Sony 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II E-Mount vs SEL70300G 70 - 300 mm F4.5-5.6 FE

[radishturnip]

I've been obsessing over this lens as I want something that can easily do 200mm...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CB8X1...QB9GXO0S&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it

But I recently spotted this one...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL70...e1abfc&ref_=pd_hp_d_atf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_hp_atf_d

I appreciate the 70-200 is going to be better quality etc.

But does anyone have experience of both to explain how different they are?

On one hand, 70-300mm for less money seems like a pretty good deal, but that must come with a catch? I wondered what the catch is.

 

[Ralf B]

https://opticallimits.com/sony/sony-fe-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6-g-oss-sel70300g-review/

https://opticallimits.com/sony/sony-fe-70-200mm-f-4-g-oss-macro-ii-review/

Disclaimer: I own neither of the two lenses but trust "Opticallimits" ever since their former "Photozone" times, IAW, > 2 decades now (!). I know this dates me ;-)

The 70-300 was not a great offer when released and - being rather long in the tooth - current third party lenses best it optically. Compared to the latest 70-200/4G II It does not take TCs and its MFD prohibits the macro shots the 70-200/4 G II offers.

If the priority is to get to 300mm FL, I'd rather get the Tamron 50-300 for less money and better performance compared to the Sony 70-300. Given you are looking for something that does 200mm for quite a while now, and budget appears a factor, and if "macro" is not a priority, there are the older Sony 70-200/4 G and the Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2 for less money than the 70-200/4 G II. Both are optically better than the Sony 70-300.
Finally, allow me to recommend you take the plunge and start enjoying whatever you decide to plunge for.
Cheers,
Ralf

 

[AlephNull]

I've been obsessing over this lens as I want something that can easily do 200mm...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CB8X1...QB9GXO0S&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it

But I recently spotted this one...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL70...e1abfc&ref_=pd_hp_d_atf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_hp_atf_d

I appreciate the 70-200 is going to be better quality etc.

But does anyone have experience of both to explain how different they are?

On one hand, 70-300mm for less money seems like a pretty good deal, but that must come with a catch? I wondered what the catch is.

If you want a cheap 70-300mm, there's a third party version (I think it's from Tamron) that's somewhat cheaper than the Sony 70-300, and rather lighter in weight, too.

If you are more interested in a quality lens, then the Sony 70-200mm f/4 G II is a seriously better lens, but you do pay for the several advantages:

• it's a constant f/4 lens, so it's faster than the 70-300 at all focal lengths
• it uses more recent focus motors, meaning that it auto-focuses more quickly
• it's a macro lens, albeit a 0.5:1 macro as it stands, but it becomes a 0.7:1 macro with the 1.4x teleconverter, and a 1:1 macro with the 2x
• it's a much more recent design, and a G lens (G lenses are designed to a higher standard than non-G
• it's white, so it attracts more attention, convincing people that you are a serious photographer...

There are websites that let you compare lens A with lens B (gosh, you are on one now...) - you can try using the lens comparator: https://www.dpreview.com/products/c...oss&products=tamron_70-300_4p5-6p3_di_iii_rxd - the one thing to look out for is getting the right version of each lens (you want the FE version).

 

[PWPhotography]

70-300 G is on old design variable-aperture lens and not very sharp in general. The new 70-200 G II is constant-aperture in entire FL, very sharp (basically as sharp as 70-200 GM II) and still pretty sharp with 1.4x TC, acceptable sharp with 2.0x TC. Not sure if 70-200 G II /w 1.4 TC vs 70-300 @280/300mm, guess latter is very slightly sharper. Personally I own both 70-200 GM II and 70-200 G II.

Sometime we could not count on one specific review but on consensus of many reviews and owners' experiences.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[Architeuthis]

The 70-200mm f/4 is slightly sharper compared to the Sony 70-300mm. I would not use it together with TCs, however, as IQ is not really superior. Look e.g. here, you will not want to use this lens together with TCs:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

In addition the "macro" feature, at 0.5x is not worth, at least for me, I like "real" macro (1:! and even more). I find the 70-200mm f/4 GII lens overrated (o.k. the white look is cool, if this is what you like)...

I would go for Tamron 50-300mm in this class of lenses (Sony 70-200mm f/4 GII, Sony 70-300mm): lighter, comparable IQ, more range and cheaper (slightly higher aperture, however, but f/4 is not really fast, anyway)...

A, far better, alternative and upgrade may be Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GMII, that is still very good with TCs, but this lens is clearly heavier and more expensive...

Wolfgang

 

[Martin Ocando]

I've been obsessing over this lens as I want something that can easily do 200mm...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CB8X1...QB9GXO0S&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it

But I recently spotted this one...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL70...e1abfc&ref_=pd_hp_d_atf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_hp_atf_d

I appreciate the 70-200 is going to be better quality etc.

But does anyone have experience of both to explain how different they are?

On one hand, 70-300mm for less money seems like a pretty good deal, but that must come with a catch? I wondered what the catch is.

As a former user of the 70-200 f/4 OSS II, which I paired with the 1.4X TC, my personal experience in the type of photography that I use, I usually need a bit more reach than 200mm. So the TC lived attached to the 70-200mm most of the time, with the caveat of losing the wide end. So after giving it a good though, and also super useful advice from this forum, I decided to replace it with the Tamron 50-300mm, Is a great lens and I've heard is a much better performer than the Sony 70-300mm. The extra 50-70mm range is super useful and many times it saved me from switching lenses.

Later I decided to replace the 20-70mm with the 28-200mm, which is also highly recommended, and since the 50-300 was too much of an overlap I replaced it with the 50-400mm. Larger and heavier no doubt, but the extra reach is quite useful.

 

[dcstep]

I love my 70-200 f/4 G II and don't see any drop in IQ vs. my GM lenses. It's light and flexible, with and without a TC:









View attachment 573d27fde1464ca897fe9f47f27be9e7.jpg







--
Dave

 

[NowHearThis]

Honest curiosity, is there some reason you haven’t considered the Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2 that’s $900 cheaper than the Sony 70-200/4 II? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the F4 ain’t great, I’m just wondering if you 1) considered the Tamron or not, and if so 2) what’s worth the extra $900 vs a lens that’s about the same size and 1 stop faster?

 

[dcstep]

Honest curiosity, is there some reason you haven’t considered the Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2 that’s $900 cheaper than the Sony 70-200/4 II? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the F4 ain’t great, I’m just wondering if you 1) considered the Tamron or not, and if so 2) what’s worth the extra $900 vs a lens that’s about the same size and 1 stop faster?

For me, when I buy a Sony G or GM, I know that the IQ will be excellent, with Tamron or Sigma, maybe, maybe not. The Sony's hold their value better also. I don't know this particular Tamron, but most f/2.8 zoom are heavy for someone that shoots at f/8 every chance that he gets. The bokeh is great with the Sony and the close focus distance makes it an incredibly versatile lens.

 

[Joachim Wulfers]

I've been obsessing over this lens as I want something that can easily do 200mm...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CB8X1...QB9GXO0S&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it

But I recently spotted this one...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL70...e1abfc&ref_=pd_hp_d_atf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_hp_atf_d

I appreciate the 70-200 is going to be better quality etc.

But does anyone have experience of both to explain how different they are?

On one hand, 70-300mm for less money seems like a pretty good deal, but that must come with a catch? I wondered what the catch is.

Ralph B is correct when saying that the E70-300 G was not necessarily a good offer. I purchased that lens and used it extensively with the A6000 and A6600. My first day with that lens were dismal. I could not get sharp photos over a distance greater than 50'-60'. I brought it back to the dealer and, with detailed descriptions and copious photo samples it went off to the Sony repair shop in Vancouver. BC. Initially they did not read the instructions nor did they look at the sample photos. Actually I suspect the dealer did not sent those along. So, I had lengthy conversations with the repair shop and eventually they got it. After several weeks they returned the lens and let me tell you, it was (and still is) extremely sharp.

I now have the SEL 18-200 OSS, very sharp (after initial issues similar to the 70-300), and offers a very short MF distance. I can photograph a chickadee at the 18mm setting, sitting in my left hand while holding the camera in my right hand, the E 70-300 G, the FE 100-400 GM and since about 6 months, the FE 70-200/4 G II Macro. One of these days I'll need to sell the 18-200 OSS and the 70-300 G since they are seeing very little use.

Having said all this, If you can get a good 70-300 G with the guarantee of returning it if it suffers from sample variations, then go for it

The FE 70-200/4 II Macro is very good and I use it frequently with and without a 1.4 TC.







--
JoWul
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/

 

[UncleVanya]

I've been obsessing over this lens as I want something that can easily do 200mm...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CB8X1...QB9GXO0S&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it

But I recently spotted this one...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL70...e1abfc&ref_=pd_hp_d_atf_ci_mcx_mr_ca_hp_atf_d

I appreciate the 70-200 is going to be better quality etc.

But does anyone have experience of both to explain how different they are?

I can try. I owned the A Mount Sony 70-300 and later bought the e Mount Tamron 70-300. The Tamron was sharper nd lighter nd he’d to head reviews of it and the FE 70-300 Sony suggested the two lenses were close. Some reviews favored the Tamron nd some favored the Sony. The Tamron is slightly slower and it lacks OSS.

Later I bought an FE 70-200 g II and I already owned the 1.4x tc. In my experience this combo is you’re sharp nd the micro side is good for caul use. Adding the 1.4x works well but makes the short end longer than I prefer. If I were buying today I might go other the Tamron 50-300 but I’ve not shot that lens so I don’t know how it compares.

On one hand, 70-300mm for less money seems like a pretty good deal, but that must come with a catch? I wondered what the catch is.

It’s big, it’s bulky, it lacks macro, the optics are not stellar. If all you want is 70-300 the Tamron 70-300 or 50-300 are cheaper nd work well. The 50-300 only has 1:2 at certain focal lengths.

 

[NowHearThis]

Honest curiosity, is there some reason you haven’t considered the Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2 that’s $900 cheaper than the Sony 70-200/4 II? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the F4 ain’t great, I’m just wondering if you 1) considered the Tamron or not, and if so 2) what’s worth the extra $900 vs a lens that’s about the same size and 1 stop faster?

For me, when I buy a Sony G or GM, I know that the IQ will be excellent, with Tamron or Sigma, maybe, maybe not. The Sony's hold their value better also. I don't know this particular Tamron, but most f/2.8 zoom are heavy for someone that shoots at f/8 every chance that he gets. The bokeh is great with the Sony and the close focus distance makes it an incredibly versatile lens.

Normally I agree that most F2.8s tend to be heavy, but the reviews on the Tamron G2 (not G1) are very positive and trading 20mm on the long end results in a F2.8 that's only 61g heavier than the 70-200/4 II. If the OP is looking at 70-300mm lenses, he's probably not looking at the very best or prime level IQ, For some, and I'm still waiting for a reply from the OP, the Tamron F2.8 G2 is a good and significantly less expensive alternative to Sony's F4 - maybe not for everyone and the Sony obviously has it's positives. I'm just curious if the OP considered this.

--
NHT

 

[LarryRC]

Have checked out the very useful sony alpha blog which has objective info on both lenses and the Tamrons. Here us the 7-300:

Sony Alpha Blog : Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS

Le Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS est le premier objectif natif à atteindre 300mm pour la monture E. Bien que très piqué au centre, son rendu d’image souffre de faiblesse en paysage. Idéal …

sonyalpha.blog

 

[Ralf B]

Sony Alpha Blog : Tamron 50-300mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD

The Tamron 50-300mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD lens offers excellent sharpness, good autofocus, and a versatile 6x zoom range, making it suitable for various photography styles, including portraits and…

sonyalpha.blog

SonyAlphaBlog in the report linked above on the Tamron 50-300 include a comparison with

• Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD A067
• Tamron 70-300mm F4.5-6.3 Di III RXD
• Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS
• Sony FE 100-400mm GM OSS F4.5-F5.6
• Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary

For the OP, the Tamron 50-300 does beats all lenses in that comparison, including the old Sony 70-300 FE.



furthermore, they find that

• CA are low on all but the best is the Tamron 50-300
• Flare resistance is a little bit better on the Tamron 50-300
• The background blur, bokeh balls, color rendition are very good on all lenses.
• the Tamron 50-300 is one of the best choice you can make

Cheers,
Ralf

 

[radishturnip]

Thank you everyone your opinions have been incredibly useful! I didn't know about the Tamron 50-300. Given that range will be super useful for me and I've never tried Tamron before, I am definitely inclined to get that one. Especially with the lower cost. I love Sony stuff but the price differences are big.

I'm not so bothered about resale value as I'm not regularly buying and selling lenses, but I do use them a lot. So it's more about the performance and how it improves the range of photos I can take.

 

[radishturnip]

https://sonyalpha.blog/2024/06/06/t...ii-vc-vxd/#13_AF_performances_performances_AF

SonyAlphaBlog in the report linked above on the Tamron 50-300 include a comparison with

• Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD A067
• Tamron 70-300mm F4.5-6.3 Di III RXD
• Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS
• Sony FE 100-400mm GM OSS F4.5-F5.6
• Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary

For the OP, the Tamron 50-300 does beats all lenses in that comparison, including the old Sony 70-300 FE.



furthermore, they find that

• CA are low on all but the best is the Tamron 50-300
• Flare resistance is a little bit better on the Tamron 50-300
• The background blur, bokeh balls, color rendition are very good on all lenses.
• the Tamron 50-300 is one of the best choice you can make

Cheers,
Ralf

Thanks for this analysis Ralf, that is really helpful. Please can I check, is this the same lens: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-Tel...300mm+f4.5-6.3+di+iii+rxd,aps,155&sr=8-2&th=1

It's a massive saving in price compared to the Sony lens I was looking at.

 

[Ralf B]

Thanks for this analysis Ralf, that is really helpful. Please can I check, is this the same lens: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-Tel...300mm+f4.5-6.3+di+iii+rxd,aps,155&sr=8-2&th=1

It's a massive saving in price compared to the Sony lens I was looking at.

No, that is the 70-300 RXD, the older Tamron with slower AF motors (RXD, not VXD) and it lacks the 50mm focal length on the "short" end. It currently gets discounted also in Germany in brick-and--mortar stores down to 399 €.

So if you are on a budget that is one option, and you have been given numerous inputs on which qualities to expect, and which not.

The lens I'd prefer between these two - if money was no point to consider - is definitely the 50-300 VXD. Yes, it is > 2* the discounted price of its predeccessor, but: C'est la vie.

Cheers,
Ralf

 

[radishturnip]

Thanks for this analysis Ralf, that is really helpful. Please can I check, is this the same lens: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-Tel...300mm+f4.5-6.3+di+iii+rxd,aps,155&sr=8-2&th=1

It's a massive saving in price compared to the Sony lens I was looking at.

No, that is the 70-300 RXD, the older Tamron with slower AF motors (RXD, not VXD) and it lacks the 50mm focal length on the "short" end. It currently gets discounted also in Germany in brick-and--mortar stores down to 399 €.

So if you are on a budget that is one option, and you have been given numerous inputs on which qualities to expect, and which not.

The lens I'd prefer between these two - if money was no point to consider - is definitely the 50-300 VXD. Yes, it is > 2* the discounted price of its predeccessor, but: C'est la vie.

Cheers,
Ralf

Ah, thank you for explaining sorry I missed that.

Thanks again.

 

[Joachim Wulfers]

Here is a link from the FM Forum about the Tamron 50-300 lens. Other than noise there are some impressive bird photos.

Tamron 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 VC VXD Image Thread - Sony Forum - Photography - FM Forums

Join the Sony Forum photography discussion: Hello, here are som of my frst images from Tamron 50-300mm f/4.5-6.3 VC: [url=https://1drv.ms/f/s!ArKU9lBMqxbMn9EyQR7y7_AVN90SuA?e=7o1Erp]Tamron 50-300 VC ga

www.fredmiranda.com

 

[dcstep]

Honest curiosity, is there some reason you haven’t considered the Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2 that’s $900 cheaper than the Sony 70-200/4 II? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the F4 ain’t great, I’m just wondering if you 1) considered the Tamron or not, and if so 2) what’s worth the extra $900 vs a lens that’s about the same size and 1 stop faster?

In general, Tamron IQ is not as good as Sony G and GM lenses. Also, I would almost never shoot at f/2.8. I favor f/8, when it's available.