Tamron 50-400 mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC vs Sony FE 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G OSS

I have done a bunch of reading here but have not found much comparing these two lenses. I have also considered the Sigma 100-400 F5-6.3 DG DN but from what I gathered it is inferior to the others and heavier. They will be used on a A7IV and and A6500 for travel, architectural, street and landscape but really all types of photography. We currently have a Sony FE 24-105 f/4, Son FE 30 F 2.8 G OSS Macro, and a Sigma 16-28mm f 2.8 DG DN.

The sites we will be shooting in are Vegas, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Valley of Fire and the surrounding areas. My wife is a photography teacher but she is more versed at inspiring kids images than actually being knowledgeable about the gear, which is why I always shop for her. IQ (Sharpness, Pop, Contrast and Bokeh) is the most important factor but not to the point of splitting hairs. Other important factors are portability, stabilization, focus speed, minimum focus distance, and maximum magnification. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Well, a 70-300 will always be more portable and significantly lighter than an xx-400, OTOH I've always found 300mm (compared to 200 or 400) to be kind of no man's land... I tend to want at least 400mm for really compressed landscapes and wildlife, and for general landscape purposes and such I don't tend to need >200mm. In any case, I'm talking about FF equivalent FLs here, for the a6500 it may be worth considering the 70-350 G.

I use the 50-400 with my A7R IV, so I use it in crop mode plenty as well which would be more analogous to your a6500... I'd never owned a zoom this large before, most of my primes and UWA zooms are 150-550g, and I'm an average 42 year old geek that's never done upper body exercise beyond bowling in college. All that being said I find the 50-400 pretty easy to manage, I can shoot for a few hours at a time with it and even use it on a wrist strap rather than a sling if needed.

I'm very happy with the range, the handling, the AF, and the performance in general; I think the degree of customization via USB-C is underated. My only real complaint is that it doesn't come with a collar and the one Tamron offers is an older design, but I remedied that with a very nice and cheaper 3rd party option by iShoot, readily available on Amazon. The max magnification at 50-100 and at 400mm are both very useful, I think it's 1:2 thru 70mm and not far off at 100mm, very useful indeed.

Here's some samples I've shot, mostly SOOC JPEGs:

esumsea said:

I have done a bunch of reading here but have not found much comparing these two lenses. I have also considered the Sigma 100-400 F5-6.3 DG DN but from what I gathered it is inferior to the others and heavier. They will be used on a A7IV and and A6500 for travel, architectural, street and landscape but really all types of photography. We currently have a Sony FE 24-105 f/4, Son FE 30 F 2.8 G OSS Macro, and a Sigma 16-28mm f 2.8 DG DN.

The sites we will be shooting in are Vegas, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Valley of Fire and the surrounding areas. My wife is a photography teacher but she is more versed at inspiring kids images than actually being knowledgeable about the gear, which is why I always shop for her. IQ (Sharpness, Pop, Contrast and Bokeh) is the most important factor but not to the point of splitting hairs. Other important factors are portability, stabilization, focus speed, minimum focus distance, and maximum magnification. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Click to expand...

Starting point.

Big diff in size and weight because of the extra focal range of the Tamron.

I acquired the Sony 70-300mm some years ago when it was first introduced (not a lot of choices back then). Sharpness was ‘meh’ and contrast was not anything to write home about. It’s not a bad lens…. Just a bit ‘long in the tooth’, IMHO. If I absolutely had to buy a lens in this range, it would be the Tamron 70-300mm.

On the other hand, I find my Tamron 50-400mm to be really outstanding in almost every way.

esumsea said:

I have done a bunch of reading here but have not found much comparing these two lenses. I have also considered the Sigma 100-400 F5-6.3 DG DN but from what I gathered it is inferior to the others and heavier. They will be used on a A7IV and and A6500 for travel, architectural, street and landscape but really all types of photography. We currently have a Sony FE 24-105 f/4, Son FE 30 F 2.8 G OSS Macro, and a Sigma 16-28mm f 2.8 DG DN.

Click to expand...

What seems missing in this kit isn’t a slow telephoto, but a 70-200.

esumsea said:

The sites we will be shooting in are Vegas, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Valley of Fire and the surrounding areas. My wife is a photography teacher but she is more versed at inspiring kids images than actually being knowledgeable about the gear, which is why I always shop for her. IQ (Sharpness, Pop, Contrast and Bokeh) is the most important factor but not to the point of splitting hairs.

Click to expand...

That’s kind of you to support her hobby this way.

esumsea said:

Other important factors are portability, stabilization, focus speed, minimum focus distance, and maximum magnification. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Click to expand...

Portability: The 70-300 is more portable than the 50-400. The Tamron 70-300 rxd is even more portable. The Sony FE 70-200 g II macro is around the same portability as the FE 70-300. You can add the 1.4x converter to the 70-200/4 and get a 280mm f5.6 also. This is the route I have taken - I do still own the Tamron 70-300 however as it’s just so light.

Stabilization: given the two bodies she has; in body stabilization isn’t bad so an unstablized lens like the Tamron 70-300 is rational.

Focus speed: the FE 70-200/4 g II will blow away most of the choices you’re looking at. The Tamron 70-300 is possibly faster than the Sigma 100-400 but not as fast as some.

Minimum focus distance / magnification: the FE 70-200/4 g II macro blows away the competition in this are. It’s 1/2 life size out of the box. Ads the 1.4x or 2x and bump up farther.

At higher prices the 70-200/2.8 g ii offers more bokeh options and faster optics - but less magnification at close distances, less compact travel size (the f4 retracts) and much more cost.

Jeff2013 said:

I acquired the Sony 70-300mm some years ago when it was first introduced (not a lot of choices back then). Sharpness was ‘meh’ and contrast was not anything to write home about. It’s not a bad lens…. Just a bit ‘long in the tooth’, IMHO. If I absolutely had to buy a lens in this range, it would be the Tamron 70-300mm.

On the other hand, I find my Tamron 50-400mm to be really outstanding in almost every way.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Not long ago I went through this consideration. I ended up getting the Tamron 70-300mm, which performs well, is light, and is IMO a bargain. Compared with it, I'm not convinced that the Sony 70-300mm has any advantage except for situations where you want to use the long end with fairly slow shutter speeds, where the Sony's OSS might perform substantially better than relying solely on IBIS.

If you really need or want longer than 300mm, then there's the impressive but heavy and expensive Sony 100-400mm, the Sigma 100-400mm and its apparent substantial step-down in both optical quality and focus speed, and the intriguing Tamron 50-400mm. It gets you both longer and wider. Opinions of its optical quality vary somewhat, but the range seems to start at 'good' and go up from there. It's heavier and more expensive, but not outrageously so.

So IMO in this range the choice is Tamron or Tamron--unless you can accept the much heavier lens and lighter wallet of the Sony 100-400.