a6700 + Sigma 18-50 +Tamron 50-400?

[johnnybeans81]

Hello all,

I'm an amateur photographer looking for advice on a potential upgrade.

My current setup is: Nikon D3300 (DSLR) + Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3 (1,135g total). I'm considering upgrading to the a6700 + Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 + Tamron 50-400 f/4.5-6.3 (1,938g total). I would also consider the Sigma 100-400mm in place of the 50-400, but reviews seem to favor the 50-400 for AF speed.

I enjoy wildlife (birds, BIF, small-medium sized animals) and landscape photography.

All in, the new setup would cost ~$2,900 USD, my max budget is $3,000. Because I do most of my photography while hiking, weight is super important. A few lenses I've considered, but ruled out due to weight: Tamron 150-500, Sony 200-600, Tamron 60-600. I've honed in on the a6700 because of the new subject detection chip combined with the APS-C crop because I already live at the 400mm (600 FFE) of my current setup when shooting wildlife.

All advice and input is appreciated!

 

[wpstl]

Hello all,

I'm an amateur photographer looking for advice on a potential upgrade.

My current setup is: Nikon D3300 (DSLR) + Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3 (1,135g total). I'm considering upgrading to the a6700 + Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 + Tamron 50-400 f/4.5-6.3 (1,938g total). I would also consider the Sigma 100-400mm in place of the 50-400, but reviews seem to favor the 50-400 for AF speed.

I enjoy wildlife (birds, BIF, small-medium sized animals) and landscape photography.

All in, the new setup would cost ~$2,900 USD, my max budget is $3,000. Because I do most of my photography while hiking, weight is super important. A few lenses I've considered, but ruled out due to weight: Tamron 150-500, Sony 200-600, Tamron 60-600. I've honed in on the a6700 because of the new subject detection chip combined with the APS-C crop because I already live at the 400mm (600 FFE) of my current setup when shooting wildlife.

All advice and input is appreciated!

That seems like a good combo and offers the same focal range you had. The only questions I would have would be: is 18mm on APS-C wide enough for you and is 400mm long enough for your wildlife? If you've been satisfied with that range with your Nikon then go for it.

 

[Impulses]

You could sacrifice a little bit of range (525mm equivalent vs 600mm) and save a whole lot of weight and bulk with the Sony 70-350 G which is made for APS-C and AFAIK a lot of shooters are very happy with it. I shoot a high res FF body so I wanted a FF tele and immediately gravitated towards the 50-400 after it was announced, having looked at the 150-500 for a good while before that (it came out first). I'm really happy with it, super versatile range, great IQ, good degree of customization, light enough to shoot handheld for hours.

I bought it for landscape use a much as action or wildlife and the range will easily let me omit a normal zoom between it and my UWA (could probably do the same on APS-C with the 10-20/4 G or 10-18/2.8 DN, you'd just have a bit more of a gap at 30-50). My only real complaint is that the lens collar isn't included and they didn't design a new one with strap lugs built in like they did for the 150-500, just repurposed a DSLR era one... I would've paid for Tamron's collar otherwise. So I bought an iShoot collar made for it instead.

The iShoot collar rotates well without coming open, allows me to use it as a mount point for a strap (with a very tiny add on Anchor plate from PD that doesn't impede ARCA functionality), and even serves as a useful handle for the whole combo at times. I can link it if you can't find it on Amazon, they had one that fit but wouldn't lock first (was really made for the older DSLR lens) then came with a new version that locks in place easily with a half turn of the knob.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66965598

 

[Craig Gillette]

I have both an A6700 and ff A7Riv. I wanted something longer than my 18-135 or ff 28-200 but much more convenient than my 200-600. TBH, the 50-400 wasn't on my radar (more likely my fault for not looking at some of the newer offerings). I decided to go with the 70-350. I've only had it for a little while, but I like it so far. Very convenient, packs and carries easily. The 50-400 could be used uncropped on ff, if you move on or add ff. But it's twice the weight of the 70-350.

I would also be thinking about times not actually out hiking when wanting something longer than the 18-50/2.8 and the 70-350 could be an alternative perhaps compared to a 70-200 of some sort, too. Just depends on what you might be doing in various situations. I get away with the added focal length of the 18-135 and 28-200s

 

[johnnybeans81]

Thank you all for the input! I very much appreciate it.

While doing more research, I stumbled upon a deal I couldn't pass up: Canon R7 + RF 100-400 f/5.6-8.0, both refurbished (from Canon) for a combined $1,640 USD (pre-taxes). While those obviously aren't Sony, I wanted to give an update this post. I was not expecting to go with Canon, but the price and weight savings won me over.

As mentioned earlier, weight is super crucial to me. The R7 + 100-400 weigh 1,247g whereas the a6700+ tamron 50-400 weigh 1,648g. The weight savings and cost savings are worth it, despite losing 50mm at the wide end and 2/3 a stop of light on the long end.

Happy shooting all.

 

[Maxmolly7]

Thanks for coming back on this and to let us know.

 

[Canon2018]

I have both an A6700 and ff A7Riv. I wanted something longer than my 18-135 or ff 28-200 but much more convenient than my 200-600. TBH, the 50-400 wasn't on my radar (more likely my fault for not looking at some of the newer offerings). I decided to go with the 70-350. I've only had it for a little while, but I like it so far. Very convenient, packs and carries easily. The 50-400 could be used uncropped on ff, if you move on or add ff. But it's twice the weight of the 70-350.

I would also be thinking about times not actually out hiking when wanting something longer than the 18-50/2.8 and the 70-350 could be an alternative perhaps compared to a 70-200 of some sort, too. Just depends on what you might be doing in various situations. I get away with the added focal length of the 18-135 and 28-200s

Why do you have both the A6700 and the RIV, which also gives you 26MP in crop mode? Which camera do you enjoy more?

 

[jhunna]

I have both an A6700 and ff A7Riv. I wanted something longer than my 18-135 or ff 28-200 but much more convenient than my 200-600. TBH, the 50-400 wasn't on my radar (more likely my fault for not looking at some of the newer offerings). I decided to go with the 70-350. I've only had it for a little while, but I like it so far. Very convenient, packs and carries easily. The 50-400 could be used uncropped on ff, if you move on or add ff. But it's twice the weight of the 70-350.

I would also be thinking about times not actually out hiking when wanting something longer than the 18-50/2.8 and the 70-350 could be an alternative perhaps compared to a 70-200 of some sort, too. Just depends on what you might be doing in various situations. I get away with the added focal length of the 18-135 and 28-200s

Why do you have both the A6700 and the RIV, which also gives you 26MP in crop mode? Which camera do you enjoy more?

I know you are looking for an answer specific to the R4 vs the a6700, but as far as photos there is little to no difference out side of the software, and HEIF formats for photos. The bigger difference is going to be the 10bit 4k video, newer OS which comes with newer software, and better wireless connectivity.

 

[Craig Gillette]

Because I want them. Seriously? They're very different. The A6700 has the new goodies when it comes to subject identification and tracking at $1400, to use with my smaller and lighter and less expensive aps-c lenses. The A7riv and 28-200 weighs almost a pound more and is "larger." The difference is there when carrying or trying to fit smaller bags etc. The A6700 is more current when it comes to video features. Much of the time ff has limited or no apparent advantage in use. Depends on the end product. When A7Riv was or A7Rv is $2000-$2500 more expensive, flex in cropping is there, a nicer finder is there, and good to have but some folks oversell the ff advantages

 

[jhunna]

Because I want them. Seriously? They're very different. The A6700 has the new goodies when it comes to subject identification and tracking at $1400, to use with my smaller and lighter and less expensive aps-c lenses. The A7riv and 28-200 weighs almost a pound more and is "larger." The difference is there when carrying or trying to fit smaller bags etc. The A6700 is more current when it comes to video features. Much of the time ff has limited or no apparent advantage in use. Depends on the end product. When A7Riv was or A7Rv is $2000-$2500 more expensive, flex in cropping is there, a nicer finder is there, and good to have but some folks oversell the ff advantages

On a side note, I had the a7c and the a6700 and the a7cr is the perfect marriage of the two. I only want one camera, so this works for me. I know others want multiple cameras, but I love the a7cr as I shoot ff and apsc and pixel shift as needed. Its a great device, and offers the ultimate flexibility with the glass that Sony provides.

(The a6700 handles better than the other apsc/ 7Cx bodies in my hands due to the bigger/nicer grip).

 

[philblair]

I went from Nikon Z50, 16-50, 50-250, sigma 100-400 and Nikon 20-180 2.8.

went to a6700 sigma 18-50 2.8 and Sony 70-350.

Love both lenses. Occasionally mix the 50 mm on the long end but not often.

much better autofocus.

love the 18-50. Having the constant 2.8 available.

Both lenses are amazingly small for what they do.

 

[philblair]

6700 and 70-350 is 1118gr

you lose 50 on long end and gain 30 on the short end and have a 4.5-6.3 lens instead of 6-8

and can add the tiny 18-50. 2.8