Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
p.1 #1Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Just purchased Sony 100-400 4.5-5.6, to see if the extra price, heft and losing 50mm are worth it. Despite sonyalphablog equating them, there is anecdotal evidence that Sony is a little better, plus tc option.
Tamron on the left, Sony on the right. Same exact camera settings - 500 shutter speed, 400mm. These are at about 100%, i.e. not getting too deep into pixels.
I tried with 200mm and 100mm. Same differences, very noticeable. Perhaps my Tamron copy is no good, or it is what it is.
Posting as a references for others who might be deciding between the two lenses.
VILTROX TC-2.0X is supposed to come tomorrow, will see what I am getting with it and the new lens.
I have tried Sony 400-800 for extra reach, but found I rarely need the 800 and it's a beast to handle, thus the TC route.
Tamron on the left, Sony on the right. Same exact camera settings - 500 shutter speed, 400mm. These are at about 100%, i.e. not getting too deep into pixels.
I tried with 200mm and 100mm. Same differences, very noticeable. Perhaps my Tamron copy is no good, or it is what it is.
Posting as a references for others who might be deciding between the two lenses.
VILTROX TC-2.0X is supposed to come tomorrow, will see what I am getting with it and the new lens.
I have tried Sony 400-800 for extra reach, but found I rarely need the 800 and it's a beast to handle, thus the TC route.
Jul 29, 2026 at 07:01 PM
p.1 #2Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
It looks like the focus point was not the same between the 2.
Jul 29, 2026 at 07:33 PM
p.1 #3Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
chez wrote:
It looks like the focus point was not the same between the 2.
Why do you think so? All things were equal to the best of my ability other than the lenses. I aimed the focus bracket at the larger of the bottles.
It looks like the focus point was not the same between the 2.
Why do you think so? All things were equal to the best of my ability other than the lenses. I aimed the focus bracket at the larger of the bottles.
Jul 29, 2026 at 07:54 PM
p.1 #4Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
I regret selling my sharp copy of the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. At the right price, I may buy one back. The rumor for the new Sony 100-400 F(?)-F8 seems to have died down.
Jul 29, 2026 at 08:09 PM
p.1 #5Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Douglas L wrote:
I regret selling my sharp copy of the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. At the right price, I may buy one back. The rumor for the new Sony 100-400 F(?)-F8 seems to have died down.
I got this one on ebay for just under 2K including tax. From Japan. Free shipping, free returns, and got to my door in NJ in two days!
How can you tell if you have a sharp copy? I thought my Tamron was sharp, it was a second copy, first one was very soft at 400 6.3. Until this side by side.
I regret selling my sharp copy of the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. At the right price, I may buy one back. The rumor for the new Sony 100-400 F(?)-F8 seems to have died down.
I got this one on ebay for just under 2K including tax. From Japan. Free shipping, free returns, and got to my door in NJ in two days!
How can you tell if you have a sharp copy? I thought my Tamron was sharp, it was a second copy, first one was very soft at 400 6.3. Until this side by side.
Jul 29, 2026 at 08:27 PM
p.1 #6Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Malka_1 wrote:
I got this one on ebay for just under 2K including tax. From Japan. Free shipping, free returns, and got to my door in NJ in two days!
How can you tell if you have a sharp copy? I thought my Tamron was sharp, it was a second copy, first one was very soft at 400 6.3. Until this side by side.
I sold mine here on FM for $1350. Once in a while you see them listing below $1500. I could tell mine was a very sharp copy by the air-to-air pictures I took.
Douglas L wrote
I regret selling my sharp copy of the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. At the right price, I may buy one back. The rumor for the new Sony 100-400 F(?)-F8 seems to have died down.How can you tell if you have a sharp copy? I thought my Tamron was sharp, it was a second copy, first one was very soft at 400 6.3. Until this side by side.
I sold mine here on FM for $1350. Once in a while you see them listing below $1500. I could tell mine was a very sharp copy by the air-to-air pictures I took.
Jul 29, 2026 at 08:41 PM
p.1 #7Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Douglas L wrote:
I regret selling my sharp copy of the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. At the right price, I may buy one back. The rumor for the new Sony 100-400 F(?)-F8 seems to have died down.
Died down? I thought it was supposed to be announced 4 August.
I have a sharp 100-400/GM which I may sell if the 100-400/5.6-8 is good. For my 100-400, the smaller the better. Still undecided on whether I will sell the 200-600 for the 400-800; or just stick with what I have...
I regret selling my sharp copy of the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. At the right price, I may buy one back. The rumor for the new Sony 100-400 F(?)-F8 seems to have died down.
Died down? I thought it was supposed to be announced 4 August.
I have a sharp 100-400/GM which I may sell if the 100-400/5.6-8 is good. For my 100-400, the smaller the better. Still undecided on whether I will sell the 200-600 for the 400-800; or just stick with what I have...
Jul 29, 2026 at 09:00 PM
p.1 #8Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
A couple things… I hear there’s sample variation in the Tamron, IDK, but mine is surprisingly sharp. But I don’t have a Sony to compare it to either, so maybe. However… Whenever doing tests like this, it’s always a good idea to put a ruler on an angle in the frame with a dot in the middle to focus on. This way you can absolutely confirm both were identically focused.
Jul 29, 2026 at 09:09 PM
p.1 #9Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Is this a crop from the center of the image? Or from the edge/corner?
And how far was the lens away from the bottles? Was it shot near the minimum focus distance?
And how far was the lens away from the bottles? Was it shot near the minimum focus distance?
Jul 29, 2026 at 11:46 PM
p.1 #10Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Something not right here. Tamron image looks heavily cropped or low rez. Clear artifacts in the background mesh and visible noise. Looks like the Tamron was shot at 50mm and uprezed, not 400mm!
Cheers
Leigh
Cheers
Leigh
Jul 29, 2026 at 11:57 PM
|
p.1 #11Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
I purchased a 50-400 from Luballs off the buy/sell (great seller BTW - he posted the snow skiing images with the lens in the 50-400 thread) and I find the lens pretty incredible for slow moving wildlife or if used for landscapes at landscape apertures. After extensive testing I find the corner to corner IQ as good or better than the 70-200gmii with tcs at f8. However, I have other lenses that I reach for if shooting fast action or low light. For taking photos of vitamin bottles, the 50-400 should match or kick the old 100-400's ass. Granted, the OS might not be as good, but one cannot expect it to be. I had 2 of the old 100-400 and I found them weakest at subjects over 200'. I think you got a bad 50-400 or something else is at play. I rented several old 100-400 from LR and owned 2 (second copy was much better) but always found all copies weak at infinity. The cheaper Tamron is a sleeper lens IMO, for what it is best at (needing only 15fps and slow moving/static subjects).
Jul 30, 2026 at 02:51 AM
p.1 #12Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Using a focus bracket to test lens sharpness puts way too many variables into play to make it a useful comparison.
Jul 30, 2026 at 03:35 AM
p.1 #13Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
hasenbein wrote:
Is this a crop from the center of the image? Or from the edge/corner?
And how far was the lens away from the bottles? Was it shot near the minimum focus distance?
Center. Far - across my kitchen and the dining room. I cropped both shots to about the same size to the same subject of focus.
Jul 30, 2026 at 05:36 AM
p.1 #14Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
guidostow wrote:
Using a focus bracket to test lens sharpness puts way too many variables into play to make it a useful comparison.
Why not and what variables would be introduced if I kept camera settings, my position, frame position, bracket location all the same between the shots? Genuinely curious to know what I may have missed if anything.
Jul 30, 2026 at 05:39 AM
p.1 #15Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
LMT1972 wrote:
Something not right here. Tamron image looks heavily cropped or low rez. Clear artifacts in the background mesh and visible noise. Looks like the Tamron was shot at 50mm and uprezed, not 400mm!
Cheers
Leigh
I know what you mean and that’s the unexpected part. No upsizing, same exact everything for both shots. Slight increase in noise is due to 1/2 stop difference in max aperture between the two lenses.
I would share the original raw images with metadata except that it’s my kitchen and not sharing that. I am thinking of printing out a calibration sheet and trying the same outside.
Jul 30, 2026 at 05:44 AM
p.1 #16Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
You are testing the integrated result of native sharpness of the lens + the focus position. It's good to do that as it is after all what you'll get when using the lenses, though it's only one test of AF on a still subject. I would be inclined to test the sharpness alone using manual focus and magnify first, then, if say they appear to be equal, you'll know that poorer performance when adding AF is just AF of the lens. And of course if theTamron is still worse with MF only no need to go further.
Jul 30, 2026 at 05:57 AM
p.1 #17Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Interesting.
I performed the same test several years ago and my results showed nearly equal performance in the center. As a note, my Sony 100-400mm was the best of three lenses I tested. I was surprised at the level of lens copy variation with the Sony lens. It is probably the same for the Tamron lens, but I lucked-out and got a good one.
The Sonyalpha.blog tests mirrored my results, almost precisely.
You might have a subpar copy of the Tamron lens.
In the past couple years, I have experienced outstanding levels of sharpness with the Tamron lens, although I mostly shoot the GM 300mm f2.8 with converters when I need a telephoto.
I performed the same test several years ago and my results showed nearly equal performance in the center. As a note, my Sony 100-400mm was the best of three lenses I tested. I was surprised at the level of lens copy variation with the Sony lens. It is probably the same for the Tamron lens, but I lucked-out and got a good one.
The Sonyalpha.blog tests mirrored my results, almost precisely.
You might have a subpar copy of the Tamron lens.
In the past couple years, I have experienced outstanding levels of sharpness with the Tamron lens, although I mostly shoot the GM 300mm f2.8 with converters when I need a telephoto.
Jul 30, 2026 at 06:11 AM
p.1 #18Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Are you using a tripod or handheld?
If tripod, are you manually racking out of focus each frame and letting it focus?
Are you using a remote trigger?
Is vibration reduction on or off?
If tripod, are you manually racking out of focus each frame and letting it focus?
Are you using a remote trigger?
Is vibration reduction on or off?
Jul 30, 2026 at 07:00 AM
p.1 #19Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
3D objects are no good for testing unless you're trying to compare DoF or front/back focusing. Use a flat 2D object to test. Brick walls are boring but they are very flat.
Jul 30, 2026 at 10:34 AM
p.1 #20Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
In the old dslr days, I was the guy in our group with a 60' long basement and was nice enough to af fine tune lenses to bodies for my friends. What a hassle. I used the lens align which was great. 8' away for every 100mm. I was able to tune to about 700mm. From the thousands of test images I ran, I can plainly and emphatically state that any lens testing not done on a tripod, VR/OSS off, wired or remote release and cocking out of focus and back (and waiting a few seconds after cocking) in AFS, re-cocking between every shot WILL NOT give accurate results. Back in the day I was shooting Nikon and my 300 2.8 was -18 on one d850 and +2 on another. Same lens, different bodies.
I agree that (now that we are focusing on the sensor) a brick wall on a bright overcast day is the best means of testing for overall sharpness (not performance). I make certain I am squared up to a large brick wall ( I use a grade school gymnasium wall on weekends) and put an "X" of duct tape on the wall. That is my focus point for all focal lengths. I attach a 4' level to my tripod legs to measure my squareness to the wall. I bring a 50' tape.
If a person is using afc for static testing, it can throw off results. No cable release. forgetaboutit! Leaving vr/oss on, results will be impacted. Handholding? No way. Just for kicks, put your longest lens on your tripod, clamp it down and watch the lcd as you depress the shutter. Even the best tripod will show movement from your hand depressing the shutter.
I discount many reviews of lenses when I see the methods in which people test lenses. I love the diagonal lens testing over ocean water in sunlight! Heat distortion, anyone?
Besides, as previously stated by others, most new lenses are engineered to be sharpest in the center of the frame, zoom or prime. I think we pay the big bucks for fast lenses and corner performance. If someone is only interested in the bulls-eye center, most lenses will do just fine.
I agree that (now that we are focusing on the sensor) a brick wall on a bright overcast day is the best means of testing for overall sharpness (not performance). I make certain I am squared up to a large brick wall ( I use a grade school gymnasium wall on weekends) and put an "X" of duct tape on the wall. That is my focus point for all focal lengths. I attach a 4' level to my tripod legs to measure my squareness to the wall. I bring a 50' tape.
If a person is using afc for static testing, it can throw off results. No cable release. forgetaboutit! Leaving vr/oss on, results will be impacted. Handholding? No way. Just for kicks, put your longest lens on your tripod, clamp it down and watch the lcd as you depress the shutter. Even the best tripod will show movement from your hand depressing the shutter.
I discount many reviews of lenses when I see the methods in which people test lenses. I love the diagonal lens testing over ocean water in sunlight! Heat distortion, anyone?
Besides, as previously stated by others, most new lenses are engineered to be sharpest in the center of the frame, zoom or prime. I think we pay the big bucks for fast lenses and corner performance. If someone is only interested in the bulls-eye center, most lenses will do just fine.
Jul 30, 2026 at 01:17 PM