After two years of using 150-500 and a year for 200-600 with a6600, now a6700 I finally decided to keep 150-500 and sell 200-600. Firstly because AF difference is much smaller between them on a6700 than on a6600. Another reasons are transport ease, slighly weight savings and macro capabilities, with crop factor I could do really nice close ups, impossible to achieve even with dedicated macro because of great working distance. Only thing I dislike about tamron 150-500 is that I wish it were native aps-c with even more weight/size savings, would insta buy such version. Another thing I dislike that after 2 years I've got 1 dust particle behind front glass, it doesn't affect image at all, even with aperture closed to maximum, but still it kills my soul inside :D
I owned the Sigma 150-600mm for Sony Fe on the A7rii. Incredibly sharp but big and rarely needed more than 500mm. The zoom ring had a long throw and I found I would miss shots when a bird flew at me. I sold it now and am thinking about the Tamron. Another great review!
Dustin, thanks for the comparison. I recently tried a buddy’s A1 and 200/600. I’m an R5/100-500 shooter, so something more akin to the Tamron. I will say that if you’re a bird in flight shooter, the quality of life that comes with an internal zoom with a short throw can’t be understated. If you’re looking at these two lenses and need to follow erratic subjects that vary their distance (birds in flight), the value of the internal zoom is tremendous in my experience. If you’re shooting subjects where you can “set and shoot,” I think the Tamron is going to be a better value overall, action body or not. It’s 15 vs 20 FPS on the A9 bodies, and anyone with the cash for an A1 isn’t going to have trouble justifying the additional $600 for the 200-600. -I believe Mark Galer also mentioned that in order to get the 30 FPS, you have to change your priority set in AF-C to “Release” instead of “Balanced Emphasis” or “AF” - so you may have one more setting to juggle while using the lens.- Either way, they’re both fantastic lenses from the looks of it.
hi Devon, your first point is entirely true. The second point (about 30 FPS) is not true, however. I get 30FPS with everything setup for Balanced Emphasis.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for the correction. I’ve stricken that from my comment. I don’t have the A1 myself, and based that assumption on Mr. Galer’s comments and the guys over at Fred Miranda. Perhaps there is nuance to those comments that I’ve misunderstood.
Love my 200-600 which I got swapping my 100-400GM for it. Read and watched your definitive reviews of the both and realized I should get 200-600 for what I use it, and that is when I need range. And I don’t regret doing it one bit. It is a fantastic lens that gets me much more range than 100-400 did and the zoom action is just amazing, how you say, one finger zoom and in less than quarter of a turn. Tamron looks interesting but I already have the Sony and see no reason to let it go for Tamron. But still love watching your reviews and going into every single detail that could distinguish them.
@@cameranews I could try but I am definitely not gonna change Sony for it. More range with lower aperture, tc compatible, internal zoom with an amazing zoom throw. There is nothing about it that I don’t like
@@youknowwho9247 I didn’t notice any difference at all but I didn’t stress test it. Plus my bottleneck is the camera. A7RIII doesn’t have the fastest focus out there.
I'm glad Tamron gave it the VXD motor. After doing some research I understood VXD is actually the same electromagnetic rails type of motor you find inside the expensive 400 and 600mm GM lenses. In contrast to RXD which is a traditional Stepper motor(albeit a really good and silent one). So that speak to the quality of the components Tamron has put into it, which is very appealing to me. On the other hand, I also understand the appeal of the Sony G lens. That large metal barrel is solid and internally zooming/focusing, which is a rarity in this market. But I feel like this solution is always asking me to pay just a little bit more. Pay just a little bit more and I get high quality 600mm reach. Pay just a little bit more and I get high quality teleconverters. Pay just a little bit more and I get a high framerate A1. All that added up means I would be spending too much. So I have decided to save some money with the Tamron. Both are fantastic and adds a rich diversity to the E-mount though, so I'm happy we have both choices.
I'm loving the internal zoom and the short throw on the zoom ring of the Sony - it makes it really quick to adjust composition, and more importantly, find the subject quickly as you can start at 200mm and then get to 600mm with such a short turn of the zoom ring. The build quality and image quality are excellent - it's probably the best value native lens out there for Sony. My only nitpick is the tripod foot not being arca swiss
Have both because they are useful in different conditions. The 200-600 is great for places where the internal zoom and short reach can take advantage of the frames per second on the A9 - so sport, fast action wildlife etc. However it is very weighty and harder to hand hold for any length of time. It's good on a tripod but I don't take a tripod everywhere. So the 150-500 is great for more static subjects where I want a bit more reach than the 100-400 I can also use, and don't mind about the frame rate. If I had to choose I'd have the 200-600 and the Sony 100-400 as they both support faster frame rates, but adding the 150-500 gives more flexibility, it's just easier to carry round all day on wildlife park, nature reserve sort of trips. In terms of image quality the Tamron shoots great pictures so it's really all about size and heft for the conditions. What is great is having so much variety to choose from in longer lenses. I did have the Sigma 150-600 DN Sports before the Sony 200-600 and hated the balance and the weird weight distribution, image quality was ok but the fps limit was not good for what I want to shoot and the pump zoom makes it hard to use with an all weather cover for rainy days..traded that for the 200-600 and it's much better, easier to handle, better balance, faster frame rates and great sharpness. The Tamron has a different set of use cases for me so complements the 200-600 and 100-400 nicely.
hold on, you say that internal zooms help with FPS? but you talk about eShutter? I need to know more. If I had to choose I would choose the Sony because it's heavier and heavy lenses help me balance A LOT even if at the end of the day my wrists are sore. How does a pump-out zoom affect the frames per second?
@@Culperrr Is actually much, much worse than that, at least in Hong Kong. The FE 200-600mm has already dropped to US$1,612 while the RF 100-500mm has in fact gone up to US$3,473 based on the latest quotes today. In other words, the Canon is more than double!! That is just ridiculous!!
@@Rascallucci Huh, weird. I was actually talking about the Tamron vs Sony. I was saying that the internal zoom is not worth an extra $600, but I mean, if you can afford it then go for it.
I've been shooting sports (mainly disc golf) with a Sony RX10M4 for the last 18 months and finally pulled the trigger on an A9. I do occasional birding if I see something interesting during an event but no one is paying me enough just yet to spring for the big Sony glass. I'm starting off with the Tamron 70-180 2.8. I think this will be my second lens for sunny days because it can get a little dark back in the woods some times. Super excited to finally make the jump to full frame, and hoping to make a name for myself and a career doing what I love. Thanks for this video.
Funny, my trajectory was Nikon...both in most of there top DSLR bodies, and glass, and then I came across this Sony bridge camera (Rx10m4) several years ago and boy that was fun. Now like You I just purchased a used A9, and a practically new 70-180mm vxd, and can’t wait to see this through. Need to cull the Nikon herd to make room for the next Sony glass....likely be the Sony 200-600 g, as I do bif and am used to 24fps with the Rx10m4, and it’s keeper rate. I’ll likely round out the wider angles after with likely Tamron’s VXD choices as sales of old gear replenish funds. That the plan. Thx
Exactly. I want to define strengths and weaknesses for both to allow people to make informed choices.
3 роки тому+2
Thanks for the Comparison. I bought the Sony a while ago and i think its a superb lens, even if its a little larger. The optical Quality is superb, and its an original Sony lens. Together with my 70-200 2.8 GM and the 2X Converter it is a super Combination and worth the money. I just could afford because i sold all my old Minolta white Giants ( 300 4 APO and 400 4.5 ) . For the lenght of the Sony its really easy to handle and light. Thanks for your allways super Camera and lens Videos
On a sony A7 M3: what is the best solution? Tamron 150-500mm or Lens sony 100-400 4.5-5.6 lens + sony focal multiplier also 1.4 ?? this is for sports photos Thank you
I had just broken all of that in detail in my reviews, so I focused more on other areas. The Sony is ever-so-slightly sharper (particularly on the edge of the frame), but that's not a major difference.
If I lived in the US I'd probably go for the Tamron. In the UK however the prices are very close. As such the extra 100mm, internal zoom and ability to take teleconverter make the Sony better option in UK
This was exactly my dilemma at the moment Gary - going to be picking up one of these but the only thing that does lean me towards the tamron is the size of the lens for travelling
@@benpearce2044 Yes it certainly takes up less space. Generally I prefer lenses that zoom internally but they the super telephoto are huge. The Tamron seems decent, I just object to their UK pricing lately. If I was taking a trip to US I'd be tempted by it. The UK price though is just too close considering the extra 100mm of the Sony and the ability to take a teleconverter. I own the Tamron 28-75 and 17-28 which were priced well in the UK. I passed on the 70-180 for the same reason I'm passing on the 150-500.
Really struggling on this one currently. Here in the Uk the Sony is only ~£120 more than the tamron with the current Sony cash back offer. 😵💫 Only thing that pulls me to the tamron is the size!
I rented the 200-600 for the last weekend. Introduced me to the full frame telephoto zoom. Real good, but it is too damn heavy and expensive for me. I think i will just spend half the price to get 80% of the feature of Sony G on Tamron.
I definitely did mention that, as it is one of the key advantages for the Sony. It focuses better and allows you to unlock full speeds on the a9 and A1 cameras (20 FPS or 30 FPS). The Tamron is limited at 15 FPS.
I've been wondering why Tamron had not come out with TC's... that makes quite a bit more sense. Also not overly unsound since Sony completely opened up the lens mount. Fair and good business sense.
Dustin, how would you compare these two in terms of AF and OS performance? I know it's super difficult do compare those two features but what's you general impression?
Hi Jakub, I really couldn't draw a good conclusion on OS performance. They seemed about the same, but it is almost impossible with cameras with IBIS these days to determine what the lens is doing and what the camera is doing. As for AF, I detail that strongly in my review of the Tamron. I estimate that Sony is about 5-7% better in AF for tracking action, and the difference will be undetectable for other types of work.
Another excellent summary of two quality lens. Not overly impressed with Sony preventing use of teleconverters and slowing frame speed to 15fps. Another example of Sony acting like a bully. Have need for either of these lens as don't do BIF, sports ( since 3 sons stopped playing football), or nature. Happily get by with my 6D & L series 70-200 2.8. However, if had issues with that Canon lens, given your review of the Tamron 70-200 2.8, would buy that. Canon glass, especially for the R series, is waaaay too expensive.
Great review, thank you. But what about Tamron SP 150-600 G2? Would it be a fair comparison? I'm considering the newest Sony A7IV for birding, which seems has very similar to A1 bird eye AF. Would be Tamron 150-600 a good choice?
Hi Dustin! Could you help me with a noob question? My Sony A6400's kit lens is 16-50mm - does that mean it's actually around 24.5-76.5mm due to being APS-C? I wonder if the mm always represent the same thing in Full Frame lenses and in APS-C specific lenses. Cheers!
That's correct. Every lens' focal length is stated in full frame (35mm) terms and must be multiplied by the crop factor of the camera that it is mounted on. In the case of the a6400, that is 1.5x.
I have the sony and love it but....I'm just pleased to see a wider range of lenses coming out for the e mount system which for long distance had been stuck with 2 and latterly 3 with the tamron lenses.
I just bought the Tamron 150-500 and it is saying that I can’t use my Sony a6500 ibis with the lens. Is that how it was manufactured or is something else wrong?
My Lumix G9 will only use dual IS with Lumix lenses. This could be the issue. But try using the lens IS instead of the camera IS. Tamron usually have a good IS system. I actually now use a Canon M50 with sigma 150-600. IS only being in the lens.
@@zanemoore8295 I think on lower focal ranges IBIS can work in tandem with lens VC but at the longer focal lengths maybe IBIS makes it worse rather than help.
Here in Hungary, Europe the price difference is about 150$. The sony 200-600 is always on deals and there are sony cachback also multiple times in a year. I picked up my 200-600 on same price like the tamron 150-500 and I also own the 1.4TC.
Would like to see a comparison between the Sigma 100-400mm vs the Tamron 150-500mm. Obviously less reach on the Sigma but would like to see how they stack up as they are both in a more “value” price range compared to the Sony’s.
Is it possible to turn off the release shutter after AF function (or whatever its called) and get the full 30fps on the Tamron with the a1 at the cost of possibly having a few shots with missed focus?
I primarily shoot landscape and I’ve been juggling between the Sigma 100-400 and the Tamron 150-500 for a while. I’ve tested the Sony 100-400GM during my travels to Wyoming and it’s been a fantastic lens optically but the weight (though tolerable) was heavy for its size. I’m in favor of the Sigma for its size and weight as it’ll be easier to carry around and organize for day hikes but I’m intrigued by the Tamron’s extra 100mm reach as I felt like at times when I shot with the Sony I wish I had more reach. Do you think the extra reach or the optics of the Tamron be reasons to choose it over the Sigma?
The Tamron are more heavy than the Sony 100-400 GM ! I can recommend the Sony 135mm 1,8 GM for Landscape Photography. I have also the Sony 200-600mm which I sometimes use for landscape and it is better then the Tamron for landscape. If you want a light zoom lens go for a 100-300mm.
If weight is really an issue, then the Sigma is going to remain your best choice. Perhaps consider moving to a higher resolution body that will allow you some extra cropping latitude.
Any thoughts on sharpness and autofocus speed/accuracy between the two? So far I’m hearing the Tamron is soft in the corners and not as quick autofocusing as Sony native lenses.
Soft is a very strong word for the corner performance, and simply not accurate. Autofocus is also very fast. I'm not quite sure where those characterizations are coming from, but that's not what I saw in my tests.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I did go back and rewatch your Definitive Review for the lens. True, you never used the word "soft", but corner sharpness is certainly not as sharp as the center or the corner sharpness of the Sony 200-600. Other reviewers have noted that the Tamron is not "as sharp" in the corners as the center, but this lens is several hundreds cheaper than the Sony 200-600 and close to half the price of the Sony 100-400, so I suppose we should expect higher performance out of the more expensive lenses and make determinations on our own as to if the extra cost is worth the better performance.
Compared in what way, exactly? Optically they will all be roughly the same, though the 200-600 may have a slight advantage once you insert the 1.4x to the 100-400. Autofocus is going to be somewhat similar. The 100-400 +1.4x will be the lightest package, but also the most expensive by far. You'll be looking at $3000 USD for the GM + 1.4x combination, so well more than twice as much as the Tamron and a $1000 more than the 200-600.
Every time I see a review of Sony telephoto lenses I keep wishing that GM 70-200 mk II or Sigma DN 70-200 sport would come out already. Tamron and Sony here are both interesting long telephoto lenses anyway and great reviews as always!
Agreed. I'm surprised the Sigma hasn't arrived yet. I actually think they had a prototype ready to go and reassessed after Tamron delivered the 70-180mm. The Sigma was probably going to be too big and heavy.
I did discuss aperture, actually. Front lens diameter is not actually the most important thing for telephotos, but that is a piece of information you can get in one minute from a Google search. This was not a full review of both lenses, just a discussion of relative strengths and weaknesses.
Excellent comparison and description of + and - for each lens. Right now for me, the question is to keep the Sigma 100-400, or buy the Sony 100-400 + 1.4 TC or get the Tamron 150-500. I am not considering the Sony 200-600 because of its weight, which would be a problem for me. Thanks for this informative video, Dustin.
The Tamron are nearly as heavy as the Sony 200-600. At 600mm the Sony 200-600 are sharper than any of the other Lenses. For Bird and Wildlife, the 200-600 are number one.
If weight is an issue and you want extra reach, the 100-400 + TC might be your best option (though you'll pay to get it!) That combo is 375g or so lighter than the Tamron, and about 525g lighter than the 200-600.
Another great review Dustin, thanks! You don't mention image quality in this review. Can you comment on that for those of us who prefer the Tamron in almost every other respect, but are concerned about reports, including your own, of softness in the corners on the Tamron compared to the Sony? I really like the Tamron, even the compromise on the extra reach doesn't bother me much, so would you buy the Sony just for the extra sharpness?
Hi Jim, I broke down the image quality in great detail on my review of the Tamron, and wanted to keep this video shorter. The Tamron is a very sharp lens; there are just a few places where the Sony is sharper. I don't consider image quality to be a major differentiating factor between the two lenses.
I've been waiting for this one and as usual Dustin doesn't disappoint. For my purposes though I've been comparing the Tamron to the 100-400 GM because I rarely need more than 500 MM. I've used the GM and the image quality is great and is probably somewhat better than the Tamron. If the Tamron is as good as the Sigma 100-400 in terms of image quality then it's a no brainer decision for me between the 150-500 vs 100-400....$1,000 us dollars no brainer.
I have been trying to get a copy of that lens for review all year, but there is a severe shortage in Canon's supply chain and there are basically no loaners. I'm hoping sometime this year, but the 100-500 along with the 28-70mm F2 have been pretty much impossible to get.
As usual a very informative video. At 8:52 you mention the bigger zoom range of the Sony. I would argue however that it makes more sense to measure zoom range as a ratio: the 50mm at the wide end makes a bigger difference than the 100mm on the narrow end. The Tamron has a zoom ratio of 500/150=3.33 whereas the Sony has a zoom ratio of 3. But you're right of course that the 100mm at the narrow end may matter more to most photographers.
You are technically right about the zoom ratio, though it's really semantics. In a telephoto lens, however, I would argue that more reach always trumps more on the wide end, and the Sony has the option of even greater reach through TCs.
I love the video! But I can’t help to notice that you are comparing the size of the lenses with the Tamron lens hood on and the Sony lens hood off. This can give people the wrong idea. The Tamron, while fully extended is MASSIVELY shorter than the Sony if both are being compared fairly here. I hope someone will make a video on the soap bubble bokeh the tamron produces in many different lighting conditions. That the Sony absolutely is incapable of. You do lose that long end focal range. But having the extra 50mm on the low end, the short minimum focus distance and the soap bubble bokeh. Make the tamron extremely competitive in every aspect. Tamron has some impressive engineers as well as product designers. They managed to fit their lens in a niche market as well as in a mainstream wildlife photography market at the same time. And did it will a very low price. Tamron deserves more credit. As for the Sony. Very great lens. I own both. And love them both. But the Tamron is the one I’ll always take for a hike. The Sony is one I set up on a tripod with a camo tent for eagles.
There are plenty of comparisons with the hood off both. The biggest advantage for the Sony is the superior tracking capabilities, the ability to get full burst speed on sports cameras, and the ability to use TCs. But yes, the Tamron is an excellent lens in many ways.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Understand. Good job, BTW. I really appreciate your efforts. Next time I buy something, I'll click on your link first. Eventually, I'll buy either this lens or the Sigma 100-400mm; but I just don't need a telephoto right now.
If you watch my definitive review of the Tamron, I cover autofocus in great detail. For most work you will not notice a difference in focus speed. The Sony does give you a slightly better keeper rate for high speed action.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i do wildlife and BIF thats wy i want de Sony, i have a Tamron 150-600 g2 + LA-EA5 adapter nowe the lens is Fairly sharp, the auto focus is to slow...and it has no VC in de lens, because it is an A-Mount lens. greetings from the Netherlands...love your reviews thanks
Ahhh, well the autofocus on an adapted lens is nothing like the speed with the Tamron 150-500mm. That being said, if your priority is autofocus and you can handle the size, the Sony is a fantastic lens. I own it myself.
This was insightful I learned a lot Sony has put restrictions on the Tamron. It they hadn’t this would be a win win for the Tamron. I will go with the Sony on this one. The 30 frams. And the conversion.and the white body looks cool.
OMFG! The frame rate limitation on after market lenses by Sony was an eye opener. I had no idea. I foresee a lot of pissed off emails to Sony over that bullshit…starting with mine!
As i watch this, i see that one person has down-voted you. What a monster! Great job as always, Dustin. I’ll always cheer you on and wish you success and happiness! Keep up the great work.
I'm not sure how that can happen, as I tested both lenses side by side and didn't see that happen. I'll also note that the Tamron USA VP watched my main review and never said otherwise.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm not sure either, but here is the review link if you were not able to find it. I may leave a comment for his review and see what he can say about it. ua-cam.com/video/GqYgsioOoDE/v-deo.html
Dustin, another recent review by PhotoRec TV mentioned the 30FPS only happens on non Sony lens's with the Autofocus turned off. Is this a possible explanation?
I personally love my 100-400, with the 1.5x TC when I'm out in nature and want the little bit of extra reach. The AF and IQ are better than either of these lenses and it's about a half stop to stop brighter. But it's also annoyingly expensive. That said, if I was purchasing new today, it's hard to argue with the Tamron's value proposition.
By the numbers, the 100-400 GM with the 1.4x TC is actually not better optically than the 200-600mm. It also wasn't better in my tests. But that may be splitting hairs, as both are extremely good, and the form factor of the 100-400mm is very appealing. That's the route I went with Canon in the DSLR side, and I still use my 100-400L II and 1.4x III adapted to my Canon EOS R5 because it is a great combination.
@@simonp8088 200-600 is a better option compared to 100-400 plus 1.4 tc but the 100-400 is a better lens in quality itself and a better wildlife all around lens( except for birds). And a big plus of it is it's awesome macro ability and it's quality.
I didn’t see much of a quality difference. Both lenses were spectacular to me. The 1-400 size is smaller and the macro ability is better. But overall, the 2-600 worked better for me. Image quality aside, they both produce wonderful results and I’m sure there is no one size fits all.
hi Gary, this wasn't an in depth review, and there isn't any significant image quality differences. There's some give and take, with the Sony largely being better in the corners, but I don't think there is a decisive edge either way.
For Bird and Wildlife Photography I can recommend the Sony 200-600mm 5.6-6.3 G Lens, I am pleased it and I am keeping it, I do though wish for Prime Lenses like 300mm 4.0, 400mm 4.5 (the Minolta 400 4.5 was great !) and 500mm 5.6 !
Wait a minute. I just noticed you have the two lenses side by side, but the Sony doesn’t have its lens hood attached, unlike the Tamron. This minimizes the real difference in length between the two. Play fair, my man.
@@ernieojeda perhaps you should pay attention, LOL brain. I was referring to the only scene in the video when the lenses were side by side on the table, and the lens hoods were not attached to either lens. Christ, America is full of idiots!
Truth be told, VC/OS on these long lenses is just okay in general. They make a big difference, but don't expect things to be rock solid like on, say, a 70-200.
I absolutely hate the artificial limitations, I find it indicitive of douchebag companies that mistreat their customers. Thanks for letting me know that I need to sell my Sony body I was not aware they were doing this and at such an annoyingly high price point!
It's actually not unusual for first parties to bias things in favor of their own lenses. Canon won't allow for third party lenses to have in camera corrections, for example, and neither Canon nor Nikon share focus algorithms. In fact, there isn't really any kind of third party development for Canon RF and Nikon Z right now, so who exactly are you turning to?
@@DustinAbbottTWI The entire extensive history of cameras and equipment... most of which can produce similar if not higher quality prints ;) I don't have to give a dime to those assholes but they will likely never stop due to the VAST majority of men these days having absolutely no balls and an outlook that they cant change anything about their world and environment when nothing else could be further from the truthx and in doing so just capitulate to such blatant mistreatment. It does appear to be an industry wide problem... an industry that is DYING despite photos being more popular than ever... ITS BECAUSE YOU P#SSIES KEEP EATING WHATEVER GRULE THEY PUMP OUT
@@DustinAbbottTWI That is exactly why the camera industry is the ONLY one to use an intentionally obtuse metric for screen resolution "dots" to mislead customers for instance... I mean people blame smart phones but after experiencing the industry for a while i believe the real problem is dumb cameras resulting from a toxic customer / manufacturer relationship.
I have both lenses, having bought the Sony back in 2019 and used it to great effect in Botswana. Love that internal helical zoom. I bought the Tampon last week out of necessity; I simply couldn’t pack both the Sony 200-600mm and my Sony 600mm, so I bought the Tamron after reading a review on DP Review. I’ll compare the two when I return from Alaska photographing brown bears and Kodiak bears, What I do like right off the bat is the Arca-Swiss foot on the Tamron. Why doesn’t Sony do this! You ask? I retort, go ask Canon and Nikon…they do the same thing…a foot which is useless for anything other than a carrying handle. Idiots!
How was your trip to Alaska? What do you think about the Tamron 150-500mm? Would be great to hear a short review from you, as you have the 200-600 and 600 too. Would be great to know how it compares to the two Sony lenses.
Besides quality considerations, if you shoot video and do not wish to carry a 10K+ heavy tripod, you need an internal zoom lens, otherwise the trombone protruding in max extension will send the balance out and damage your shot. Half a century of experience told by me that….. www.youtube.com/@CarloFerraro
After two years of using 150-500 and a year for 200-600 with a6600, now a6700 I finally decided to keep 150-500 and sell 200-600.
Firstly because AF difference is much smaller between them on a6700 than on a6600. Another reasons are transport ease, slighly weight savings and macro capabilities, with crop factor I could do really nice close ups, impossible to achieve even with dedicated macro because of great working distance.
Only thing I dislike about tamron 150-500 is that I wish it were native aps-c with even more weight/size savings, would insta buy such version. Another thing I dislike that after 2 years I've got 1 dust particle behind front glass, it doesn't affect image at all, even with aperture closed to maximum, but still it kills my soul inside :D
Interesting points as a current a6600 owner myself. The sony is way too large for my comfort. Does tamron warranty not cover the weather sealing?
Thanks - That's helpful
I owned the Sigma 150-600mm for Sony Fe on the A7rii. Incredibly sharp but big and rarely needed more than 500mm. The zoom ring had a long throw and I found I would miss shots when a bird flew at me. I sold it now and am thinking about the Tamron. Another great review!
Glad to help out.
Dustin, thanks for the comparison. I recently tried a buddy’s A1 and 200/600. I’m an R5/100-500 shooter, so something more akin to the Tamron. I will say that if you’re a bird in flight shooter, the quality of life that comes with an internal zoom with a short throw can’t be understated. If you’re looking at these two lenses and need to follow erratic subjects that vary their distance (birds in flight), the value of the internal zoom is tremendous in my experience.
If you’re shooting subjects where you can “set and shoot,” I think the Tamron is going to be a better value overall, action body or not. It’s 15 vs 20 FPS on the A9 bodies, and anyone with the cash for an A1 isn’t going to have trouble justifying the additional $600 for the 200-600. -I believe Mark Galer also mentioned that in order to get the 30 FPS, you have to change your priority set in AF-C to “Release” instead of “Balanced Emphasis” or “AF” - so you may have one more setting to juggle while using the lens.-
Either way, they’re both fantastic lenses from the looks of it.
hi Devon, your first point is entirely true. The second point (about 30 FPS) is not true, however. I get 30FPS with everything setup for Balanced Emphasis.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for the correction. I’ve stricken that from my comment. I don’t have the A1 myself, and based that assumption on Mr. Galer’s comments and the guys over at Fred Miranda. Perhaps there is nuance to those comments that I’ve misunderstood.
Yass finally. Was sooo intensively waiting for this comparison !👏🤯
Glad to help out.
Love my 200-600 which I got swapping my 100-400GM for it. Read and watched your definitive reviews of the both and realized I should get 200-600 for what I use it, and that is when I need range. And I don’t regret doing it one bit. It is a fantastic lens that gets me much more range than 100-400 did and the zoom action is just amazing, how you say, one finger zoom and in less than quarter of a turn.
Tamron looks interesting but I already have the Sony and see no reason to let it go for Tamron. But still love watching your reviews and going into every single detail that could distinguish them.
I really like the Sony as well. I'm willing to accept the tradeoff of the large size for what it gives me functionally and optically.
I think you should have a try on Tamron sometime
@@cameranews I could try but I am definitely not gonna change Sony for it. More range with lower aperture, tc compatible, internal zoom with an amazing zoom throw. There is nothing about it that I don’t like
Does the 200-600 focus slower than the 100-400 or are the focus motors about the same?
@@youknowwho9247 I didn’t notice any difference at all but I didn’t stress test it. Plus my bottleneck is the camera. A7RIII doesn’t have the fastest focus out there.
I'm glad Tamron gave it the VXD motor. After doing some research I understood VXD is actually the same electromagnetic rails type of motor you find inside the expensive 400 and 600mm GM lenses. In contrast to RXD which is a traditional Stepper motor(albeit a really good and silent one). So that speak to the quality of the components Tamron has put into it, which is very appealing to me.
On the other hand, I also understand the appeal of the Sony G lens. That large metal barrel is solid and internally zooming/focusing, which is a rarity in this market. But I feel like this solution is always asking me to pay just a little bit more. Pay just a little bit more and I get high quality 600mm reach. Pay just a little bit more and I get high quality teleconverters. Pay just a little bit more and I get a high framerate A1. All that added up means I would be spending too much. So I have decided to save some money with the Tamron.
Both are fantastic and adds a rich diversity to the E-mount though, so I'm happy we have both choices.
Enjoy your new lens. It is an excellent one!
I'm loving the internal zoom and the short throw on the zoom ring of the Sony - it makes it really quick to adjust composition, and more importantly, find the subject quickly as you can start at 200mm and then get to 600mm with such a short turn of the zoom ring. The build quality and image quality are excellent - it's probably the best value native lens out there for Sony. My only nitpick is the tripod foot not being arca swiss
Exactly. Once you get it in the field, this is a great lens to use. It just isn't very compact for storage or transport.
Have both because they are useful in different conditions. The 200-600 is great for places where the internal zoom and short reach can take advantage of the frames per second on the A9 - so sport, fast action wildlife etc.
However it is very weighty and harder to hand hold for any length of time. It's good on a tripod but I don't take a tripod everywhere.
So the 150-500 is great for more static subjects where I want a bit more reach than the 100-400 I can also use, and don't mind about the frame rate.
If I had to choose I'd have the 200-600 and the Sony 100-400 as they both support faster frame rates, but adding the 150-500 gives more flexibility, it's just easier to carry round all day on wildlife park, nature reserve sort of trips.
In terms of image quality the Tamron shoots great pictures so it's really all about size and heft for the conditions. What is great is having so much variety to choose from in longer lenses.
I did have the Sigma 150-600 DN Sports before the Sony 200-600 and hated the balance and the weird weight distribution, image quality was ok but the fps limit was not good for what I want to shoot and the pump zoom makes it hard to use with an all weather cover for rainy days..traded that for the 200-600 and it's much better, easier to handle, better balance, faster frame rates and great sharpness.
The Tamron has a different set of use cases for me so complements the 200-600 and 100-400 nicely.
The 150-600 Sport did have poorer balance (the original on DSLRs was the worse for this).
hold on, you say that internal zooms help with FPS? but you talk about eShutter? I need to know more. If I had to choose I would choose the Sony because it's heavier and heavy lenses help me balance A LOT even if at the end of the day my wrists are sore. How does a pump-out zoom affect the frames per second?
Sony all day. The short and ultra smooth throw of an internal zoom is the way to go for birding especially for BIF shots.
I agree. I definitely prefer the internal zoom for field work, though the Tamron is nicer to pack there!
Thanks for this tidbit. I was curious which would be better for birding.
I agree, but its not worth an extra $600, lol.
@@Culperrr Is actually much, much worse than that, at least in Hong Kong. The FE 200-600mm has already dropped to US$1,612 while the RF 100-500mm has in fact gone up to US$3,473 based on the latest quotes today. In other words, the Canon is more than double!! That is just ridiculous!!
@@Rascallucci Huh, weird. I was actually talking about the Tamron vs Sony. I was saying that the internal zoom is not worth an extra $600, but I mean, if you can afford it then go for it.
I've been shooting sports (mainly disc golf) with a Sony RX10M4 for the last 18 months and finally pulled the trigger on an A9. I do occasional birding if I see something interesting during an event but no one is paying me enough just yet to spring for the big Sony glass. I'm starting off with the Tamron 70-180 2.8. I think this will be my second lens for sunny days because it can get a little dark back in the woods some times. Super excited to finally make the jump to full frame, and hoping to make a name for myself and a career doing what I love. Thanks for this video.
Sounds like a plan!
Funny, my trajectory was Nikon...both in most of there top DSLR bodies, and glass, and then I came across this Sony bridge camera (Rx10m4) several years ago and boy that was fun. Now like You I just purchased a used A9, and a practically new 70-180mm vxd, and can’t wait to see this through. Need to cull the Nikon herd to make room for the next Sony glass....likely be the Sony 200-600 g, as I do bif and am used to 24fps with the Rx10m4, and it’s keeper rate. I’ll likely round out the wider angles after with likely Tamron’s VXD choices as sales of old gear replenish funds. That the plan. Thx
Sony 200-600 is excellent but compact Tamron has some advantages also. Nice review!
Exactly. I want to define strengths and weaknesses for both to allow people to make informed choices.
Thanks for the Comparison. I bought the Sony a while ago and i think its a superb lens, even if its a little larger. The optical Quality is superb, and its an original Sony lens. Together with my 70-200 2.8 GM and the 2X Converter it is a super Combination and worth the money. I just could afford because i sold all my old Minolta white Giants ( 300 4 APO and 400 4.5 ) . For the lenght of the Sony its really easy to handle and light.
Thanks for your allways super Camera and lens Videos
I like the sony as well. The internally zooming design makes it great to use in the field.
On a sony A7 M3: what is the best solution? Tamron 150-500mm or Lens sony 100-400 4.5-5.6 lens + sony focal multiplier also 1.4 ?? this is for sports photos Thank you
The Sony combo will give you a little more versatility and focus accuracy, though at roughly twice the money.
I'm surprised there was no mention of image quality between the two (unless I missed it). Are they just that close in image quality?
I had just broken all of that in detail in my reviews, so I focused more on other areas. The Sony is ever-so-slightly sharper (particularly on the edge of the frame), but that's not a major difference.
If I lived in the US I'd probably go for the Tamron. In the UK however the prices are very close. As such the extra 100mm, internal zoom and ability to take teleconverter make the Sony better option in UK
Agreed. I've heard similar things from other UK photographers.
Yeah, £1379 for the Tamron vs £1499 for the Sony (with the current cash back offer). £120 difference seems like a no brainier.
This was exactly my dilemma at the moment Gary - going to be picking up one of these but the only thing that does lean me towards the tamron is the size of the lens for travelling
@@benpearce2044 Yes it certainly takes up less space. Generally I prefer lenses that zoom internally but they the super telephoto are huge. The Tamron seems decent, I just object to their UK pricing lately. If I was taking a trip to US I'd be tempted by it. The UK price though is just too close considering the extra 100mm of the Sony and the ability to take a teleconverter. I own the Tamron 28-75 and 17-28 which were priced well in the UK. I passed on the 70-180 for the same reason I'm passing on the 150-500.
Really struggling on this one currently. Here in the Uk the Sony is only ~£120 more than the tamron with the current Sony cash back offer. 😵💫 Only thing that pulls me to the tamron is the size!
I've heard something similar from other UK shooters. It does become a more difficult choice then, mostly because of the size factor that you mention.
What did you go for in the end
I rented the 200-600 for the last weekend. Introduced me to the full frame telephoto zoom. Real good, but it is too damn heavy and expensive for me. I think i will just spend half the price to get 80% of the feature of Sony G on Tamron.
Fair enough - that's why having the Tamron as an option is great.
Another great comparison! Just one think that you didn't mentioned, autofocus wise, are there any significant differences? Thanks!
I definitely did mention that, as it is one of the key advantages for the Sony. It focuses better and allows you to unlock full speeds on the a9 and A1 cameras (20 FPS or 30 FPS). The Tamron is limited at 15 FPS.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks Dustin!
Another great review but which lens would you recommend for my A6000 ?
Either is a good choice. The Tamron is perhaps a nicer fit in terms of size.
I've been wondering why Tamron had not come out with TC's... that makes quite a bit more sense. Also not overly unsound since Sony completely opened up the lens mount. Fair and good business sense.
Hi Chad, you're right. As consumers we want all the options, but Sony is also a business, and they've given themselves a bit of home-grown advantage.
Today i have 200-600G + A7iv what u think bos.
Dustin, how would you compare these two in terms of AF and OS performance? I know it's super difficult do compare those two features but what's you general impression?
Hi Jakub, I really couldn't draw a good conclusion on OS performance. They seemed about the same, but it is almost impossible with cameras with IBIS these days to determine what the lens is doing and what the camera is doing. As for AF, I detail that strongly in my review of the Tamron. I estimate that Sony is about 5-7% better in AF for tracking action, and the difference will be undetectable for other types of work.
what about the sigma 100-400 vs the tamron?
I've had a few such requests - the problem is that I don't have the Sigma anymore as I sold it to help fund buying the Sony.
400mm vs 500mm
Another excellent summary of two quality lens.
Not overly impressed with Sony preventing use of teleconverters and slowing frame speed to 15fps. Another example of Sony acting like a bully.
Have need for either of these lens as don't do BIF, sports ( since 3 sons stopped playing football), or nature.
Happily get by with my 6D & L series 70-200 2.8. However, if had issues with that Canon lens, given your review of the Tamron 70-200 2.8, would buy that.
Canon glass, especially for the R series, is waaaay too expensive.
I'm not sure that it is bullying, so it is their platform, but it is unfortunate from a consumer's perspective.
I been looking for a video like this all day 🙌🙌😄 thanks so much 👍👍👍
Glad you found it.
Great review, thank you. But what about Tamron SP 150-600 G2? Would it be a fair comparison? I'm considering the newest Sony A7IV for birding, which seems has very similar to A1 bird eye AF. Would be Tamron 150-600 a good choice?
An adapted lens isn't going to give nearly as good of AF performance...and that 150-600 G2 isn't as sharp, either.
Well done comparison and very informative for a potential buyer of either lens. Thank you, sir! 🙏
Glad it was helpful!
Amazing work as always, Mr. Abbott! I wonder how many takes did you need to say the names of the lenses! 😁
I can typically do it in one, but I've had a lot of practice over the years!
How does the Tamron perform at night...moon shots vs the Sony?
I didn't compare them for this, but that's not a complicated scenario. My experience is that most telephotos do fine for that application.
Hi Dustin! Could you help me with a noob question?
My Sony A6400's kit lens is 16-50mm - does that mean it's actually around 24.5-76.5mm due to being APS-C?
I wonder if the mm always represent the same thing in Full Frame lenses and in APS-C specific lenses. Cheers!
That's correct. Every lens' focal length is stated in full frame (35mm) terms and must be multiplied by the crop factor of the camera that it is mounted on. In the case of the a6400, that is 1.5x.
This is a well done comparison. Thank you.
My pleasure!
I have the sony and love it but....I'm just pleased to see a wider range of lenses coming out for the e mount system which for long distance had been stuck with 2 and latterly 3 with the tamron lenses.
Exactly.
Was waiting for this Video , Thanks
Hope you enjoyed it!
I just bought the Tamron 150-500 and it is saying that I can’t use my Sony a6500 ibis with the lens. Is that how it was manufactured or is something else wrong?
My Lumix G9 will only use dual IS with Lumix lenses. This could be the issue. But try using the lens IS instead of the camera IS. Tamron usually have a good IS system. I actually now use a Canon M50 with sigma 150-600. IS only being in the lens.
The cameras senses the lens has IS and turns off SteadyShot to allow the Lens VC to do the stabilization. No big deal.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok thanks!
@@zanemoore8295 I think on lower focal ranges IBIS can work in tandem with lens VC but at the longer focal lengths maybe IBIS makes it worse rather than help.
Here in Hungary, Europe the price difference is about 150$. The sony 200-600 is always on deals and there are sony cachback also multiple times in a year. I picked up my 200-600 on same price like the tamron 150-500 and I also own the 1.4TC.
That makes a third party lens a hard sale, for sure.
Would like to see a comparison between the Sigma 100-400mm vs the Tamron 150-500mm. Obviously less reach on the Sigma but would like to see how they stack up as they are both in a more “value” price range compared to the Sony’s.
I've had a few such requests - the problem is that I don't have the Sigma anymore as I sold it to help fund buying the Sony.
Is it possible to turn off the release shutter after AF function (or whatever its called) and get the full 30fps on the Tamron with the a1 at the cost of possibly having a few shots with missed focus?
I don't think so.
@@DustinAbbottTWI bugger. That'd make it much better
I primarily shoot landscape and I’ve been juggling between the Sigma 100-400 and the Tamron 150-500 for a while. I’ve tested the Sony 100-400GM during my travels to Wyoming and it’s been a fantastic lens optically but the weight (though tolerable) was heavy for its size. I’m in favor of the Sigma for its size and weight as it’ll be easier to carry around and organize for day hikes but I’m intrigued by the Tamron’s extra 100mm reach as I felt like at times when I shot with the Sony I wish I had more reach. Do you think the extra reach or the optics of the Tamron be reasons to choose it over the Sigma?
The Tamron are more heavy than the Sony 100-400 GM ! I can recommend the Sony 135mm 1,8 GM for Landscape Photography. I have also the Sony 200-600mm which I sometimes use for landscape and it is better then the Tamron for landscape. If you want a light zoom lens go for a 100-300mm.
If weight is really an issue, then the Sigma is going to remain your best choice. Perhaps consider moving to a higher resolution body that will allow you some extra cropping latitude.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Cropping is a good point! I have a Sony A7riii so I can sacrifice maybe a few megapixels. Thanks for the tip!
Very thorough comparison, thank you!
My pleasure!
thank you! I paired this Tamron with A6700 and it is almost like telemacro :)
Sweet.
Any thoughts on sharpness and autofocus speed/accuracy between the two? So far I’m hearing the Tamron is soft in the corners and not as quick autofocusing as Sony native lenses.
Soft is a very strong word for the corner performance, and simply not accurate. Autofocus is also very fast. I'm not quite sure where those characterizations are coming from, but that's not what I saw in my tests.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I did go back and rewatch your Definitive Review for the lens. True, you never used the word "soft", but corner sharpness is certainly not as sharp as the center or the corner sharpness of the Sony 200-600. Other reviewers have noted that the Tamron is not "as sharp" in the corners as the center, but this lens is several hundreds cheaper than the Sony 200-600 and close to half the price of the Sony 100-400, so I suppose we should expect higher performance out of the more expensive lenses and make determinations on our own as to if the extra cost is worth the better performance.
Hi Dustin: how are they compared to 100-400GM with teleconverter? BTW, when will you have a chance to evaluate voigtlander APO 35mmf2 . thanks!
Compared in what way, exactly? Optically they will all be roughly the same, though the 200-600 may have a slight advantage once you insert the 1.4x to the 100-400. Autofocus is going to be somewhat similar. The 100-400 +1.4x will be the lightest package, but also the most expensive by far. You'll be looking at $3000 USD for the GM + 1.4x combination, so well more than twice as much as the Tamron and a $1000 more than the 200-600.
Also, I have no timeline for the Voigtlander. They don't have distribution in Canada, so getting a loaner is difficult for me.
Every time I see a review of Sony telephoto lenses I keep wishing that GM 70-200 mk II or Sigma DN 70-200 sport would come out already. Tamron and Sony here are both interesting long telephoto lenses anyway and great reviews as always!
Agreed. I'm surprised the Sigma hasn't arrived yet. I actually think they had a prototype ready to go and reassessed after Tamron delivered the 70-180mm. The Sigma was probably going to be too big and heavy.
love those Fstops, 6.3 now 6.7. Future 8.25 / 11.75 and so on
I don't love the trend, as, while the autofocus systems can keep up fine, it does create other issues with smaller maximum apertures.
You forgot to mension the front lens diameter, witch is the most relvant thing in tele photo! wich one gives me more light??
I did discuss aperture, actually. Front lens diameter is not actually the most important thing for telephotos, but that is a piece of information you can get in one minute from a Google search. This was not a full review of both lenses, just a discussion of relative strengths and weaknesses.
Excellent comparison and description of + and - for each lens. Right now for me, the question is to keep the Sigma 100-400, or buy the Sony 100-400 + 1.4 TC or get the Tamron 150-500. I am not considering the Sony 200-600 because of its weight, which would be a problem for me. Thanks for this informative video, Dustin.
The Tamron are nearly as heavy as the Sony 200-600. At 600mm the Sony 200-600 are sharper than any of the other Lenses. For Bird and Wildlife, the 200-600 are number one.
If weight is an issue and you want extra reach, the 100-400 + TC might be your best option (though you'll pay to get it!) That combo is 375g or so lighter than the Tamron, and about 525g lighter than the 200-600.
As always great and very informative review! Thank You.
My pleasure!
Another great review Dustin, thanks! You don't mention image quality in this review. Can you comment on that for those of us who prefer the Tamron in almost every other respect, but are concerned about reports, including your own, of softness in the corners on the Tamron compared to the Sony? I really like the Tamron, even the compromise on the extra reach doesn't bother me much, so would you buy the Sony just for the extra sharpness?
I have the Sony 200-600 and can recommend it.
Hi Jim, I broke down the image quality in great detail on my review of the Tamron, and wanted to keep this video shorter. The Tamron is a very sharp lens; there are just a few places where the Sony is sharper. I don't consider image quality to be a major differentiating factor between the two lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin! I appreciate your reply and your opinion on this, which I very much respect. I'm going to buy the Tamron!
I've been waiting for this one and as usual Dustin doesn't disappoint. For my purposes though I've been comparing the Tamron to the 100-400 GM because I rarely need more than 500 MM. I've used the GM and the image quality is great and is probably somewhat better than the Tamron. If the Tamron is as good as the Sigma 100-400 in terms of image quality then it's a no brainer decision for me between the 150-500 vs 100-400....$1,000 us dollars no brainer.
The Tamron is easily as sharp as the Sigma.
Zooms lenses compared i0.wp.com/sonyalpha.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Capture-decran-2021-05-25-a-22.55.34.png?ssl=1
Will you be reviewing the Canon RF 100-500mm zoom? Thanks!
I have been trying to get a copy of that lens for review all year, but there is a severe shortage in Canon's supply chain and there are basically no loaners. I'm hoping sometime this year, but the 100-500 along with the 28-70mm F2 have been pretty much impossible to get.
You ned to move to,Norway, its easy to get here.😀. I have it, it better then both of those two.
As usual a very informative video.
At 8:52 you mention the bigger zoom range of the Sony. I would argue however that it makes more sense to measure zoom range as a ratio: the 50mm at the wide end makes a bigger difference than the 100mm on the narrow end.
The Tamron has a zoom ratio of 500/150=3.33 whereas the Sony has a zoom ratio of 3. But you're right of course that the 100mm at the narrow end may matter more to most photographers.
You are technically right about the zoom ratio, though it's really semantics. In a telephoto lens, however, I would argue that more reach always trumps more on the wide end, and the Sony has the option of even greater reach through TCs.
Another really great review! Thanks
You're welcome
I love the video! But I can’t help to notice that you are comparing the size of the lenses with the Tamron lens hood on and the Sony lens hood off. This can give people the wrong idea. The Tamron, while fully extended is MASSIVELY shorter than the Sony if both are being compared fairly here. I hope someone will make a video on the soap bubble bokeh the tamron produces in many different lighting conditions. That the Sony absolutely is incapable of. You do lose that long end focal range. But having the extra 50mm on the low end, the short minimum focus distance and the soap bubble bokeh. Make the tamron extremely competitive in every aspect. Tamron has some impressive engineers as well as product designers. They managed to fit their lens in a niche market as well as in a mainstream wildlife photography market at the same time. And did it will a very low price. Tamron deserves more credit. As for the Sony. Very great lens. I own both. And love them both. But the Tamron is the one I’ll always take for a hike. The Sony is one I set up on a tripod with a camo tent for eagles.
There are plenty of comparisons with the hood off both. The biggest advantage for the Sony is the superior tracking capabilities, the ability to get full burst speed on sports cameras, and the ability to use TCs. But yes, the Tamron is an excellent lens in many ways.
Please compare sigma 100-400mm vs the new tamron
I've had a few such requests - the problem is that I don't have the Sigma anymore as I sold it to help fund buying the Sony.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Understand. Good job, BTW. I really appreciate your efforts. Next time I buy something, I'll click on your link first. Eventually, I'll buy either this lens or the Sigma 100-400mm; but I just don't need a telephoto right now.
good review, i heard the sony's auto focus is faster than the tamron lens....gr, Wim
If you watch my definitive review of the Tamron, I cover autofocus in great detail. For most work you will not notice a difference in focus speed. The Sony does give you a slightly better keeper rate for high speed action.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i do wildlife and BIF thats wy i want de Sony, i have a Tamron 150-600 g2 + LA-EA5 adapter nowe the lens is Fairly sharp, the auto focus is to slow...and it has no VC in de lens, because it is an A-Mount lens. greetings from the Netherlands...love your reviews thanks
Ahhh, well the autofocus on an adapted lens is nothing like the speed with the Tamron 150-500mm. That being said, if your priority is autofocus and you can handle the size, the Sony is a fantastic lens. I own it myself.
This was insightful I learned a lot Sony has put restrictions on the Tamron. It they hadn’t this would be a win win for the Tamron. I will go with the Sony on this one. The 30 frams. And the conversion.and the white body looks cool.
And that is probably the reason for the restrictions...
OMFG! The frame rate limitation on after market lenses by Sony was an eye opener. I had no idea. I foresee a lot of pissed off emails to Sony over that bullshit…starting with mine!
It's not as unusual as you might think for companies to bias things in their favor.
As i watch this, i see that one person has down-voted you. What a monster!
Great job as always, Dustin. I’ll always cheer you on and wish you success and happiness! Keep up the great work.
Hi Simon - thanks for calling out the monster ;)
Dustin, you may want to view a review of the tamron by photirec tv. He mentions it will shoot at 30 fps plus it has a zoom lock
I'm not sure how that can happen, as I tested both lenses side by side and didn't see that happen. I'll also note that the Tamron USA VP watched my main review and never said otherwise.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm not sure either, but here is the review link if you were not able to find it. I may leave a comment for his review and see what he can say about it.
ua-cam.com/video/GqYgsioOoDE/v-deo.html
@@woodysranch2690 they were wrong.
Dustin, another recent review by PhotoRec TV mentioned the 30FPS only happens on non Sony lens's with the Autofocus turned off. Is this a possible explanation?
Thanks. Been I while since you used the chess table for a review.
Sometimes I need stable surface for displaying products.
I personally love my 100-400, with the 1.5x TC when I'm out in nature and want the little bit of extra reach. The AF and IQ are better than either of these lenses and it's about a half stop to stop brighter. But it's also annoyingly expensive.
That said, if I was purchasing new today, it's hard to argue with the Tamron's value proposition.
By the numbers, the 100-400 GM with the 1.4x TC is actually not better optically than the 200-600mm. It also wasn't better in my tests. But that may be splitting hairs, as both are extremely good, and the form factor of the 100-400mm is very appealing. That's the route I went with Canon in the DSLR side, and I still use my 100-400L II and 1.4x III adapted to my Canon EOS R5 because it is a great combination.
I agree with Dustin. I’ve used the 1-400 with 1.4x tc and 2-600 on an a7r iv and a1. I found the 2-600 to be the better combo.
@@simonp8088 200-600 is a better option compared to 100-400 plus 1.4 tc but the 100-400 is a better lens in quality itself and a better wildlife all around lens( except for birds). And a big plus of it is it's awesome macro ability and it's quality.
I didn’t see much of a quality difference. Both lenses were spectacular to me. The 1-400 size is smaller and the macro ability is better. But overall, the 2-600 worked better for me. Image quality aside, they both produce wonderful results and I’m sure there is no one size fits all.
But...but...what about the all-important image quality differences?
hi Gary, this wasn't an in depth review, and there isn't any significant image quality differences. There's some give and take, with the Sony largely being better in the corners, but I don't think there is a decisive edge either way.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin, that's helpful.
I trust Dustin for good information.
I appreciate that
Firstly thank you for this information.
Glad it was helpful!
For Bird and Wildlife Photography I can recommend the Sony 200-600mm 5.6-6.3 G Lens, I am pleased it and I am keeping it, I do though wish for Prime Lenses like 300mm 4.0, 400mm 4.5 (the Minolta 400 4.5 was great !) and 500mm 5.6 !
I do hope we'll see some third party telephoto primes, or at least more options from Sony.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I really hope we will see those primes soon, I have the Sony 200-600, but I do not like zoom lenses.
Native lens keep their value more!
That is a valid point.
I am wondering where you get the old german money from.
As a child I collected foreign currency. I would get it from missionaries, swap meets, etc…
@@DustinAbbottTWI I like it because Im from Germany and it remembers me when I was a child 😊
The Sony is one of those lenses that I think a lot of people won't actually end up taking out of the home because it's just so big.
That is a fair point. I don’t reach for this kind of lens often myself, but I also want to have one for those rare moments when I do
Exactly why I ordered the Tamron today.
Now we need a tamron vs sigma showdown
I do a bit of mention in the Sony vs Sigma episode, but I didn't have both the Sigma and the Tamron at the same time.
You really need to do BIF tests with kites or things like that because the Sony is significantly more accurate than this lens
That's assuming that I have kites available.
uh..out of context, but..are those vinyl floor panels glued on the wall? looks terrible imo
They are actually old oak and maple veneers, and I love the look...as does everyone who has seen it in person.
Wait a minute. I just noticed you have the two lenses side by side, but the Sony doesn’t have its lens hood attached, unlike the Tamron. This minimizes the real difference in length between the two. Play fair, my man.
Play fair? Half of the comparison is emphasizing the difference in size. Don't you think you're overreacting?
Half the video Sony had the lens hood on. Maybe you should pay attention lol
@@ernieojeda perhaps you should pay attention, LOL brain. I was referring to the only scene in the video when the lenses were side by side on the table, and the lens hoods were not attached to either lens.
Christ, America is full of idiots!
I hear the VC on the Tamron is just okay.
Truth be told, VC/OS on these long lenses is just okay in general. They make a big difference, but don't expect things to be rock solid like on, say, a 70-200.
I absolutely hate the artificial limitations, I find it indicitive of douchebag companies that mistreat their customers. Thanks for letting me know that I need to sell my Sony body I was not aware they were doing this and at such an annoyingly high price point!
It's actually not unusual for first parties to bias things in favor of their own lenses. Canon won't allow for third party lenses to have in camera corrections, for example, and neither Canon nor Nikon share focus algorithms. In fact, there isn't really any kind of third party development for Canon RF and Nikon Z right now, so who exactly are you turning to?
@@DustinAbbottTWI The entire extensive history of cameras and equipment... most of which can produce similar if not higher quality prints ;) I don't have to give a dime to those assholes but they will likely never stop due to the VAST majority of men these days having absolutely no balls and an outlook that they cant change anything about their world and environment when nothing else could be further from the truthx and in doing so just capitulate to such blatant mistreatment. It does appear to be an industry wide problem... an industry that is DYING despite photos being more popular than ever... ITS BECAUSE YOU P#SSIES KEEP EATING WHATEVER GRULE THEY PUMP OUT
@@DustinAbbottTWI That is exactly why the camera industry is the ONLY one to use an intentionally obtuse metric for screen resolution "dots" to mislead customers for instance... I mean people blame smart phones but after experiencing the industry for a while i believe the real problem is dumb cameras resulting from a toxic customer / manufacturer relationship.
You're going to find that the nikon and Canon alternatives give you way way less functionality with their party lenses.
My experience is GM>Tamron>G.
I wouldn't call that a hard and fast rule, as it depends on the lens.
I have both lenses, having bought the Sony back in 2019 and used it to great effect in Botswana. Love that internal helical zoom.
I bought the Tampon last week out of necessity; I simply couldn’t pack both the Sony 200-600mm and my Sony 600mm, so I bought the Tamron after reading a review on DP Review.
I’ll compare the two when I return from Alaska photographing brown bears and Kodiak bears,
What I do like right off the bat is the Arca-Swiss foot on the Tamron. Why doesn’t Sony do this! You ask?
I retort, go ask Canon and Nikon…they do the same thing…a foot which is useless for anything other than a carrying handle. Idiots!
Completely agree on the tripod foot issue. It just makes no sense to me
How was your trip to Alaska? What do you think about the Tamron 150-500mm? Would be great to hear a short review from you, as you have the 200-600 and 600 too. Would be great to know how it compares to the two Sony lenses.
Besides quality considerations, if you shoot video and do not wish to carry a 10K+ heavy tripod, you need an internal zoom lens, otherwise the trombone protruding in max extension will send the balance out and damage your shot. Half a century of experience told by me that…..
www.youtube.com/@CarloFerraro
Fair enough!
Tamron is sharper than Sony
Based on what?
The lack of an Arca Swiss foot is just lazy
Agreed.
In all manufacturers.
Absolutely, Heritage.