I have on my desk right now. The weight difference is very significant. That can’t be understated, it’s a very noticeable difference in weight. They are both f/6.3 at 300mm. For me, the extra reach is not worth the extra weight and 50% cost increase. With a 33mp sensor I’d rather just crop more.
I choose 50-400 and usually crop to 75-600 because I need more reach between 500-600mm for my work. Its weight about 1.1Kg is OK for me to handheld shooting video than 500-600mm lens that weight more than 2Kg.
The 50-400 looks considerably better than the 50-300. But if we didn't have a point of comparison, would it really be that big of a difference? Probably not, but it's nice to know you get what you pay for I suppose.
Your side-by-side image comparisons are fantastic and very telling. It seems to me the 50-400 has better contrast and perhaps color. I don't know if this is because of color grading in post or that is a real difference. It seems to me the sharpness is a wash. Perhaps a little pixel peeping on still images might reveal the differences. I had the 70-300 and sold it in favor of the 50-400. Although it is a heavier lens, I enjoy the longer reach and the macro capability throughout the range. I really liked the lightweight 70-300. I think the 50-300 is a better lens for its additional range and all the other goodies the 70-300 did not have.
It might’ve been honestly from putting my variable ND filter at times since I also wanted photos in the moment and video so just kept it on to go back and forth! But honestly they’re both pretty sharp otherwise and consistent!
No comparison. 50-400 all the way. I use the 50-400 on my Sony A6700 so it’s a 75-600 and I’ve gotten some of the sharpest images I’ve ever taken on it. It’s also not heavy at all. I’ve carried it in my hand at the zoo several times for 7-8 hours at a time with no issues. I own a dozen lenses for my a6700 and the 50-400 is my favorite of the bunch.
@@rpizzo68 I carried it on two all day Zion National Park shoots as well. I did a lot of handheld shots including a bunch of macro shots. It is heavy but compared to the 150-500, it is light!! I have tried to carry both. The 50-400 is tolerable but you feel the weights of the 150-500 after a short while. To be fair both are relatively light compared to a 400 f2.8 or a 600 f4 lens. For those guys a monopod or a tripod it a must.
@@bizpixvegas7651 yeah. It feels light to me because I also have a sigma 150-600, which I love, but it’s just too big to lug around all day and lift up to your face and hold steady.
I own and have field tested the 50-400 for my landscape work. The lens is a keeper for its macro like capability and the amazing focal range. The only drawback is a little softness in the corners at 400mm. It gets better as you stop down but not to the level of my f2.8 lenses.
would like to see a comparison between the 50-300 and 70-300 i think tamron have gone to far with extra range and compramised the optical quality as a result. would of much prefered 50-250mm with exceptional optical quality.
If I had it I would totally do it! I think if you start pixel peeping too much, most lenses might not feel the best. Tamron is more about relatively quality for a great budget to access more options. I didn’t think any issues isn’t the 50-300 or 50-400 honestly. Results were great to me and usable for what I need that most would never even notice any quality problems if there were.
I own the 50-400 and use it for landscape photography (and some occasional wildlife). Great lens, super happy with it! When shutter speed is too long for hand-held shots I use a tripod. Something I've noticed with those shots is that I get a lot better results turning the VC on the lens off. I guess the VC's trying to work out camera shake that isn't there. That's something I've never seen using IBIS only in the same situation with my Tamron 28-200 (no built-in VC). Camera IBIS seem more "intelligent", knowing when to compensate for shakes or not. But using a tripod, VC off, the 50-400 gives me very sharp photos.
@@IrfanKhan-ze4yx Thanks man! After reading your comment I immediately checked the manual. You Sir, are 100% correct. Personal ToDo: Start reading manuals 🙄
@@snp1200 I've only made some minor tests comparing the two. If you're not in a hurry I can do another test session next weekend and get back to you with the results. Not sure I actually turned VC off (50-400) last time 🤔 I don't have the raw files right now but I think the results indicated that the 50-400 was a little sharper with better corners. It had pretty strong distortion (doesn't bother me) at some focal length and quicker AF than 28-200. It's my most used lens but if I could have only one it'd still be the 28-200. IQ was not that far behind and tbh I rarely need to shoot beyond 200mm. Starting at 50mm is nice compared to 100, but it's in the middle of the "normal zoom" range which means I often still need to bring a wider lens. The 28-200 on the other hand probably covers 95% of all shots I want to take and and is more of a one lens to rule them all, at least for me. And I find it more than sharp enough for my needs. That said the 50-400 is super nice if you need to go beyond 200mm, much more versatile than a traditional 100-400 and still impressively sharp even if stopped down to f/16. I find more joy using that lens for some reason. Oh, it's also seems to be tighter to the mount than any of my other lenses, but not to the level that I'm worried about breaking anything.
i got the 50 300mm..... its a good lens for day time.... pro: 1 weight 2 macro option 3 focul lenght 300 is more then enough ( it depent how close you want) but for me its enough. con: 1. f stop its hurting in the night. but if you have a good camera with a dual iso with is high your good to go. 2. sony manual and af suck some times you need to know when you can use af en switch to mf. but the lens is some time searching for the af or mf. its a anoying. (my opion: great lens weight macro 300 i am happy with the image what i get with it.
So let’s get serious… which would you pick? 🤔
50-300, I just picked one up. Size, weight, IQ are a major step up from Sony 70-300 G
@@chris42069 that’s awesome to hear!
50-300, light enough with great quality
@@williams20046008 very true!
I have on my desk right now. The weight difference is very significant. That can’t be understated, it’s a very noticeable difference in weight.
They are both f/6.3 at 300mm. For me, the extra reach is not worth the extra weight and 50% cost increase. With a 33mp sensor I’d rather just crop more.
Totally agree! I have enjoyed the weight of the 50-300 a lot for the focal range! Just too good of a balance of weight to focal range!
Especially at double the weight for just 100mm.
If it was 150 g more but double the weight..
I choose 50-400 and usually crop to 75-600 because I need more reach between 500-600mm for my work. Its weight about 1.1Kg is OK for me to handheld shooting video than 500-600mm lens that weight more than 2Kg.
That makes sense! If you need it then that’s all that matters!
Getting both. I have the 50-400 and the 50-300 is on my list.
That’s awesome!
I am getting 50-300 as my first telephoto lens, mainly because its light weight and cheaper price
Solid choice! It’s great for all those reasons honestly!
The 50-400 looks considerably better than the 50-300. But if we didn't have a point of comparison, would it really be that big of a difference? Probably not, but it's nice to know you get what you pay for I suppose.
That’s very true!
Your side-by-side image comparisons are fantastic and very telling. It seems to me the 50-400 has better contrast and perhaps color. I don't know if this is because of color grading in post or that is a real difference. It seems to me the sharpness is a wash. Perhaps a little pixel peeping on still images might reveal the differences.
I had the 70-300 and sold it in favor of the 50-400. Although it is a heavier lens, I enjoy the longer reach and the macro capability throughout the range. I really liked the lightweight 70-300. I think the 50-300 is a better lens for its additional range and all the other goodies the 70-300 did not have.
It might’ve been honestly from putting my variable ND filter at times since I also wanted photos in the moment and video so just kept it on to go back and forth! But honestly they’re both pretty sharp otherwise and consistent!
No comparison. 50-400 all the way. I use the 50-400 on my Sony A6700 so it’s a 75-600 and I’ve gotten some of the sharpest images I’ve ever taken on it. It’s also not heavy at all. I’ve carried it in my hand at the zoo several times for 7-8 hours at a time with no issues. I own a dozen lenses for my a6700 and the 50-400 is my favorite of the bunch.
@@rpizzo68 that’s good to know!!
@@rpizzo68 I carried it on two all day Zion National Park shoots as well. I did a lot of handheld shots including a bunch of macro shots. It is heavy but compared to the 150-500, it is light!!
I have tried to carry both. The 50-400 is tolerable but you feel the weights of the 150-500 after a short while. To be fair both are relatively light compared to a 400 f2.8 or a 600 f4 lens. For those guys a monopod or a tripod it a must.
@@bizpixvegas7651 yeah. It feels light to me because I also have a sigma 150-600, which I love, but it’s just too big to lug around all day and lift up to your face and hold steady.
I own and have field tested the 50-400 for my landscape work. The lens is a keeper for its macro like capability and the amazing focal range. The only drawback is a little softness in the corners at 400mm. It gets better as you stop down but not to the level of my f2.8 lenses.
That’s awesome to hear! Having macro capabilities is always a plus!
would like to see a comparison between the 50-300 and 70-300 i think tamron have gone to far with extra range and compramised the optical quality as a result. would of much prefered 50-250mm with exceptional optical quality.
If I had it I would totally do it! I think if you start pixel peeping too much, most lenses might not feel the best. Tamron is more about relatively quality for a great budget to access more options. I didn’t think any issues isn’t the 50-300 or 50-400 honestly. Results were great to me and usable for what I need that most would never even notice any quality problems if there were.
I own the 50-400 and use it for landscape photography (and some occasional wildlife). Great lens, super happy with it! When shutter speed is too long for hand-held shots I use a tripod. Something I've noticed with those shots is that I get a lot better results turning the VC on the lens off. I guess the VC's trying to work out camera shake that isn't there. That's something I've never seen using IBIS only in the same situation with my Tamron 28-200 (no built-in VC). Camera IBIS seem more "intelligent", knowing when to compensate for shakes or not. But using a tripod, VC off, the 50-400 gives me very sharp photos.
That’s interesting! Might have to test that out myself to see what I learn from that!
Tamron instructions also state to turn VC off when on a tripod.
@@IrfanKhan-ze4yx Thanks man! After reading your comment I immediately checked the manual. You Sir, are 100% correct. Personal ToDo: Start reading manuals 🙄
How do you compare 28-200 to 50-400? I got 28-200 recently for a7 (no ibis) and it's fine, but it's only 200:)
@@snp1200 I've only made some minor tests comparing the two. If you're not in a hurry I can do another test session next weekend and get back to you with the results. Not sure I actually turned VC off (50-400) last time 🤔 I don't have the raw files right now but I think the results indicated that the 50-400 was a little sharper with better corners. It had pretty strong distortion (doesn't bother me) at some focal length and quicker AF than 28-200. It's my most used lens but if I could have only one it'd still be the 28-200. IQ was not that far behind and tbh I rarely need to shoot beyond 200mm. Starting at 50mm is nice compared to 100, but it's in the middle of the "normal zoom" range which means I often still need to bring a wider lens. The 28-200 on the other hand probably covers 95% of all shots I want to take and and is more of a one lens to rule them all, at least for me. And I find it more than sharp enough for my needs. That said the 50-400 is super nice if you need to go beyond 200mm, much more versatile than a traditional 100-400 and still impressively sharp even if stopped down to f/16. I find more joy using that lens for some reason. Oh, it's also seems to be tighter to the mount than any of my other lenses, but not to the level that I'm worried about breaking anything.
Higher price tag for G Master 400mm 2.8??????
You’d pay $12k for the lens?
@@EasyTigerCreative I was saying higher price tag for G master 400mm 2.8 was a missive understatement!
@@TheTensecondz ahh ok!
Personally I would purchase the 50-400
Why’s that if you don’t mind me asking?
i got the 50 300mm..... its a good lens for day time.... pro: 1 weight 2 macro option 3 focul lenght 300 is more then enough ( it depent how close you want) but for me its enough. con: 1. f stop its hurting in the night. but if you have a good camera with a dual iso with is high your good to go. 2. sony manual and af suck some times you need to know when you can use af en switch to mf. but the lens is some time searching for the af or mf. its a anoying. (my opion: great lens weight macro 300 i am happy with the image what i get with it.
Thank you for sharing your experience! That’s awesome to see what you’ve liked and didn’t like from it!
Too bad the image quality isn’t good 👎🏿feel like a samyang lens 🤷♂️
Have you tested it out against a samyang or it’s just an assumption? Would be cool to see examples.