Jack Flesher wrote: Ross Martin wrote: Jack Flesher wrote: Ross Martin wrote: gdanmitchell wrote: 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.
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.
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 🤷🏼
My copy of the 50-400 is working well for me. Here is a 100% pixel crop on the A7R6 at 400mm wide open at f/6.3 (developed in LR as I always do), equivalent on my monitor to looking close up at a 38” print.
Two reviews I found accurate to what I’ve seen in the 1.5 years I’ve been shooting mine (as well as another copy on Nikon)
Jack Flesher wrote: Ross Martin wrote: Jack Flesher wrote: Ross Martin wrote: gdanmitchell wrote: 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.
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.
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 🤷🏼
My copy of the 50-400 is working well for me. Here is a 100% pixel crop on the A7R6 at 400mm wide open at f/6.3 (developed in LR as I always do), equivalent on my monitor to looking close up at a 38” print.
Two reviews I found accurate to what I’ve seen in the 1.5 years I’ve shot mine:
