Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
p.2 #1Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
ps09 wrote:
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,...Show more →
I get it and will give it a go time permitting, which will be in a few weeks due to my schedule.
However, I have been noticing consistent lack of sharpness when compared to other Sony lenses too, thus the test above to try for a more controlled approach. This body/lens against this body/400-800 at 400. This body/200-600 against A7RVI/this lens. I wasn't looking for sharpness comp, was trying to see what combo would give me more reach and still be manageable, but this jumped out at me. Not exactly scientific but it starts to add up.
What's your opinion on filed testing, i.e. using it as if I would in real life? If one consistently gives me better results than the other, under reasonably similar conditions, wouldn't it be all I need to know?
Edited on Jul 30, 2026 at 02:07 PM · View previous versions
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,...Show more →
I get it and will give it a go time permitting, which will be in a few weeks due to my schedule.
However, I have been noticing consistent lack of sharpness when compared to other Sony lenses too, thus the test above to try for a more controlled approach. This body/lens against this body/400-800 at 400. This body/200-600 against A7RVI/this lens. I wasn't looking for sharpness comp, was trying to see what combo would give me more reach and still be manageable, but this jumped out at me. Not exactly scientific but it starts to add up.
What's your opinion on filed testing, i.e. using it as if I would in real life? If one consistently gives me better results than the other, under reasonably similar conditions, wouldn't it be all I need to know?
Edited on Jul 30, 2026 at 02:07 PM · View previous versions
Jul 30, 2026 at 01:56 PM
p.2 #2Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
ps09 wrote:
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?
Handheld thus 500 shutter speed to minimize handshake as a factor. Wouldn't it be a moot point, however, if I do handheld for both?
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?
Handheld thus 500 shutter speed to minimize handshake as a factor. Wouldn't it be a moot point, however, if I do handheld for both?
Jul 30, 2026 at 01:59 PM
p.2 #3Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Malka_1 wrote:
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?Handheld thus 500 shutter speed to minimize handshake as a factor. Wouldn't it be a moot point, however, if I do handheld for both?
Not even close to moot point. Try 1/2500, or faster.
Minimising handshake should not the goal, rather, eliminate.
Use a beanbag on a solid object.
ps09 wrote
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?
Not even close to moot point. Try 1/2500, or faster.
Minimising handshake should not the goal, rather, eliminate.
Use a beanbag on a solid object.
Jul 30, 2026 at 03:54 PM
p.2 #4Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
You mentioned "Slight increase in noise is due to 1/2 stop difference in max aperture between the two lenses".
What was the camera ISO with the Tamron and with the Sony lens?
Another question is, how did you process the raw files? Was denoising and sharpening applied in post?
What was the camera ISO with the Tamron and with the Sony lens?
Another question is, how did you process the raw files? Was denoising and sharpening applied in post?
Jul 30, 2026 at 04:04 PM
p.2 #5Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
ruthenium wrote:
You mentioned "Slight increase in noise is due to 1/2 stop difference in max aperture between the two lenses".
What was the camera ISO with the Tamron and with the Sony lens?
Another question is, how did you process the raw files? Was denoising and sharpening applied in post?
I think it was 10K vs 8K. The snippets are from jpg straight from camera. I did load raw into Lightroom to compare in Development, same differences before processing.
You mentioned "Slight increase in noise is due to 1/2 stop difference in max aperture between the two lenses".
What was the camera ISO with the Tamron and with the Sony lens?
Another question is, how did you process the raw files? Was denoising and sharpening applied in post?
I think it was 10K vs 8K. The snippets are from jpg straight from camera. I did load raw into Lightroom to compare in Development, same differences before processing.
Jul 30, 2026 at 08:08 PM
p.2 #6Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Choderboy wrote:
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?Handheld thus 500 shutter speed to minimize handshake as a factor. Wouldn't it be a moot point, however, if I do handheld for both?Not even close to moot point. Try 1/2500, or faster.
Minimising handshake should not the goal, rather, eliminate.
Use a beanbag on a solid object.
Why not moot if I am comparing how each lens handles under the same conditions, i.e. same handheld, same 1/500? I have a couple of tripods, but my goal isn't to asses how the lenses compare in lab conditions, but rather in real life. Maybe Sony has superior OSS, and it's not about optics or AF, but than it comes out ahead on that point.
The reason for 1/500 is that I found that 1/500 fully extended is the minimum I need to get consistent acceptable results with Tamron for stationary subjects.
Malka_1 wrote
ps09 wrote
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?
Minimising handshake should not the goal, rather, eliminate.
Use a beanbag on a solid object.
Why not moot if I am comparing how each lens handles under the same conditions, i.e. same handheld, same 1/500? I have a couple of tripods, but my goal isn't to asses how the lenses compare in lab conditions, but rather in real life. Maybe Sony has superior OSS, and it's not about optics or AF, but than it comes out ahead on that point.
The reason for 1/500 is that I found that 1/500 fully extended is the minimum I need to get consistent acceptable results with Tamron for stationary subjects.
Jul 30, 2026 at 08:18 PM
p.2 #7Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
With full respect to ps09 recommendations, which make sense but will take me a while to get around to, I am posting a retry from this morning. Identical positioning, focal point and settings in-camera. Got better results with Tamron with daylight, but Sony is still ahead.
First pic at 100%, second at 200%.
Question to the expects - would you consider this difference significant enough to chose Sony over Tamron? Setting aside any other considerations.
Thank you all for your feedback and input.
First pic at 100%, second at 200%.
Question to the expects - would you consider this difference significant enough to chose Sony over Tamron? Setting aside any other considerations.
Thank you all for your feedback and input.
Jul 30, 2026 at 08:24 PM
p.2 #8Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Wondering why jpg artifacts? Did you shoot raw? I suggest shooting and processing raw and only exporting to jpg the cropped area that is meant to be presented here.
If this difference is real, for me personally, the Tamron is out. However as someone who has done such comparisons a few times in the past, there are quite a number of things that could have gone wrong. I almost always end up repeating the test a few times to fix errors occurred due to my negligence.
The scene is very dark and it is possible that the Tamron lens failed in focusing, not being a native Sony lens and carrying an inferior AF system. A dark scene could have caused the Tamron to front or back focus. So unless you shot in manual focus, this could be a possible reason. I suggest manual focus using camera's magnification box on the same spot. Also try shooting under ample light. Always do these comparisons on Tripod of static scene (no wind) unless the shutter speed is very fast.
On another note, I have realized the results can also depend on the subject distance from the camera. One lens may be superior to the other one in terms of sharpness at close distance but not so at mid to infinity distances.
I used to own the 100-400mm GM lens. I replaced it with a Sigma 100-400mm solely because the Sigma is a lighter lens. When I had both, I did a comparison like you did and I could barely see any difference between the two. The Sony appeared a tiny hair sharper not enough to justify its bulk and weight.
Edited on Jul 31, 2026 at 10:07 AM · View previous versions
If this difference is real, for me personally, the Tamron is out. However as someone who has done such comparisons a few times in the past, there are quite a number of things that could have gone wrong. I almost always end up repeating the test a few times to fix errors occurred due to my negligence.
The scene is very dark and it is possible that the Tamron lens failed in focusing, not being a native Sony lens and carrying an inferior AF system. A dark scene could have caused the Tamron to front or back focus. So unless you shot in manual focus, this could be a possible reason. I suggest manual focus using camera's magnification box on the same spot. Also try shooting under ample light. Always do these comparisons on Tripod of static scene (no wind) unless the shutter speed is very fast.
On another note, I have realized the results can also depend on the subject distance from the camera. One lens may be superior to the other one in terms of sharpness at close distance but not so at mid to infinity distances.
I used to own the 100-400mm GM lens. I replaced it with a Sigma 100-400mm solely because the Sigma is a lighter lens. When I had both, I did a comparison like you did and I could barely see any difference between the two. The Sony appeared a tiny hair sharper not enough to justify its bulk and weight.
Edited on Jul 31, 2026 at 10:07 AM · View previous versions
Jul 30, 2026 at 09:05 PM
p.2 #9Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
There used to be an old rule in my photography that handheld you should never be less than 1 over your focal length for handholding. So a 50mm lens would have equated to a minimum 1/60 shutter speed. That was before vr/os but with higher MP I feel it is typically 1 over 2x focal length. Testing a lens in a dark room, handheld and shooting a curved object is wrought with issues. I personally never use vr/os when initially testing a lens for sharpness and I never do it handheld. Are you in afs? Are you racking the lens out of focus between each shot? If not you’re just shooting the same shot every time. Good luck with your testing. I think controlling the testing environment will yield a better path for you to follow and make a decision.
Jul 30, 2026 at 10:25 PM
p.2 #10Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Malka_1 wrote:
ruthenium wrote
You mentioned "Slight increase in noise is due to 1/2 stop difference in max aperture between the two lenses".What was the camera ISO with the Tamron and with the Sony lens?
Another question is, how did you process the raw files? Was denoising and sharpening applied in post?
If your thinking is correct, then what we learn here is that at ISO 8,000 your Sony camera produced a better quality jpeg with the Sony lens, compared to one it produced at ISO 10,000 with the Tamron lens.
This is useful if you intend to shoot at ISO above 6400 without doing any raw processing.
Do your observations indicate that the Sony lens is optically superior? This is hard to tell. To prove this, you need to compare raw files obtained at the same ISO, in good light to ensure that this ISO is low (preferably at the base ISO or at the ISO when your camera employes the dual gain). These raw files should be processed while applying the same denoising and sharpening. The camera must be on a tripod, and you should use a remote shutter (don't push the shutter button on the body). As others suggested, collect several frames using the silent electronic shutter, then pick the best quality raw files for the final comparison.
Jul 31, 2026 at 04:30 AM
|
p.2 #11Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
If you look at controlled tests at TDP, the Tamron is noticeably worse at the long end. It's much cheaper and also slower, so not too surprising. However, there is copy variation in any lens especially zooms.
EBH
EBH
Jul 31, 2026 at 05:46 AM
p.2 #12Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
I don‘t think you can do proper resolution tests at ISO 8000 or 10000.
Put the lens on a sturdy tripod (which is difficult enough), use ISO 100, shut off ibis, and manual focus both lenses using proper viewfinder magnification. Take the best image of three.
Put the lens on a sturdy tripod (which is difficult enough), use ISO 100, shut off ibis, and manual focus both lenses using proper viewfinder magnification. Take the best image of three.
Jul 31, 2026 at 06:16 AM
p.2 #13Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Knut. wrote:
I don‘t think you can do proper resolution tests at ISO 8000 or 10000.
Put the lens on a sturdy tripod (which is difficult enough), use ISO 100, shut off ibis, and manual focus both lenses using proper viewfinder magnification. Take the best image of three.
I agree for resolution testing that is the way to go, but I would also like to see testing of IS (combined lens OS and camera IBIS) to see if the IS is similar with the two cameras. It may or may not be and of course for that you can't use a tripod.
I don‘t think you can do proper resolution tests at ISO 8000 or 10000.
Put the lens on a sturdy tripod (which is difficult enough), use ISO 100, shut off ibis, and manual focus both lenses using proper viewfinder magnification. Take the best image of three.
I agree for resolution testing that is the way to go, but I would also like to see testing of IS (combined lens OS and camera IBIS) to see if the IS is similar with the two cameras. It may or may not be and of course for that you can't use a tripod.
Jul 31, 2026 at 06:36 AM
p.2 #14Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
I compare my lenses outdoors in good light and shoot in RAW. I have the Tamron 50-400, and it’s sharp, including at 400mm f/6.3. The 100-400 GM I sold several years ago wasn’t impressive, certainly not on the level of the 300GM or even my great copy of the 200-600 I owned for a couple of years. Most reviews I've read suggest the 50-400 and the older 100-400 GM are roughly equivalent, at least in the center. Then there is copy variation.
Also keep in mind long distance shots are sometimes affected by the heat or other atmospheric conditions, especially in summer. I sometimes get poor results with my 300GM and 2x for that reason.
Also keep in mind long distance shots are sometimes affected by the heat or other atmospheric conditions, especially in summer. I sometimes get poor results with my 300GM and 2x for that reason.
Jul 31, 2026 at 07:44 AM
p.2 #15Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
My Tamron 50-400 is plenty sharp enough on the A7RV. What's important: It's CONSISTENT, it has no significant corner weaknesses or centering problems at any FL. (And I am a pixel peeper, believe me!) I can simply shoot and be confident that the photo will turn out OK. That, together with the sooo great added 50-100mm range, makes it such a great practical tool that it does not interest me whether there is another lens which may probably be a bit sharper. The Tamron is for people who actually want to go out and shoot instead of obsessing about gear. Only if I would want to shoot wildlife or other fast-moving subjects I would consider a faster tele because the f6.3 on the long end can be a problem (puffins in flight in overcast weather? Not really...).
Jul 31, 2026 at 09:22 AM
p.2 #16Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
I was curious to see how big the difference would be between the Tamron and the 300mm GM. I had to zoom in significantly to notice any difference in sharpness. While the Sony clearly wins on bokeh, f/2.8, OSS, and ultimate sharpness, the Tamron keeps up surprisingly well when it comes to sharpness.
I can see that the Sony out-resolves the sensor (A1 II, in this case).
Here are some comparisons. I've included the un-cropped version to see the degree of cropping (300-500%) for each comparison.
https://1drv.ms/a/c/2d7b3452ad929010/IgDXigpPYHWJRoWeyPdLLhseAZa3pNn9VGCIid29XPcF4wk?e=xuEppc
I can see that the Sony out-resolves the sensor (A1 II, in this case).
Here are some comparisons. I've included the un-cropped version to see the degree of cropping (300-500%) for each comparison.
https://1drv.ms/a/c/2d7b3452ad929010/IgDXigpPYHWJRoWeyPdLLhseAZa3pNn9VGCIid29XPcF4wk?e=xuEppc
Aug 01, 2026 at 08:55 AM
p.2 #17Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
I swapped my Sony 100-400GM for the Nikon version of the Tamron 50-400. Not that my GM wasn't sharp, but I also have the 70-200 II GM and 200-600G and the 100-400 didn't get much use. My Nikon lineup was very thin. IQ wise the Sony was better, but the Tamron is still great and that extra 50mm makes it a far more versatile lens for landscape and trips to the zoo or whale watching.
Aug 03, 2026 at 08:57 PM
p.2 #18Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
I had Tamron 50-400mm for a while but returned it. Main reason was AF which was not in the level of Sony lenses. I was also disappointed with the much discussed min focus distance - it is available only in the 50mm end.
Tamron sharpness is ok - especially if one can stop down. But so what?? So many better all-round lenses around. I have Sony 200-600 G and 70-200/4 G for tele work.
Tamron sharpness is ok - especially if one can stop down. But so what?? So many better all-round lenses around. I have Sony 200-600 G and 70-200/4 G for tele work.
Aug 04, 2026 at 04:48 AM
p.2 #19Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
For me, the Tamron 50-400 AF performs well for birds on the A1 II. It's very usable and feels similar to the 200-600 I owned, aside from the 15 fps limitation.
Aug 04, 2026 at 10:23 AM
p.2 #20Ha? Did not expect this. Tamron 50-400 vs Sony 100-400 original
Here is a follow up for curious parties.
I took the 100-400 to our trip to Pacific NW and it performed admirably. Just the right lens for whale watching. There were a few times I felt lack of 50mm, but it was mostly a matter of convenience and planning. Whenever carry weight wasn't an issue (i.e. husband came along
), I paired it with Sigma 24-70mm.
I did want to try another copy of Tamron, for that 50mm convenience sake. Same difference as my current one. I did field-type comparisons, hand-held, all things equal but the lens, of moving subjects, stationary, inside and outside, and the vitamin bottles of course. The sharpness discrepancy was consistent. There was also more noise for the same mm due to .5 stop aperture difference between the two, which had a small but noticeable effect on end result.
I think I am keeping Sony 100-400, convenience notwithstanding. Thank you everyone for your thoughts and opinions on the subject.
I took the 100-400 to our trip to Pacific NW and it performed admirably. Just the right lens for whale watching. There were a few times I felt lack of 50mm, but it was mostly a matter of convenience and planning. Whenever carry weight wasn't an issue (i.e. husband came along
), I paired it with Sigma 24-70mm.I did want to try another copy of Tamron, for that 50mm convenience sake. Same difference as my current one. I did field-type comparisons, hand-held, all things equal but the lens, of moving subjects, stationary, inside and outside, and the vitamin bottles of course. The sharpness discrepancy was consistent. There was also more noise for the same mm due to .5 stop aperture difference between the two, which had a small but noticeable effect on end result.
I think I am keeping Sony 100-400, convenience notwithstanding. Thank you everyone for your thoughts and opinions on the subject.
Aug 20, 2026 at 08:52 PM