach for many purposes. You are comparing different lenses. A 50-300 would be in the class of the 70-300 lenses, not 100-400 or longer lenses.
Alpunto wrote:
I was excited awaiting for the announcement of this lens. I'm using both the Tamron 50-300 and my Sony 28-60 as lightweight gear during my trips.
Now, I hesitate whether to buy this new one together the Sony 24-50 to replace them. Will it be worth it?
I have both the 24-50G and Tamron 50-300 and for me that is maybe a better combo than with the new 100-400 (I had the original 100-400GM and sold it for the more practical Tamron). Of course you lose 400mm at the long end but it is a slow aperture lens and unless you use it exclusively for landscape or static subjects I think it uses are limited. My landscape setup is the original 16-35GM and the Tamron 50-300 on 2 bodies
hasenbein wrote:
The Tamron 50-300 weighs 665 grams, so for all intents and purposes the same weight as this new lens. At the same time massively better IQ, brighter, better versatility (the extension to 50mm makes it possible to go with just two zooms and have the whole range from 16 to 300mm), even smaller, even cheaper. Just sayin'.
How is the Tamron 50-300 vs the Tamron 50-400 in terms of sharpness? I had the 50-400 for a while but sold it. It was still a bit too big/heavy for travel for me.
Alpunto wrote:
I was excited awaiting for the announcement of this lens. I'm using both the Tamron 50-300 and my Sony 28-60 as lightweight gear during my trips.
Now, I hesitate whether to buy this new one together the Sony 24-50 to replace them. Will it be worth it?
I actually find hard to make the replacement @raminolta. The Sony 28-60 is small, light and incredibly sharp in all his focal range. Tamron 50-300 is another trusty and versatile lens. Perfect gear for landscape and traveling.
Alpunto wrote:
I actually find hard to make the replacement @raminolta. The Sony 28-60 is small, light and incredibly sharp in all his focal range. Tamron 50-300 is another trusty and versatile lens. Perfect gear for landscape and traveling.
I think it's just GAS pissing me off
For me, it's a no brainer. If it performs optically as good as the Sigma or very near, it will be a win-win situation for me because it weighs nearly half and is more compact.
I just repurchased a 100-400/4-5.6 GM because I didn't think this one would take the extenders. Now I'm going to have to rent this when available and check it out against the GM. I'm trying to imagine what will be different optically and in overall performance, but all I can think is HALF THE WEIGHT AND EASIER TO PACK! The GM's a hiking lens for me, so saving the weight and space would be a big deal.
freaklikeme wrote:
I just repurchased a 100-400/4-5.6 GM because I didn't think this one would take the extenders. Now I'm going to have to rent this when available and check it out against the GM. I'm trying to imagine what will be different optically and in overall performance, but all I can think is HALF THE WEIGHT AND EASIER TO PACK! The GM's a hiking lens for me, so saving the weight and space would be a big deal.
Theoretically you wont see an improvement with the extender unless your subject is blue, your camera is <= 33MP and the TC has negligible image degradation.
The diffraction limit drawn assumes the best case scenario (perfect lens, perfect TC). In reality you may not see an improvement even if the TC point is below the line.
Theoretically you wont see an improvement with the extender unless your subject is blue, your camera is <= 33MP and the TC has negligible image degradation.
The diffraction limit drawn assumes the best case scenario (perfect lens, perfect TC). In reality you may not see an improvement even if the TC point is below the line.
I'm shooting it on the a6700, primarily, which has a theoretical limit of 6.1, so I'm already blowing it with the old GM and 1.4x and haven't been disappointed with the results. The impact's fairly light at mid-to-close distances. It'll be interesting if the same thing applies to the slower lens.
