Telezoom for Sony

limbo8 · Oct 23, 2022

Hi

I’m currently a Fuji user and considering switching to a A7RIII with 24-105. On top of that I’m looking for a telezoom to complete the kit.

For my Fuji I use a 70-300 equivalent lens. With that range I’m generally covered although there might be some rare cases where I would need a little bit more (occasional wildlife). However, in that case you could argue if 100-400 would be enough.

I use my lenses mostly while traveling and trips to the mountains with multiple day hikes (usually hut stays). Therefore ideally I would have a lens that is at least 300mm, sharp and lightweight & compact enough for these trips.

I have been looking at the following three options:

Sony FE70-300

+ relatively compact

+ stabilized

+ good build and seals

- quite soft according to reviews

Tamron 70-300 RXD

+ lightweight

+ affordable

+ relatively compact

- not the sharpest

- nor stabilized

Tamron 50-400

+ sharp

+ range (wide angle as well as zoom)

- heavy & big

- a bit more expensive

What would you recommend?

dth29 · Oct 23, 2022

Of course the Sony 100-400 GM, but a lighter and cheaper alternativ could be the Sigma 100-400 DG DN

Rol Lei Nut · Oct 23, 2022

limbo8 said:
Hi

I’m currently a Fuji user and considering switching to a A7RIII with 24-105. On top of that I’m looking for a telezoom to complete the kit.
For my Fuji I use a 70-300 equivalent lens. With that range I’m generally covered although there might be some rare cases where I would need a little bit more (occasional wildlife). However, in that case you could argue if 100-400 would be enough.

I use my lenses mostly while traveling and trips to the mountains with multiple day hikes (usually hut stays). Therefore ideally I would have a lens that is at least 300mm, sharp and lightweight & compact enough for these trips.

I have been looking at the following three options:

Sony FE70-300

+ relatively compact

+ stabilized

+ good build and seals

- quite soft according to reviews

I had it, not impressed. More than soft, mine looked flat.

It has been replaced by the Tamron 70-300 RXD

limbo8 said:
Tamron 70-300 RXD

+ lightweight

Yes

limbo8 said:
+ affordable

Yes

limbo8 said:
+ relatively compact

Yes

limbo8 said:
- not the sharpest

I find it sharp enough (42mp) and...

limbo8 said:
- nor stabilized

... despite no lens OS, it gives me more technical keepers than the Sony did and the images also look nicer (less flat, more contrasty).

I've gone through many 70/100-300 lenses (Minolta AF APO, Canon EF L (both f/4.0 & f/5.6), Zeiss Contax N, Zeiss Contax & Sony) and am quite satisfied with the Tamron.

limbo8 said:
Tamron 50-400

+ sharp

+ range (wide angle as well as zoom)

- heavy & big

- a bit more expensive

What would you recommend?

I have the Sigma 100-400, which is also very sharp. It's noticeably lighter & cheaper than the Sony equivalent. The main difference is that the Tamron 70-300 is practically a "take always" lens (it nearly lives in my backpack, had it with me on a bike ride today), while the 100-400 I'll only take if I foresee having a use for 400mm.

ahaslett · Oct 23, 2022

I got the 100-400GM because sharpness across the frame is important for landscape.

It is probably too heavy for what you want. However, the OSS is important to me.

If OSS isn’t important and you don’t mind slightly weaker corners, then the Sigma is the obvious choice.

For that sort of shooting, I’d use my MFT kit.

Andrew

UncleVanya · Oct 23, 2022

limbo8 said:
Hi

I’m currently a Fuji user and considering switching to a A7RIII with 24-105. On top of that I’m looking for a telezoom to complete the kit.
For my Fuji I use a 70-300 equivalent lens. With that range I’m generally covered although there might be some rare cases where I would need a little bit more (occasional wildlife). However, in that case you could argue if 100-400 would be enough.

I use my lenses mostly while traveling and trips to the mountains with multiple day hikes (usually hut stays). Therefore ideally I would have a lens that is at least 300mm, sharp and lightweight & compact enough for these trips.

I have been looking at the following three options:

Sony FE70-300

relatively compact

stabilized

good build and seals

quite soft according to reviews

Too heavy compared to what the output is in my opinion. I haven’t owned or rented this lens however. I did own the A Mount version and I liked it ok until I tried the Tamron.

The reviews of this lens and the Tamron were neck and neck as far as sharpness, with many reviewers showing the Tamron as the sharper lens but some showing the Sony. Copy variation may exist in both lenses; my copy of the Tamron is quite good.

limbo8 said:
Tamron 70-300 RXD

lightweight

affordable

relatively compact

not the sharpest

nor stabilized

Super image quality particularly when compared to the weight and size. Great “take always” lens. Perfect for telezoom hiking.

I’ve compared directly with the Sony 70-200 GM which I own. The Tamron holds its own in landscape photography assuming you have enough light to shoot it wide open comfortably. Stopped down slightly it’s even better which is impressive. It’s sharper than the GM plus 1.4x Teleconverter which was surprising to me. (Both lenses shot at the same f stop). Clearly the 70-200/2.8 has other advantages that make it the better lens for other purposes, but if you don’t need f2.8 and you don’t require OSS, and you value light weight The Tamron is undeniably excellent. I should point out that I’ve compared these two using a tripod and handheld and I’ve shot it with and without the 1.4x on the GM. My primary subjects for comparison were old barns, but I’ve also captured other images including wildlife. The biggest concern with the Tamron is the maximum f stop. But in normal daylight it’s quite reasonable to use since it’s quite good from wide open.

limbo8 said:
Tamron 50-400

sharp

range (wide angle as well as zoom)

heavy & big

a bit more expensive

Too heavy by far compared to the 70-300. I’ve read reviewers thoughts on this lens and it sounds good but only if you absolutely need 400mm and at that point the Sony GM 100-400 or the various alternatives pop up. The weight and size start to be less important than the overall effectiveness in these ranges.

limbo8 said:
What would you recommend?

Either the Tamron, or the APSC Sony 70-350 which is full frame capable over a large part of the range. The 18mp crop on the a7RIII (that’s the body I shoot with BTW) is good for the long end crops that many people need for their use. If your use is towards cropped images at the long end and prefer oss, The 70-350 lens may be a good choice. I haven’t used one but I’ve seen sample images and read comparisons. For me the Tamron 70-300 is still the best choice since it’s light, sharp, and inexpensive. I gave my copy to my dad and I’m seriously considering buying another to complement the 70-200 GM when I need to travel lighter.

As a final factor, the Tamron is offered new with a six year warranty. For this reason I suggest buying new.

I forgot to mention that the 24-105 is my main zoom. It pairs very well with the Tamron.

UncleVanya · Oct 23, 2022

dth29 said:
Of course the Sony 100-400 GM, but a lighter and cheaper alternativ could be the Sigma 100-400 DG DN

I love the 100-400 GM having shot it myself several times. But it doesn’t fit the requirements from the op. The 100-400 isn’t a lens I’d recommend for “multiple day mountain hiking”. The lens needs to be compact and light and the OP has indicated the use isn’t focused on wildlife, and that with his existing Fuji apsc a zoom with 300mm equivalent maximum length has sufficient reach for his needs.

limbo8 · Oct 23, 2022

Rol Lei Nut said:
limbo8 said:

Hi

I’m currently a Fuji user and considering switching to a A7RIII with 24-105. On top of that I’m looking for a telezoom to complete the kit.
For my Fuji I use a 70-300 equivalent lens. With that range I’m generally covered although there might be some rare cases where I would need a little bit more (occasional wildlife). However, in that case you could argue if 100-400 would be enough.

I use my lenses mostly while traveling and trips to the mountains with multiple day hikes (usually hut stays). Therefore ideally I would have a lens that is at least 300mm, sharp and lightweight & compact enough for these trips.

I have been looking at the following three options:

Sony FE70-300

+ relatively compact

+ stabilized

+ good build and seals

- quite soft according to reviews

Click to expand...

I had it, not impressed. More than soft, mine looked flat.

It has been replaced by the Tamron 70-300 RXD

Rol Lei Nut said:

Tamron 70-300 RXD

+ lightweight

Click to expand...

Yes

Rol Lei Nut said:

+ affordable

Click to expand...

Yes

Rol Lei Nut said:

+ relatively compact

Click to expand...

Yes

Rol Lei Nut said:

- not the sharpest

Click to expand...

I find it sharp enough (42mp) and...

Rol Lei Nut said:

- nor stabilized

Click to expand...

... despite no lens OS, it gives me more technical keepers than the Sony did and the images also look nicer (less flat, more contrasty).

I've gone through many 70/100-300 lenses (Minolta AF APO, Canon EF L (both f/4.0 & f/5.6), Zeiss Contax N, Zeiss Contax & Sony) and am quite satisfied with the Tamron.

Rol Lei Nut said:

Tamron 50-400

+ sharp

+ range (wide angle as well as zoom)

- heavy & big

- a bit more expensive

What would you recommend?

Click to expand...

I have the Sigma 100-400, which is also very sharp. It's noticeably lighter & cheaper than the Sony equivalent. The main difference is that the Tamron 70-300 is practically a "take always" lens (it nearly lives in my backpack, had it with me on a bike ride today), while the 100-400 I'll only take if I foresee having a use for 400mm.

Thanks for your feedback. And that “take always” is indeed almost what I’m looking for, at least for mountain or forest trips. That said, as you’re saying you don’t need IBIS - what kind of shutter speeds are realistic at 300mm?

The Sigma was on my radar as well, as its quite comparable to the 50-400 Tamron - although being slightly larger. Would you use that one on treks or go for the lighter 70-300? I think I won’t be missing the additional 100mm very much but the additional image quality and OIS is tempting.

limbo8 · Oct 23, 2022

UncleVanya said:
limbo8 said:

Hi

I’m currently a Fuji user and considering switching to a A7RIII with 24-105. On top of that I’m looking for a telezoom to complete the kit.
For my Fuji I use a 70-300 equivalent lens. With that range I’m generally covered although there might be some rare cases where I would need a little bit more (occasional wildlife). However, in that case you could argue if 100-400 would be enough.

I use my lenses mostly while traveling and trips to the mountains with multiple day hikes (usually hut stays). Therefore ideally I would have a lens that is at least 300mm, sharp and lightweight & compact enough for these trips.

I have been looking at the following three options:

Sony FE70-300

relatively compact

stabilized

good build and seals

quite soft according to reviews

Click to expand...

Too heavy compared to what the output is in my opinion. I haven’t owned or rented this lens however. I did own the A Mount version and I liked it ok until I tried the Tamron.

The reviews of this lens and the Tamron were neck and neck as far as sharpness, with many reviewers showing the Tamron as the sharper lens but some showing the Sony. Copy variation may exist in both lenses; my copy of the Tamron is quite good.

UncleVanya said:

Tamron 70-300 RXD

lightweight

affordable

relatively compact

not the sharpest

nor stabilized

Click to expand...

Super image quality particularly when compared to the weight and size. Great “take always” lens. Perfect for telezoom hiking.

I’ve compared directly with the Sony 70-200 GM which I own. The Tamron holds its own in landscape photography assuming you have enough light to shoot it wide open comfortably. Stopped down slightly it’s even better which is impressive. It’s sharper than the GM plus 1.4x Teleconverter which was surprising to me. (Both lenses shot at the same f stop). Clearly the 70-200/2.8 has other advantages that make it the better lens for other purposes, but if you don’t need f2.8 and you don’t require OSS, and you value light weight The Tamron is undeniably excellent. I should point out that I’ve compared these two using a tripod and handheld and I’ve shot it with and without the 1.4x on the GM. My primary subjects for comparison were old barns, but I’ve also captured other images including wildlife. The biggest concern with the Tamron is the maximum f stop. But in normal daylight it’s quite reasonable to use since it’s quite good from wide open.

UncleVanya said:

Tamron 50-400

sharp

range (wide angle as well as zoom)

heavy & big

a bit more expensive

Click to expand...

Too heavy by far compared to the 70-300. I’ve read reviewers thoughts on this lens and it sounds good but only if you absolutely need 400mm and at that point the Sony GM 100-400 or the various alternatives pop up. The weight and size start to be less important than the overall effectiveness in these ranges.

UncleVanya said:

What would you recommend?

Click to expand...

Either the Tamron, or the APSC Sony 70-350 which is full frame capable over a large part of the range. The 18mp crop on the a7RIII (that’s the body I shoot with BTW) is good for the long end crops that many people need for their use. If your use is towards cropped images at the long end and prefer oss, The 70-350 lens may be a good choice. I haven’t used one but I’ve seen sample images and read comparisons. For me the Tamron 70-300 is still the best choice since it’s light, sharp, and inexpensive. I gave my copy to my dad and I’m seriously considering buying another to complement the 70-200 GM when I need to travel lighter.

As a final factor, the Tamron is offered new with a six year warranty. For this reason I suggest buying new.

I forgot to mention that the 24-105 is my main zoom. It pairs very well with the Tamron.

Thanks for the feedback.

Comforting you seem to like the image quality from the 70-300. The aperture itself is not a problem for me, as for the occasional separation it is enough and for landscape I would ideally use even smaller apertures.

Only concern would be I’m not using tripods (at least not in the mountains) and not sure what shutter speeds I would need without OIS (but still having IBIS). Have you used it handheld?

Relating to your 24-105, would you say it’s comparable in image quality?

limbo8 · Oct 23, 2022

ahaslett said:
I got the 100-400GM because sharpness across the frame is important for landscape.

It is probably too heavy for what you want. However, the OSS is important to me.

If OSS isn’t important and you don’t mind slightly weaker corners, then the Sigma is the obvious choice.

For that sort of shooting, I’d use my MFT kit.

Andrew

limbo8 · Oct 23, 2022

UncleVanya said:
dth29 said:

Of course the Sony 100-400 GM, but a lighter and cheaper alternativ could be the Sigma 100-400 DG DN

Click to expand...

I love the 100-400 GM having shot it myself several times. But it doesn’t fit the requirements from the op. The 100-400 isn’t a lens I’d recommend for “multiple day mountain hiking”. The lens needs to be compact and light and the OP has indicated the use isn’t focused on wildlife, and that with his existing Fuji apsc a zoom with 300mm equivalent maximum length has sufficient reach for his needs.

The sigma and tamron 50-400 are slightly lighter than the Sony so they could be an option. However I would prefer to travel lighter unless image quality differs substantially from 70-300 options and people are having positive experiences with these sets in the mountains.

Skip py · Oct 23, 2022

Hi

You didn't say if you use a tripod in your hikes for landscapes and occasional wildlife? That could lower your expectations for the zoom regarding aperture and OSS...

From your OP, I would probably select the Tamron 50-400 for usability if you don't mind the additional weight (1155g), with the brand new features of last Tamron lenses (here a link to Dustin Abbott's review explaining most of the improvements), or the older Tamron 70-300 RXD which only weights 545g :

- If you have enough light up there, having just one zoom from 50 to 400 could be the most important, depending on your need, especially if you also like close focus shots. At least I would try / rent one for a few days on a short hike to see if it fits your priorities. Add a wide angle lens (like the Sony 20mm) or a wider zoom (like the Tamron 17-28) if you need one, and you'd be covered for most of your trips.

- On the other hand if weight is your first priority the Tamron 70-300 RXD is a no brainer for me ; already great and you probably can't beat it's small weight for such range and IQ.

Just to add more confusion (only if price is not a problem), why not a TC with the brand new Sony 70-200 II ? Lighter (1045g) than the Tamron 50-400, but with better IQ and OSS, especially in low light, more customizations, well balanced: you can reach 280 or even 400 depending on your TC (167g for the x1.4 and 207g for the x2) if the IQ is good enough for you. That is, if you can easily change lenses on your hikes... Having a TC (or a small second lens) in a pocket could also help to better balance your bag?

Anyway, if your 24-105 is wide enough, just adding the Sigma 100-400mm, despite its weight and IQ, could be at least the cheapest option? Only you can try and see how these options work for you in the field, with your bag and pockets, depending on the weather you face and other things we don't even think about.

Regards, Fred

PS:

Just in case, if you haven't already seen these pages, you may have a closer look at these lenses strong and weak points (to check the ones that are a NO GO for you), or the comparisons with other lenses (that could open your eyes on other options depending on your own priorities) ?

Sony Alpha Blog : Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD A067

The Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD is a versatile lens priced at 1450 euros, offering excellent sharpness, good autofocus, and optical stabilization. It excels in portrait and wildlife phot…

sonyalpha.blog

Loading…

sonyalpha.blog

https://sonyalpha.blog/2021/12/08/sony-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-ii-oss/

limbo8 · Oct 23, 2022

Skip py said:
Hi

You didn't say if you use a tripod in your hikes for landscapes and occasional wildlife? That could lower your expectations for the zoom regarding aperture and OSS...

From your OP, I would probably select the Tamron 50-400 for usability if you don't mind the additional weight (1155g), with the brand new features of last Tamron lenses (here a link to Dustin Abbott's review explaining most of the improvements), or the older Tamron 70-300 RXD which only weights 545g :

- If you have enough light up there, having just one zoom from 50 to 400 could be the most important, depending on your need, especially if you also like close focus shots. At least I would try / rent one for a few days on a short hike to see if it fits your priorities. Add a wide angle lens (like the Sony 20mm) or a wider zoom (like the Tamron 17-28) if you need one, and you'd be covered for most of your trips.

- On the other hand if weight is your first priority the Tamron 70-300 RXD is a no brainer for me ; already great and you probably can't beat it's small weight for such range and IQ.

Just to add more confusion (only if price is not a problem), why not a TC with the brand new Sony 70-200 II ? Lighter (1045g) than the Tamron 50-400, but with better IQ and OSS, especially in low light, more customizations, well balanced: you can reach 280 or even 400 depending on your TC (167g for the x1.4 and 207g for the x2) if the IQ is good enough for you. That is, if you can easily change lenses on your hikes... Having a TC (or a small second lens) in a pocket could also help to better balance your bag?

Anyway, if your 24-105 is wide enough, just adding the Sigma 100-400mm, despite its weight and IQ, could be at least the cheapest option? Only you can try and see how these options work for you in the field, with your bag and pockets, depending on the weather you face and other things we don't even think about.

Regards, Fred

PS:

Just in case, if you haven't already seen these pages, you may have a closer look at these lenses strong and weak points (to check the ones that are a NO GO for you), or the comparisons with other lenses (that could open your eyes on other options depending on your own priorities) ?

https://sonyalpha.blog/2022/09/01/tamron-50-400-f4-5-6-3-di-iii-vc-vxd-a067/

https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/10/24/tamron-70-300mm-f4-5-6-3-di-iii-rxd/

https://sonyalpha.blog/2021/12/08/sony-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-ii-oss/

I’m not using a tripod and that’s what’s letting me doubt about the 70-300, although I still would have IBIS.

50-400 would be an option, and that was the lens that I was initially thinking of buying. However, now when I tried it in store I only realized that it’s quite a bit larger than the 70-300. Also when fitting in daypacks and backpacks. So it’s either getting over that resistance or going with a smaller 70-300.

Rol Lei Nut · Oct 23, 2022

limbo8 said:
Rol Lei Nut said:

limbo8 said:

Hi

I’m currently a Fuji user and considering switching to a A7RIII with 24-105. On top of that I’m looking for a telezoom to complete the kit.
For my Fuji I use a 70-300 equivalent lens. With that range I’m generally covered although there might be some rare cases where I would need a little bit more (occasional wildlife). However, in that case you could argue if 100-400 would be enough.

I use my lenses mostly while traveling and trips to the mountains with multiple day hikes (usually hut stays). Therefore ideally I would have a lens that is at least 300mm, sharp and lightweight & compact enough for these trips.

I have been looking at the following three options:

Sony FE70-300

+ relatively compact

+ stabilized

+ good build and seals

- quite soft according to reviews

Click to expand...

I had it, not impressed. More than soft, mine looked flat.

It has been replaced by the Tamron 70-300 RXD

limbo8 said:

Tamron 70-300 RXD

+ lightweight

Click to expand...

Yes

limbo8 said:

+ affordable

Click to expand...

Yes

limbo8 said:

+ relatively compact

Click to expand...

Yes

limbo8 said:

- not the sharpest

Click to expand...

I find it sharp enough (42mp) and...

limbo8 said:

- nor stabilized

Click to expand...

... despite no lens OS, it gives me more technical keepers than the Sony did and the images also look nicer (less flat, more contrasty).

I've gone through many 70/100-300 lenses (Minolta AF APO, Canon EF L (both f/4.0 & f/5.6), Zeiss Contax N, Zeiss Contax & Sony) and am quite satisfied with the Tamron.

limbo8 said:

Tamron 50-400

+ sharp

+ range (wide angle as well as zoom)

- heavy & big

- a bit more expensive

What would you recommend?

Click to expand...

I have the Sigma 100-400, which is also very sharp. It's noticeably lighter & cheaper than the Sony equivalent. The main difference is that the Tamron 70-300 is practically a "take always" lens (it nearly lives in my backpack, had it with me on a bike ride today), while the 100-400 I'll only take if I foresee having a use for 400mm.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback. And that “take always” is indeed almost what I’m looking for, at least for mountain or forest trips. That said, as you’re saying you don’t need IBIS - what kind of shutter speeds are realistic at 300mm?

Remember that the A7RII body has IBIS. While OS in a lens is more effective at longer FLs, I'd say that the difference at 300mm with body only OS is probably less than 2 stops (possibly even less than one). I feel pretty safe using around 1/100. Of course the shorter FLs can be used at even slower speeds.

limbo8 said:
The Sigma was on my radar as well, as its quite comparable to the 50-400 Tamron - although being slightly larger. Would you use that one on treks or go for the lighter 70-300? I think I won’t be missing the additional 100mm very much but the additional image quality and OIS is tempting.

Unless I had a specific goal (wildlife, etc.), there's no way I'd prefer to carry the 100-400 instead of the Tamron 70-300.

Rol Lei Nut · Oct 23, 2022

For what it's worth, I'm also not a great fan of the Sony 24-105, which I found a bit large & akward in the field, as well as giving fairly flat looking images.

My various mountain & trekking lens kits are:

Sony 16-35 4.0 PZ (408 grams with shade) + Tamron 70-300 (594 grams with shorter tube shade) = 1002 grams

Samyang 24 1.8 (245 grams) + Tamron 28-200 (560 grams - IMO much nicer rendering than the Sony 24-105) = 805 grams

Samyang 18 2.8 (163 grams) + Samyang 35 1.8 (245 grams) + Samyang 75 1.8 (230 grams) = 638 grams

Samyang 18 2.8 (163 grams) + Samyang 35 1.8 (245 grams) + Tamron 70-300 (594 grams) = 1002 grams

Skip py · Oct 23, 2022

limbo8 said:
Skip py said:

Hi

You didn't say if you use a tripod in your hikes for landscapes and occasional wildlife? That could lower your expectations for the zoom regarding aperture and OSS...

From your OP, I would probably select the Tamron 50-400 for usability if you don't mind the additional weight (1155g), with the brand new features of last Tamron lenses (here a link to Dustin Abbott's review explaining most of the improvements), or the older Tamron 70-300 RXD which only weights 545g :

- If you have enough light up there, having just one zoom from 50 to 400 could be the most important, depending on your need, especially if you also like close focus shots. At least I would try / rent one for a few days on a short hike to see if it fits your priorities. Add a wide angle lens (like the Sony 20mm) or a wider zoom (like the Tamron 17-28) if you need one, and you'd be covered for most of your trips.

- On the other hand if weight is your first priority the Tamron 70-300 RXD is a no brainer for me ; already great and you probably can't beat it's small weight for such range and IQ.

Just to add more confusion (only if price is not a problem), why not a TC with the brand new Sony 70-200 II ? Lighter (1045g) than the Tamron 50-400, but with better IQ and OSS, especially in low light, more customizations, well balanced: you can reach 280 or even 400 depending on your TC (167g for the x1.4 and 207g for the x2) if the IQ is good enough for you. That is, if you can easily change lenses on your hikes... Having a TC (or a small second lens) in a pocket could also help to better balance your bag?

Anyway, if your 24-105 is wide enough, just adding the Sigma 100-400mm, despite its weight and IQ, could be at least the cheapest option? Only you can try and see how these options work for you in the field, with your bag and pockets, depending on the weather you face and other things we don't even think about.

Regards, Fred

PS:

Just in case, if you haven't already seen these pages, you may have a closer look at these lenses strong and weak points (to check the ones that are a NO GO for you), or the comparisons with other lenses (that could open your eyes on other options depending on your own priorities) ?

https://sonyalpha.blog/2022/09/01/tamron-50-400-f4-5-6-3-di-iii-vc-vxd-a067/

https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/10/24/tamron-70-300mm-f4-5-6-3-di-iii-rxd/

https://sonyalpha.blog/2021/12/08/sony-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-ii-oss/

Click to expand...

I’m not using a tripod and that’s what’s letting me doubt about the 70-300, although I still would have IBIS.

50-400 would be an option, and that was the lens that I was initially thinking of buying. However, now when I tried it in store I only realized that it’s quite a bit larger than the 70-300. Also when fitting in daypacks and backpacks. So it’s either getting over that resistance or going with a smaller 70-300.

Hillary Grigonis from the Phoglographer doesn't seems to be afraid to hike with this lens, though it may be different in mountains like you do. If optical stabilisation is your main concern, I would give it a try despite the weight and dimensions, maybe with a monopod to further improve IQ: impressive results at least for photography (even if it's not as good for video in the long range, if you're interested, but that may be corrected enough in post with Davinci Resolve or equivalent ... with crop).

Anyway, with the most compact and lightweight Tamron 70-300 you should already have great results in most cases thanks to A7RIII's IBIS.

Before making the jump, I'm still waiting for more detailed reviews and user experiences, especially regarding IQ between 200 and 400, to see if crop mode on my A7RIII could be enough on vacations to (sort of) replace my 200-600 and a few lenses. I know I will miss at least the IF and IQ but that's probably the best compromise yet for a lens with such a range and IQ.

Tough choice indeed!

UncleVanya · Oct 23, 2022

limbo8 said:
UncleVanya said:

limbo8 said:

Hi

I’m currently a Fuji user and considering switching to a A7RIII with 24-105. On top of that I’m looking for a telezoom to complete the kit.
For my Fuji I use a 70-300 equivalent lens. With that range I’m generally covered although there might be some rare cases where I would need a little bit more (occasional wildlife). However, in that case you could argue if 100-400 would be enough.

I use my lenses mostly while traveling and trips to the mountains with multiple day hikes (usually hut stays). Therefore ideally I would have a lens that is at least 300mm, sharp and lightweight & compact enough for these trips.

I have been looking at the following three options:

Sony FE70-300

relatively compact

stabilized

good build and seals

quite soft according to reviews

Click to expand...

Too heavy compared to what the output is in my opinion. I haven’t owned or rented this lens however. I did own the A Mount version and I liked it ok until I tried the Tamron.

The reviews of this lens and the Tamron were neck and neck as far as sharpness, with many reviewers showing the Tamron as the sharper lens but some showing the Sony. Copy variation may exist in both lenses; my copy of the Tamron is quite good.

limbo8 said:

Tamron 70-300 RXD

lightweight

affordable

relatively compact

not the sharpest

nor stabilized

Click to expand...

Super image quality particularly when compared to the weight and size. Great “take always” lens. Perfect for telezoom hiking.

I’ve compared directly with the Sony 70-200 GM which I own. The Tamron holds its own in landscape photography assuming you have enough light to shoot it wide open comfortably. Stopped down slightly it’s even better which is impressive. It’s sharper than the GM plus 1.4x Teleconverter which was surprising to me. (Both lenses shot at the same f stop). Clearly the 70-200/2.8 has other advantages that make it the better lens for other purposes, but if you don’t need f2.8 and you don’t require OSS, and you value light weight The Tamron is undeniably excellent. I should point out that I’ve compared these two using a tripod and handheld and I’ve shot it with and without the 1.4x on the GM. My primary subjects for comparison were old barns, but I’ve also captured other images including wildlife. The biggest concern with the Tamron is the maximum f stop. But in normal daylight it’s quite reasonable to use since it’s quite good from wide open.

limbo8 said:

Tamron 50-400

sharp

range (wide angle as well as zoom)

heavy & big

a bit more expensive

Click to expand...

Too heavy by far compared to the 70-300. I’ve read reviewers thoughts on this lens and it sounds good but only if you absolutely need 400mm and at that point the Sony GM 100-400 or the various alternatives pop up. The weight and size start to be less important than the overall effectiveness in these ranges.

limbo8 said:

What would you recommend?

Click to expand...

Either the Tamron, or the APSC Sony 70-350 which is full frame capable over a large part of the range. The 18mp crop on the a7RIII (that’s the body I shoot with BTW) is good for the long end crops that many people need for their use. If your use is towards cropped images at the long end and prefer oss, The 70-350 lens may be a good choice. I haven’t used one but I’ve seen sample images and read comparisons. For me the Tamron 70-300 is still the best choice since it’s light, sharp, and inexpensive. I gave my copy to my dad and I’m seriously considering buying another to complement the 70-200 GM when I need to travel lighter.

As a final factor, the Tamron is offered new with a six year warranty. For this reason I suggest buying new.

I forgot to mention that the 24-105 is my main zoom. It pairs very well with the Tamron.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback.

Comforting you seem to like the image quality from the 70-300. The aperture itself is not a problem for me, as for the occasional separation it is enough and for landscape I would ideally use even smaller apertures.

Only concern would be I’m not using tripods (at least not in the mountains) and not sure what shutter speeds I would need without OIS (but still having IBIS). Have you used it handheld?

Yes. I can’t find any at under 1/500 at 300mm right now. My minimum shutter speed was set pretty high when I used it most recently. Since the lens is at my 80+ year old dad’s house hundreds of miles away I can’t just shoot a quick snap for a test. I do have a shirt at 1/80 handheld at 70mm but that’s not particularly impressive lol. My recollection is that I have shots at 1/125th but I’m not sure.

limbo8 said:
Relating to your 24-105, would you say it’s comparable in image quality?

Yes. The two lenses are quite complentary. Some people feel the 24-105 is flat - I honestly haven’t noticed that but I also haven’t pushed it very hard.

limbo8 · Oct 24, 2022

A bit surprised about the lack of compact telefoons for the e-mount system. The 70-300 for Sony and Tamron being the only options.

Looking at sample pictures the Tamron seems a bit sharper than the Fuji equivalent lens, despite having less impressive reviews. Is this just FF vs APSC?

limbo8 · Oct 24, 2022

Skip py said:
limbo8 said:

Skip py said:

Hi

You didn't say if you use a tripod in your hikes for landscapes and occasional wildlife? That could lower your expectations for the zoom regarding aperture and OSS...

From your OP, I would probably select the Tamron 50-400 for usability if you don't mind the additional weight (1155g), with the brand new features of last Tamron lenses (here a link to Dustin Abbott's review explaining most of the improvements), or the older Tamron 70-300 RXD which only weights 545g :

- If you have enough light up there, having just one zoom from 50 to 400 could be the most important, depending on your need, especially if you also like close focus shots. At least I would try / rent one for a few days on a short hike to see if it fits your priorities. Add a wide angle lens (like the Sony 20mm) or a wider zoom (like the Tamron 17-28) if you need one, and you'd be covered for most of your trips.

- On the other hand if weight is your first priority the Tamron 70-300 RXD is a no brainer for me ; already great and you probably can't beat it's small weight for such range and IQ.

Just to add more confusion (only if price is not a problem), why not a TC with the brand new Sony 70-200 II ? Lighter (1045g) than the Tamron 50-400, but with better IQ and OSS, especially in low light, more customizations, well balanced: you can reach 280 or even 400 depending on your TC (167g for the x1.4 and 207g for the x2) if the IQ is good enough for you. That is, if you can easily change lenses on your hikes... Having a TC (or a small second lens) in a pocket could also help to better balance your bag?

Anyway, if your 24-105 is wide enough, just adding the Sigma 100-400mm, despite its weight and IQ, could be at least the cheapest option? Only you can try and see how these options work for you in the field, with your bag and pockets, depending on the weather you face and other things we don't even think about.

Regards, Fred

PS:

Just in case, if you haven't already seen these pages, you may have a closer look at these lenses strong and weak points (to check the ones that are a NO GO for you), or the comparisons with other lenses (that could open your eyes on other options depending on your own priorities) ?

https://sonyalpha.blog/2022/09/01/tamron-50-400-f4-5-6-3-di-iii-vc-vxd-a067/

https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/10/24/tamron-70-300mm-f4-5-6-3-di-iii-rxd/

https://sonyalpha.blog/2021/12/08/sony-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-ii-oss/

Click to expand...

I’m not using a tripod and that’s what’s letting me doubt about the 70-300, although I still would have IBIS.

50-400 would be an option, and that was the lens that I was initially thinking of buying. However, now when I tried it in store I only realized that it’s quite a bit larger than the 70-300. Also when fitting in daypacks and backpacks. So it’s either getting over that resistance or going with a smaller 70-300.

Click to expand...

Hillary Grigonis from the Phoglographer doesn't seems to be afraid to hike with this lens, though it may be different in mountains like you do. If optical stabilisation is your main concern, I would give it a try despite the weight and dimensions, maybe with a monopod to further improve IQ: impressive results at least for photography (even if it's not as good for video in the long range, if you're interested, but that may be corrected enough in post with Davinci Resolve or equivalent ... with crop).

Anyway, with the most compact and lightweight Tamron 70-300 you should already have great results in most cases thanks to A7RIII's IBIS.

Before making the jump, I'm still waiting for more detailed reviews and user experiences, especially regarding IQ between 200 and 400, to see if crop mode on my A7RIII could be enough on vacations to (sort of) replace my 200-600 and a few lenses. I know I will miss at least the IF and IQ but that's probably the best compromise yet for a lens with such a range and IQ.

Tough choice indeed!

This website now has a full review out with the option to compare against the Tamron 70-300. Seems quite a bit better in the outer edges to me. Although similar in the center.

Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD Lens Review

Is the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

Another review on: https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/tamron_50_400mm_f4_5_6_3_di_iii_vc_vxd_review

georgehakim · Oct 24, 2022

UncleVanya said:
Either the Tamron, or the APSC Sony 70-350 which is full frame capable over a large part of the range. The 18mp crop on the a7RIII (that’s the body I shoot with BTW) is good for the long end crops that many people need for their use. If your use is towards cropped images at the long end and prefer oss, The 70-350 lens may be a good choice. I haven’t used one but I’ve seen sample images and read comparisons.

I agree with you. I did use the APSC Sony 70-350 on the A7Rii for BIF and wildlife while travelling and hiking. It worked very well and the focussing and quality of the results are excellent, even though the resulting images are 19 MP. It is really a great lightweight option that will give equivalent 525mm focal length on FF.

dkeller · Oct 24, 2022

I'm very happy with the Tamron 70-300. Size and weight were the major attraction although price didn't hurt any either.

Telezoom for Sony

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts