Weekend with Tamron 50-400

[some-alpha-user-99]

I've rented Tamron 50-400 F4.5-6.3 for weekend to check if is better suited to me than 50-300. Here is my experience. I hope it'll help somebody make decision.

My gear:

• Sony A7 III
• Tamron 28-200 for reference
• Manfrotto Befree Advanced tripod

My plans for testing:

• City photo walk
• Reservoirs for wildlife
• Plane spotting
• Some long-distance observations
• Semi-macro

I couldn't archieve everything what was planned. Not enough time or hard conditions.

My impressions about lens:

• It's heavy (there was no option to rent it with collar and I haven't got experience yet with anything heavier than my 28-200). I was afraid of holding only body, so carried all time by holding lens. I haven't bothered if I have IBIS turned on or off with shorter lenses on my tripod. This time it was weird. It was so hard to avoid shakes. Lightest gust of wind made blurry photos (I think that collar is absolutely must-have to balance gear). I was experimenting with IS but some best photos are not so sharp.
• It's big - my biggest bag couldn't be zipped with lens attached. Luckly almost all trips were with car.
• Shooting at 400mm is much harder than at 200mm. Finding small birds, following them in motion is so hard. Now, I understand why bigger sensor is better - zoom out slightly, then crop in post.
• AF is fast. I was content with performance during the day. I would like to test it with body having bird eye AF.
• But poor AF in low light. I don't remember when last time AF hunted so much and was force to use MF.
• But MF ring is placed so that I constantly touched it by accident and have to re-adjust.
• Some weird colour shifting at 400mm. One photo against the sun has greenish CA, while another is more magentish. And generally something weird happened to colours at 400mm Maybe it was this item. I don't know but was annoying.
• It's dark for dynamic scenes. F6.3 is from about 200mm. ISO was bumping max limit set to 6400 so fast.
• Starting at 50mm this lens is so photo saving. Maybe it's not 35mm, but 50mm allows to take whole range of photos. Weekend with this lens showed me that much cheaper Sigma 100-400 is so limited in use and definitely for not my way of photographing - one body, not willing to change lens to often. This lens is truly versatile.
• Macro capabilities - I couldn't test this area precisely as I wanted but few photos taken without tripod were impressive.
• I cannot tell about long-distance observations as weather conditions limited visible hills and mountains to only 25km. Heat haze made building located 5km away blurry.
• Tell me if I'm wrong but seems that 400mm for wildlife is not enough (or have more megapixels on sensor to crop). This topic with question will be extended in next posts.
• On the other hand there is relatively so "little" difference between 300mm and 400mm that I could live with 300mm only if birding is not required.

To sum up it:

• having Tamron 28-200 more sense has 50-400, for all other combinations 50-300 seems sufficient.
• Price and weight argue for 50-300
• Both options are quite dark. Copilot answered that changing diameter of front filter to 72mm could give even F4.5 at long end for 50-300. Of cource there are limitations is lens design plus acceptable weight.

Tomorrow, I'll add some photos.

 

[suzuka94]

Really interesting. I’m in a similar-ish position that I own a7iii and 28-200, and recently got the Tamron 70-300.



But I’m considering selling the 70-300 as the jump from 200 to 300 is minor (much like you say the jump from 300 to 400 is minor).



Makes me think solution is to stick with 28-200 (or, even better, the new 25-200 if it’s truly sharper as proposed) and instead focus on getting a higher mega pixel body for more telephoto reach.

 

[Impulses]

FWIW I let my 50-400 hang from the body when I mount the latter to a PD Capture on the strap of my backpack... It's super comfortable to carry that way and I've seen no ill effects, knock on wood. When I'm not carrying a backpack but I am shooting the 50-400 it's probably because I'm not carrying a bag at all (left it in car, etc.); in those instances I do find the collar useful cause I turn it towards the top and I clip one side of my strap there, the other side to one of the body lugs.

Wearing the strap that way allows the lens to ride semi horizontal at my back or side. In fact my collar spends the vast majority of the time in that position either clipped to a strap, being used as a handle, or just out of the way. Wish I could find a foot-less collar with strap lugs on it rather than on the foot, cause if it were detachable I'd leave the foot behind most of the time.

 

[santoshvk]

I acquired the 50-400mm a couple of months ago, and I mainly use it for Landscapes.

I also owned the Tamron 28-200mm previously - my plan was to exchange it for the 50-300 and pair it with 16-35 GMII, though, I got a good deal on a used 50-400 and ended up purchasing it over 50-300mm. I do miss the 28-200mm as an All in one zoom, and may add the newer 25-200mm lens from Tammy.

That being said I feel having a body with good Image Stabilization(IS) is essential for this lens - I am using it with A7RV and am able to lower by Shutter speed to keep ISO low for static subjects, I don't shoot wildlife as such, though, sometime do enjoy shooting BIF esp during sunset. AF can be a hit or miss esp for wildlife.

 

[Planterz]

• Tell me if I'm wrong but seems that 400mm for wildlife is not enough (or have more megapixels on sensor to crop). This topic with question will be extended in next posts.

You're not wrong. It's a bit short for birds and small critters like lizards, rodents, and other things that are skittish and will run away before you can get closer. For not-so-skittish small creatures, or bugs, the short minimum focus distance is a definite boon - plenty of telephoto lenses have MFDs that are rather long and don't allow great closeups.

For birding, it can almost be argued that the minimum focal length and megapixels is always "more". Although at some point heat haze/atmospheric distortion will make it irrelevant how much reach you have.

 

[Drmarcus]

I have the Tamron 50-400mm lens for both my Sony A6700 and Sony A7RV. I use it as a part of my kit for landscape, bird, insect, wildlife and macro photography.
I have extensively researched, read, and watched everything that I could find concerning this lens before making my decision.

• The A7RV camera together with the Tamron 50-400 presents two different range configurations (total length weight- 1878gm):
• • 50-400mm f4.5-f6.3 (not crop mode) DoF - f4.6-f6.3
  • 75-600mm f4.5-f6.3 (crop mode) DoF f6.8-f9.5
• The A6700 camera together with the Tamron 50-400mm present one total range range configuration:
• • 75-600mm f4.5-f6.3 ( cropped mode) DoF f6.75-f9.0 (total weight- 1648gm)
• The lens is water resistant with internal seals and a rubber gasket at the end.

I also purchased the Haoge LMR-TL540 collar for Tamron 50-400mm A06, it fits very nicely as if was made for it, it turns around the lens with no problems and the felt inner lining protects the lens from being damaged.

I have attached a Peak Design Standard Plate for Capture Camera Clip V3 on the bottom of the lens collar plate in order to easily attach it to my Peak Design Capture Camera Clip V3 or if want to attach it to any of my Peak Design camera straps a use a ULANZI FALCAM F38 Camera Shoulder Strap Mount Quick Release Kit V2, Capture Camera Clip for Camera to Shoulder Strap Quick Mount/Release (Quick Release Kit).

Here are two YouTube videos explaining the use of this Falcam device:

I strongly recommend this method for carrying the A7RV and Tamron 50-400mm together over your shoulder with or without the lens collar attached.

 

[some-alpha-user-99]

Really interesting. I’m in a similar-ish position that I own a7iii and 28-200, and recently got the Tamron 70-300.

But I’m considering selling the 70-300 as the jump from 200 to 300 is minor (much like you say the jump from 300 to 400 is minor).

Makes me think solution is to stick with 28-200 (or, even better, the new 25-200 if it’s truly sharper as proposed) and instead focus on getting a higher mega pixel body for more telephoto reach.

Jump from 200mm to 300mm is bigger (50%) than from 300mm to 400mm (33%). It's visible on photos.

I'm also curious how good or bad new Tamron 25-200 will be.

 

[some-alpha-user-99]

I acquired the 50-400mm a couple of months ago, and I mainly use it for Landscapes.

I also owned the Tamron 28-200mm previously - my plan was to exchange it for the 50-300 and pair it with 16-35 GMII, though, I got a good deal on a used 50-400 and ended up purchasing it over 50-300mm. I do miss the 28-200mm as an All in one zoom, and may add the newer 25-200mm lens from Tammy.

That being said I feel having a body with good Image Stabilization(IS) is essential for this lens - I am using it with A7RV and am able to lower by Shutter speed to keep ISO low for static subjects, I don't shoot wildlife as such, though, sometime do enjoy shooting BIF esp during sunset. AF can be a hit or miss esp for wildlife.

Dynamic photography with moving object is definitely something that I need to improve. People took stunning photos with DSLRs with much worse AF, so I think it's technique.

While I don't miss IS in 28-200, 50-400 requires it without any doubt. However, I haven't got enough time to test a lot how slow shutter speed could I get with this lens.

 

[some-alpha-user-99]

Tomorrow, I'll add some photos.

So, first part of photos. Some basic exposure/shadows adjusting + default sharpening. It's not best editing, just for preview.

Comparing focal lengths:


50mm


200mm


300mm


400mm


400mm


300mm


200mm


50mm

Some semi-macro:


Handheld semi-macro at 50mm


The same but at 100mm

Weird colour shifting at 400mm - occured few time:


Weird colour shifting at 400mm - occured few times


While in range 50-300mm colours are much natural and warmer

 

[RaysJ]

I bought the Tamron 50-300, l did consider the 50-400 due to some rave feedback from users, but the 50-300 seemed just as good, apart from the missing 300-400 part. The 50-400 is too heavy and l would rarely use over 300mm.

28-200 v 50-300, depends what other lenses you have. If l had a 16-35 l would probably buy the 28-200.



But l have a 20-70, so it was between the 50-300 v Sony 70-200/4. The Tamron won out on cost and weight.

I have not used the 50-300 that much yet, results have been rather mixed.

 

[Martin_99]

I've rented Tamron 50-400 F4.5-6.3 for weekend to check if is better suited to me than 50-300. Here is my experience. I hope it'll help

Thanks!

somebody make decision.

My gear:

• Sony A7 III
• Tamron 28-200 for reference
• Manfrotto Befree Advanced tripod

My plans for testing:

• City photo walk
• Reservoirs for wildlife
• Plane spotting
• Some long-distance observations
• Semi-macro

I couldn't archieve everything what was planned. Not enough time or hard conditions.

My impressions about lens:

• It's heavy (there was no option to rent it with collar and I haven't got experience yet with anything heavier than my 28-200). I was afraid of holding only body, so carried all time by holding lens. I haven't bothered if I have IBIS turned on or off with shorter lenses on my tripod. This time it was weird. It was so hard to avoid shakes. Lightest gust of wind made blurry photos (I think that collar is absolutely must-have to balance gear). I was experimenting with IS but some best photos are not so sharp.
• It's big - my biggest bag couldn't be zipped with lens attached. Luckly almost all trips were with car.
• Shooting at 400mm is much harder than at 200mm. Finding small birds, following them in motion is so hard. Now, I understand why bigger sensor is better - zoom out slightly, then crop in post.

All of that is only about experience and get use to it - size/weight, long focal lengths. I shot wildlife also with 800mm lens, so 400mm is nothing special in general.

• AF is fast. I was content with performance during the day. I would like to test it with body having bird eye AF.
• But poor AF in low light. I don't remember when last time AF hunted so much and was force to use MF.

Curious how would be with modern bodies A7IV/A7RV.

• But MF ring is placed so that I constantly touched it by accident and have to re-adjust.
• Some weird colour shifting at 400mm. One photo against the sun has greenish CA, while another is more magentish. And generally something weird happened to colours at 400mm Maybe it was this item. I don't know but was annoying.
• It's dark for dynamic scenes. F6.3 is from about 200mm. ISO was bumping max limit set to 6400 so fast.

Yeah, it's reality of wildlife shooting, you willl often not get enough light. You just need to learn how to get maximum in the situation. Shooting RAW, carefull postprocess, including new AI tools for denoise., etc.

• Starting at 50mm this lens is so photo saving. Maybe it's not 35mm, but 50mm allows to take whole range of photos. Weekend with this lens showed me that much cheaper Sigma 100-400 is so limited in use and definitely for not my way of photographing - one body, not willing to change lens to often. This lens is truly versatile.

Yes!

• Macro capabilities - I couldn't test this area precisely as I wanted but few photos taken without tripod were impressive.
• I cannot tell about long-distance observations as weather conditions limited visible hills and mountains to only 25km. Heat haze made building located 5km away blurry.

I learned, that in most weather conditions make no sense to shoot far away object in 1km and more.

• Tell me if I'm wrong but seems that 400mm for wildlife is not enough (or have more megapixels on sensor to crop). This topic with question will be extended in next posts.

Yes, I shot mainly small birds, where even 800mm was often short and need to crop a lot. But in general, 600mm with high MPx body is good start.

• On the other hand there is relatively so "little" difference between 300mm and 400mm that I could live with 300mm only if birding is not required.

Yes, personally I'm OK with 200mm if wildlife is not included.

To sum up it:

• having Tamron 28-200 more sense has 50-400, for all other combinations 50-300 seems sufficient.
• Price and weight argue for 50-300
• Both options are quite dark. Copilot answered that changing diameter of front filter to 72mm could give even F4.5 at long end for 50-300. Of cource there are limitations is lens design plus acceptable weight.

Tomorrow, I'll add some photos.

 

[BrentSchumer]

Wild!I just rented this lens a week ago for a long weekend, on the a7RIV body.

Quick thoughts:

1. Weight was not an issue like what I've felt with 600mm glass; I could walk around all day with this lens.
2. IQ when the light was there is quite excellent, especially if you're shooting with the sun at your back. Shooting into bright backgrounds seemed to really reduce contrast.
3. Stabilization was surprisingly touchy. Shooting planes and helicopters above at 400mm (admittedly small in the frame) was unreliable at 1/250s. I took a tourist bus ride, and the poor shocks absolutely murdered my hit rate, even on static subjects.
4. On my A7RIV, I was surprised at some of the AF failures for birds in trees. I would put a single AF-C point over an unobstructed bird on a branch, and the lens would sometimes just refuse to focus. I would need to switch to MF and get close to the bird and then hope that AF recognized it instead of massively back focusing again. This could be the low light AF issue you cite.
5. Cropping in on 400mm vs 600mm really makes this lens light starved for low ISO. I found myself trying to find birds on the lit areas of trees to maximize quality, and even ISO 4000 felt limiting.
6. Normal AF-C seemed much more reliable than tracking or subject detection.

Overall I could see this as a great compromise lens for travel or hikes where you want some wildlife ability without carrying a cannon or giving up normal framing. But I would likely choose my 28-200mm (or the upcoming 25-200mm) for more light and easier carry in 9 out of 10 non-wildlife hiking outings. And probably a 600mm zoom for dedicated wildlife days.

Plan is to rent this beast again in the winter or spring when I can shoot birds on brighter empty branches and play around with AF settings a bit. And then rent the 200-600mm to see how much better first-party focus is. Ultimately driving towards the 50-400mm, Sigma's 150-600mm, or the Sony 200-600mm.

It's a shame that Sony doesn't offer an affordable first party option at 400+mm like the RF 100-400mm. That 100-400mm GM is just too expensive.

 

[Drmarcus]

I highly recommend reading the e-book by Stephen Ingraham and his accompanying YouTube video on how to setup the A6700 camera for shooting birds, wildlife, and insects:

https://psnp.info/psnp_/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sony-a6700-for-ebwn-3-1.pdf

Even though his settings are for the A6700 with the Tamron 50-400mm, these settings apply to most Sony cameras with any lens you choose. I use this lens almost exclusively today on my A7RV.

If you will take the time to read the e-book and watch the video you will understand that the camera has a huge amount of variables to set up and each has it’s own effect on using this lens to derive the maximum effectiveness to get the proper results.
I use to have the A7RIV so I don’t remember but I think it’s lacking the AI chip which makes a world of a difference when making subtle variable changes for subject recognition.

Even if you have the best, most “professional” kit you still need a lot of skill and luck to get beautiful results. Just don’t blame the equipment.

 

[BrentSchumer]

I highly recommend reading the e-book by Stephen Ingraham and his accompanying YouTube video on how to setup the A6700 camera for shooting birds, wildlife, and insects:

https://psnp.info/psnp_/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sony-a6700-for-ebwn-3-1.pdf

Even though his settings are for the A6700 with the Tamron 50-400mm, these settings apply to most Sony cameras with any lens you choose. I use this lens almost exclusively today on my A7RV.

If you will take the time to read the e-book and watch the video you will understand that the camera has a huge amount of variables to set up and each has it’s own effect on using this lens to derive the maximum effectiveness to get the proper results.
I use to have the A7RIV so I don’t remember but I think it’s lacking the AI chip which makes a world of a difference when making subtle variable changes for subject recognition.

Even if you have the best, most “professional” kit you still need a lot of skill and luck to get beautiful results. Just don’t blame the equipment.

I certainly noticed less confident AF than other setups that I've used. This isn't "blaming the equipment" for user error, but I am open to trying other AF settings and indeed indicated that I was planning to try again with the 50-400mm while experimenting with the AF options.

Some lenses just exhibit weaker AF than others, especially on older bodies. There are also design choices around AF accuracy, like including a focus limiter switch or not.

 

[Drmarcus]

I am not sure but I think you can program the button and switches of the Tamron to enable focus limiter capabilities if that will help you.

 

[Impulses]

I highly recommend reading the e-book by Stephen Ingraham and his accompanying YouTube video on how to setup the A6700 camera for shooting birds, wildlife, and insects:

https://psnp.info/psnp_/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sony-a6700-for-ebwn-3-1.pdf

Even though his settings are for the A6700 with the Tamron 50-400mm, these settings apply to most Sony cameras with any lens you choose. I use this lens almost exclusively today on my A7RV.

There's a big difference between those bodies and the A7R IV the previous commenter is using, it has animal subject detection but the A7R IV won't even track animals when using that (just humans/eyes)... I mostly use a normal small or medium tracking FlexPoint with mine when shooting (larger animals) at the zoo or on safari, since I've found the subject detection on animals kinda pointless without tracking. It works surprisingly well though...

If you will take the time to read the e-book and watch the video you will understand that the camera has a huge amount of variables to set up and each has it’s own effect on using this lens to derive the maximum effectiveness to get the proper results.
I use to have the A7RIV so I don’t remember but I think it’s lacking the AI chip which makes a world of a difference when making subtle variable changes for subject recognition.

It doesn't, but it's also lacking a few other things beyond that, the way the AF is set up is vastly different so he'd need guides specific to that body or generation of models. All that being said, I've still had great success with mine without really needing to mess around with the settings much, but I'm also mostly shooting larger animals and I know birds are a whole other challenge.

Even if you have the best, most “professional” kit you still need a lot of skill and luck to get beautiful results. Just don’t blame the equipment.

 

[Impulses]

I highly recommend reading the e-book by Stephen Ingraham and his accompanying YouTube video on how to setup the A6700 camera for shooting birds, wildlife, and insects:

https://psnp.info/psnp_/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sony-a6700-for-ebwn-3-1.pdf

Even though his settings are for the A6700 with the Tamron 50-400mm, these settings apply to most Sony cameras with any lens you choose. I use this lens almost exclusively today on my A7RV.

If you will take the time to read the e-book and watch the video you will understand that the camera has a huge amount of variables to set up and each has it’s own effect on using this lens to derive the maximum effectiveness to get the proper results.
I use to have the A7RIV so I don’t remember but I think it’s lacking the AI chip which makes a world of a difference when making subtle variable changes for subject recognition.

Even if you have the best, most “professional” kit you still need a lot of skill and luck to get beautiful results. Just don’t blame the equipment.

I certainly noticed less confident AF than other setups that I've used. This isn't "blaming the equipment" for user error, but I am open to trying other AF settings and indeed indicated that I was planning to try again with the 50-400mm while experimenting with the AF options.

Some lenses just exhibit weaker AF than others, especially on older bodies. There are also design choices around AF accuracy, like including a focus limiter switch or not.

You can configure a focus limiter function on the Tamron 50-400 via USB-C and you can assign it (amongst several other functions) to one of the 3 positions on the Custom switch, you can even tweak how they're engaged by changing the behavior of the Fn button (single press vs hold vs press/hold then release, etc.). It's an underrated aspect of the lens IMO.

I've not noticed the AF on my 50-400 to be that much worse than my Sony lenses, but that's an apples to oranges comparison since the latter are all wides and I don't have another FF tele zoom as a frame of reference TBH. I'm curious what AF mode you were using though... When shooting larger animals on my A7R IV I've mostly ignored the animal subject recognition since it won't track in that mode, and I just use a small or medium flex point with tracking instead.

 

[Planterz]

The 50-400mm had a firmware update that greatly improved the autofocus. If you rent it again, make sure the firmware is up to date.

 

[RaysJ]

The 50-400mm had a firmware update that greatly improved the autofocus. If you rent it again, make sure the firmware is up to date.

I have the Tamron 50-300, l don't find the AF that good but it is slow lens, which will affect it.

l will see if there a firmware update, thanks.

Can't see anything, The 50-400 was January 21, 2025.

 

[BrentSchumer]

I highly recommend reading the e-book by Stephen Ingraham and his accompanying YouTube video on how to setup the A6700 camera for shooting birds, wildlife, and insects:

https://psnp.info/psnp_/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sony-a6700-for-ebwn-3-1.pdf

Even though his settings are for the A6700 with the Tamron 50-400mm, these settings apply to most Sony cameras with any lens you choose. I use this lens almost exclusively today on my A7RV.

If you will take the time to read the e-book and watch the video you will understand that the camera has a huge amount of variables to set up and each has it’s own effect on using this lens to derive the maximum effectiveness to get the proper results.
I use to have the A7RIV so I don’t remember but I think it’s lacking the AI chip which makes a world of a difference when making subtle variable changes for subject recognition.

Even if you have the best, most “professional” kit you still need a lot of skill and luck to get beautiful results. Just don’t blame the equipment.

I certainly noticed less confident AF than other setups that I've used. This isn't "blaming the equipment" for user error, but I am open to trying other AF settings and indeed indicated that I was planning to try again with the 50-400mm while experimenting with the AF options.

Some lenses just exhibit weaker AF than others, especially on older bodies. There are also design choices around AF accuracy, like including a focus limiter switch or not.

You can configure a focus limiter function on the Tamron 50-400 via USB-C and you can assign it (amongst several other functions) to one of the 3 positions on the Custom switch, you can even tweak how they're engaged by changing the behavior of the Fn button (single press vs hold vs press/hold then release, etc.). It's an underrated aspect of the lens IMO.

I've not noticed the AF on my 50-400 to be that much worse than my Sony lenses, but that's an apples to oranges comparison since the latter are all wides and I don't have another FF tele zoom as a frame of reference TBH. I'm curious what AF mode you were using though... When shooting larger animals on my A7R IV I've mostly ignored the animal subject recognition since it won't track in that mode, and I just use a small or medium flex point with tracking instead.

The issues I saw were with small spot focus, AF-C, animal detect on. I don't remember the advanced focus settings, which would be whatever I generally use. In retrospect I probably should have turned animal detect off given it's limited utility and processing overhead.

This was for birds in trees with branches behind them. The lens/camera sometimes would focus on what was behind the bird, even when the small focus point was on the body with no obstruction. I could "reset" focus by manually focusing on the bird and then switching back to AF for fine focus, so it felt almost like a focus limiting issue where the body say expected a subject at 20 feet and was confused by one 10 feet away.

Admittedly this is my first long lens rental on the A7RIVA, so I don't have much of a comparison point. Hoping to try out the Sony 600mm and Sigma 600mm over the winter/spring, and then another stab at the 50-400mm. I've seen great shots from the Tamron lens, so it's quite possible that some menu setting or environmental factor was working against me. I spend a lot more time at double macro magnification than 400mm!