What do you think? Is the compact size and the excellent center resolution enough for you to give up 20mm or reach at the long end? Having used the lens for a few months, I find myself wanting to use the Tamron for just about everything.
Great review, just missed one thing: the Sony can use 2x teleconverter which turns the lens into a 400mm lens 😁 I you want a reach beyond 200mm like me but don't want to carry another lens that super useful! I also found the Tamron to produce warmer images and the Sony more contrasty. Also the Sony's build should prevent dust getting in the lens. That Tamron is tasty though, I really wish Tamron had a teleconverter! 😔
@@ZoltanF1LH Ahh yes. I have had a couple of 2x teleconverters over the years, and I'm not crazy about them...but I understand the draw, especially when weight is a concern (and that's really what attracts me to the Tamron). These days, since there are so many lenses like the Tamron and Sigma 100-400 or 150-600mm lenses that are so inexpensive (I think I bought my Sigma for $699) and the image quality is so much better than a teleconverted lens, I usually just keep one in the trunk of my car all the time. As for the Tamron producing warmer images, I agree... but I'm not sure which one is actually more accurate; the Sony seems a little cool to me sometimes. But either way, I profile the lens and apply the custom profile to the RAW files, and after that they're identical where color is concerned. Of course, I didn't do that for this video.
@@MatthewGore have you tried the Sony 2x teleconverter for the FE mount? I wonder of the quality... My plan was to buy A7C + 16-35GM + 70-200GM + 2x teleconverter to keep the weight and size of my camera package without sacrificing IQ. (I very rarely shoot between 35-70mm, mostly shoot between 16-35 & 70-300) What would you recommend instead of this setup? I like to use the JPGs for quickly sharing them when on holiday or trips (only process the best pics from RAW when I get home) I think I prefer the Tamron's warmer colour ever so slightly more. I like your lens profile idea though! Thanks for your reply you gained a new subscriber, great video! 🙂
@@ZoltanF1LH I haven't tried the 2x teleconverter since I've switched to Sony, unfortunately. The problem with teleconverters is more general, though, than a particular product... since they're basically taking the output of a lens and magnifying the end result, it is going to magnify all of the flaws that come out of the original lens... so if a lens is not sharp at f/2.8 without the teleconverter, it's going to be twice as soft at f/5.6 (wide open) with the teleconverter... and color fringe (purple or green) will be even harder to correct. Anyway, as you probably know... there's no free lunch when it comes to lenses. If you want to cut down the weight of your camera bag quite a bit, it's probably going to come at the cost of some quality somewhere. It may be that the 2x converter would produce good enough quality for your purposes. Tamron has just announce a new, compact 70-300mm for Sony-E, but I haven't tested it yet. Might be an option. Otherwise, I can't think of any good alternative that wouldn't mean adding a big hefty lens to your kit.
Exactly on point about the white lenses. I bought the Tamron 70-180 precisely because I don’t want people to start giving me a hard time at my kids soccer games
I went with the tamron. I’ve seen Sony reviews with hunting focus and soft at f2.8. Tamron got another 💎 along with 28-70 which also had amazing review.
Hi I just got a new Tamron 70-180 when I take it out of the box, I felt something shaking inside it also Made in Vietnam, I’ve 28-75 lens without any problem it is Made in Japan! Any idea if this a problem and what is this weird sound? Does anyone have a Tamron lens made in Japan? Thanks
A lot of lenses these days seem to rattle a little bit when they're powered off. I'm not sure what it is, but it seems to be normal. Of the Tamron lenses that I have in front of me right now, two are made in China (70-300mm and 28-75mm), two are made in Vietnam (17-70mm and 17-28mm).
Thanks! Glad you liked them. That was a surprisingly productive afternoon... it was my first time in that area and I didn't know what I'd find, but I got lucky
I just can’t get past the tactile feeling of the GM. It’s like the Mustang GT of lenses, you wanna spend hours driving it for no reason other than to enjoy it
I skipped to the end of the video, and when you talked about the advantages to the GM it seemed like you left out that you can use a 1.4 or 2X teleconverter with the Sony and cannot with the Tamron. but I love the Tamron size and weight.
Yes, that's true. I bought a 2x teleconverter, but I've always been so disappointed with the image quality with it that I don't ever use it... so I probably wouldn't list it as an advantage. Maybe the 1.4x is better... I'll have to spend more time with one.
I’ve never owned a zoom before. Which lens would you pick between the Tamron 70-180 and the Tamron 28-75? I know they are very different but in terms of versatility and say if you already have primes such as 24mm, 35mm and 85mm. I guess the 70-180 makes more sense? But I wonder if I’d prefer the practicality of 28-75 and not have to swap primes often. The 70-180 however seems to create more unique images.
You're right... lens choice is a very personal decision, and really depends on what type of images you're looking for. I'm a huge fan of the 70-200mm range... it fits the type of images that I envision really nicely. But some photographers seems to be able to travel with nothing but a 35mm lens and think they need nothing else. But I agree... if you have the primes already, I'd go for the telephoto zoom.
Hey April, for what it's worth, neither of them have any problematic color fringing. With Sony RAW files, there's automatic correction in Lightroom / Adobe Camera RAW, which makes it very hard to compare.
I shoot a lot of sports with my Sony A9's. The Tamron being so much sharper at f2.8 is a big deal for me as I shoot in low light most of time. 20mm difference is not a big deal for me as long as the resolution is good. Right now I'm shooting Canon lenses that are adapted to my Sony A9's with the Sigma MC-11. The Sigma adapter does a fairly good job, but with some limitations. I think after seeing your reviews and talking with other pros. I'm going to sell my Canon lenses and get the trifecta of Tamron lenses. Thanks for doing these comprehensive reviews, it's very important to the professionals to understand that there are choices out there that can get the job done for you with high quality results without putting a major dent in your pocketbook. Third party lenses have come a long way from the 1970's when I started out as a pro. The quality is so far superior in comparison to even just a few years ago. Thanks Matthew and stay safe.
Great to see you posting another comparison video, Matt - outstanding as usual. And although I'm still in the Canon camp (7D II & 5D III), the Tamron lens made switching to Sony look just that much more attractive. Keep up the awesome work - and watch out for teargas!
Thanks for the video. I have owned the GM for almost 2 years now and have loved it except for the weight. I've thought about selling it to get the Tamron and putting the difference towards a new body. Plus the weight savings would be great on top of some extra resolution. But as a relatively new professional photographer the GM buys me some gravitas from some people as you mentioned. My practical side is arguing with my vanity side LOL.
Yes, the vanity side is hard to shake :-) It hasn't driven me to be a Leica shooter yet, though! (Just kidding... Leica makes some nice cameras and lenses... it's not ALL vanity).
I'D LIKE TO SEE A REAL WORLD COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SONY 70-200MM F/4 G ANDTHE TAMRON 70-180MM F2.8. OBVIOUSLY THE TAMRON HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXTRA STOP BUT, COST AND WEIGHT COMPARISONS ARE CLOSER BETWEEN THE F/4 g AND THE TAMRON F/2.8...
Great video. Would you be able to do lens comparison between Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM VS sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG DN. particularly interested to see F4 problem with Sigma. Regards
I already shot for the Tamron vs Sigma 24-70 (and already published the Sony vs Tamron), so if I do a Sony vs Sigma, it will be down the line somewhere. That said, I'm looking at the Sigma images right now, and there's no obvious f/4 problem.
My 70-200 GM is a love hate relationship. Close focus strong backlit images have awful color fringing - some of the worst I have seen. But what I love about the GM: 1) I can use the teleconverters on it which is one of the few ways to have a 280 f/4. 2) Supports the A9 20 fps. 3) No extending lens barrel 4) Manual focus is so nice 5) I have replaced the foot with a Kirk foot and it is interchangeable with my 100-400 GM I hate that color fringing. I watch out for it now. Sometimes I have been tempted to get the 135 GM. Back in my days with Fuji, I always preferred using my 90 f/2 over the 50-140 f/2.8.
I'm not sure that I've really noticed a particularly bad problem with fringing with the 70-200 GM; maybe a little here and there? That's interesting... I'll have to keep an eye out for it. That 135mm GM is a really nice lens!
I appreciate the good review. I went with the Tamron, and I'm getting excellent results. One difference with the new Sony bodies is high-speed frame rate is limited to 15 FPS with the Tamron while the Sony allows 30 FPS. Not an issue for me, but it might be for some.
Glad you liked the review. I'm still not shooting with an A9 or A1, so not an issue for me either. The new Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is significantly lighter than the original... about a pound less, which makes the Tamron a little less attractive from a weight perspective, but not when it comes to size or price.
Video stabilization would be a useful oss test. Your protest video with the tamron was good, but jumpy at 200mm. Is the Sony better? Could I smoothly record my toddler running around with one but not the other?
Hey Martin, You're probably right that a couple of video clips would be better than nothing. Viewers would have to take a fair amount on faith, though... that the size and weight differences of the lenses wouldn't significantly affect how much the lenses move, that I was holding them with equal attention and stability, that I wasn't being jostled more at one time than another, and that I'd chosen a section of the video to show that is representative of the performance (not picking the best part, intentionally or otherwise...). Incidentally, that's what I did with this video clip of the in the protest. I have several minutes of video, and I intentionally included a part that has just enough stable time so that people get a fair idea of what's going on, but otherwise I chose a bit that had a lot of noise and movement, to convey the feeling of the place. I was also shooting video cropped to APS-C... accidentally. Ugh.
One thing I did notice is that the models pop quite a bit more with the GM, the separation is very noticeable compared to the tamron.it has more character but certainly isn't as clinical which in a way makes it a more ideal portrait lense. The tamron is a all around amazing lense for the price
Agreed. The blacks really popped on the Sony - there was a more contrasty look to the images taken with it. It was particularly noticeable on the portraits.
Thank you for the review. It would have been interesting to see bokeh comparisons at the same focal lengths, for instance 180mm and maybe 135mm. I think the differences that we see are mostly due to the difference in focal length, but cannot be sure.
The 70-180 f/2.8 (or a more common 70-200) is a standard workhorse for most photojournalists, event/wedding photographers, travel, portraits, indoor sports and some outdoor sports, landscape, street... etc. If you don't have a lens in this range, I'd recommend one. The 70-300mm is much more limited; it lets in a lot less light and isn't great for shooting indoors, but of course, it also has its uses.
Thorough comparison, if possible do a comparison between Tamron 28-200mm and this Tamron 70-180mm f2.8, you see most people don't need f2.8 and Tamron 28-200mm is adequate for most situations.
@@MatthewGore you are probably right cos I am not a professional, What I mean is CONSTANT f2.8 throughout the focal length. I believe 28-200mm range will suit MOST people in probably 80-90% cases/applications, and this lens is SHARP. besides cutting down costs for non- professionals like myself I don't make money from images.
my first camera was cheap ......and I want too best for me ....I go every time cheap lenses and wanna good result ! no it doesn't work! second kamera now is not cheap but I do it again ......I buy expensive but not so correct lenses! and now..... good camera Sony A7r2 (moment is cheaper and better than a7r4) and my lenses only 2.8 if you don't wanna buy expensive lenses just buy Tamron and for city tour ...travell photograpfie or street photographie or archietechour 17-28mm f/2.8 ideal mountains -sunsets- hikes -sports- portrait-people(on the parties) go for Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 and don't buy 28-200 you can't sunset photos with them you can't night photo with them if you have 5K monitor or 4K you gonna cry after travel wenn you see photos at the monitor !or your TV!
What good does the heavy body do if it doesn't protect the lens itself. I seriously wonder, which lens has better durability or is more prone to failure. I guess that will more depend on the internal structure than the body. If you drop it face down, higher weight will be more prone to break the front glass element. Plastic is also bouncy and can absorb shocks, the Sony will transmit more shock energy to the internals. The more rigid and heavy lens will also put more stress on the camera. The only exception where a heavier lens may be better, is when you bounce it into something light, where the heavy body would move the light object out of the way. Though all that is said by someone who lost his Tamron SP 70-300 4.5-5.6 after dropping it, which caused the internal focus mechanism to jam up (externally the lens looks perfectly fine).
Thanks :-) There's a lot to like about the Tamron... the unit I've been testing was loaned to me by Tamron, and I'm really tempted to buy one myself. The only question would be whether I'd ALSO keep the Sony. I sold my Sony 24-70 GM, since I found that I was always carrying the Tamron instead, but sometimes I wish that I still had it for the 24mm end.
Actually, I'd really like to test the Canon 35 II against the Tamron 35 f/1.4 that was supposed to be their best 35mm ever. It's supposed to be amazing, but I still haven't had a chance to use it. But that would be at the back of a long line...
I think I can live without the extra 20mm and slightly better bokeh to save $1400. 😬 Only thing I'll miss is the AF/MF switch. Got that on my Sigma Primes and as a 95% video shooter, it's very handy. But considering I'm using AF more and more for the type of work I use zooms for, it won't be the biggest deal in the world. I really need a telephoto zoom on my Sony since I have to pull out the GH5 for all my zoom shots, and the image quality just isn't the same.
@matthew This video is a huge help in choosing between the two. Any chance you can share your settings on those competition cheer photos? I am just switching to Mirrorless and I do a ton of cheer with my daughter's comp team. Those shots a spot on!
Glad it was helpful. If you haven't already seen my recent video about the Tamron 17-70mm lens, ua-cam.com/video/Z_6DrSo5Aow/v-deo.html those cheer pictures make a brief appearance and there's also a little more explanation about the exposure, so you might find that interesting, too. For now, though... I shot those images at 1/1000th sec at f/2.8 and ISO 3200, but sometimes ISO6400 is required. For pictures like that, I always use manual exposure, because the large areas of darkness and the very bright highlights will trick even the best camera meters, and it's quick and easy to set the correct exposure when I get to a venue and then just never touch it again. Beyond the exposure settings, I shoot RAW files instead of JPG because the camera's auto white-balance is no match for the crazy colored lights at these things, I set my focus mode to "Continuous AF" aka AF-C , so that I get focus on moving subjects, and I usually use a fixed AF point in the center of the frame. But the actual settings will change from venue to venue. The important part is the process of getting the right settings. The trick is to set the camera to "M", then set the aperture to the largest aperture to let in the most light (f/2.8, for example... or f/2 or f/1.4 are even better if you have them), then set the shutterspeed to 1/1000th second. With those two things set, just start taking test shots, stepping up the ISO until you're getting something you're happy with. Start with ISO 1600, and if it's too dark, try ISO3200 and if it's still too dark, try ISO6400. Depending on your camera, when you set the ISO too high, the image quality will not be acceptable anymore, so you'll need to know your ceiling, and if you reach your ceiling and it's still too dark, then there's nothing you can do except think about buying a lens with a larger aperture :-) You can also lower your shutter speed to 1/500th, and might get lucky with a non-blurry shot when there's not much motion. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Wow! thank you for all of this. It is extremely helpful. Spent the last 4 years or so getting decent shots of her team using a similar approach where I would bracket off some shots beforehand and then lock it in. I am coming from a Canon 7DMII and loved shooting on my Tamron 70-200 2.8. I am excited to start learning the Sony system a bit. Given I will do some video as well, I was always leaning toward the native G Master lens, but after watching alot of your video sand others the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world are hard to beat at half the cost many times especially as a prosumer like myself. I truly appreciate all of the time you invest in making these types of videos they help so many of us and also the time taken to respond here. My daughter and her teams will be at Summit in May and look to use some of your recommendations and my new Sony setup finally after all of the lockdowns. Thank you again! P.S. Shooting now with a A7iii
P.S.S. Possibly the biggest thing this video showcased to me was how minimal the tradeoff of the 20mm at the end of the zoom range is based on what I shoot. Aside from build quality this basically helped keep an additional $1200 in my pocket or at the very least add an additional lens to my arsenal.
Funny because on the portrait, the focal difference is quite a lot in my opinion but on the landscape, I really do not care. Lucky me not really being into portraits.
i use my Sony 85mm f/1.8 wide open for outdoor portraits and my 70-200mm f/4 G OSS for studio portraits. I most often shoot around f/5.6-f/8 in a studio-like situation, since I have control of the background... I have considered buying the Tamron to see if I could use the Tamron in lieu of both Sony lenses... Since COVID-19, I have not been shooting portraits and won't pull the trigger on the Tamron until the world gets back to normalcy...
Yes, the Tamron 70-180mm is compatible with APS-C cameras like the a6100, 6400, etc. However, the smaller sensor on these cameras give you a narrower angle of view, so the lens looks more like a 105-270mm zoom, which is great if you want more reach from your lens.
Thanks for the answer. I mean the Tamron 70-200. I know it's not the lens you are talking about in the video, sorry. But maybe you could tell me. Thanks a lot. 🙏🏽🤗
@@lesliedardel9325 Ahh, in that case, the answer is NO... at least, not without an adapter. Tamron doesn't make a 70-200mm lens in Sony E-mount yet. With an adapter, then yes... probably, but performance may suffer. Good luck!
When I opened these RAW files, I set them both to "Daylight" color balance instead of setting the white balance correctly for each, so the colors here reflect that. The two lenses do render colors differently, but these differences would disappear if the white balance were set properly. And using correct custom camera/lens profiles helps, too.
@@MatthewGore さん I can understand your explanation about the difference two lens colors. if right white balance is set for each,the differences disappear.Thank you for easy explanation to understand.
Keep in mind that these portrait images were shot outdoors on a somewhat cloudy Seattle day, with the sun drifting in and out of clouds, so the lighting changed from shot to shot. The ones at 1:30, for example... the Tamron shot has actual flare from direct sun, where the Sony was behind a cloud and there was no direct sun. Those images are only supposed to show differences in angle of view.
@@MatthewGore I guess I was just pulling my view from comparison videos I’ve seen across the web of Sony and tamron, tamron is great forsure but compared to Sony idk I think Sony slightly more coloring. Could be wrong thank you for pointing that out good point!!!
This is extremely valid information. It basically tells anyone shooting Sony, you should hold off as long as possible for either the Sigma 70-200 or Sony's own refresh. Use the tamron in the mean time coz this GM is just not worth it outright. If I had a gun to my head now though, I'd get the Sony because I shoot really little portraits and value corner sharpness over most of the stuff. Also, stabilization and tripod collar is nice to have.
Great review! I got mine a couple days ago but I've noticed that in the viewfinder I no longer get the small green AF squares that light up in the focus area on my A7iii. I still have the box indicating the focus area but not the individual AF squares. Is this the same with yours?
Hi ... thank you for that great Video ... I'm more into Aviation Photography, Sport Photography , Bird Photography and Astrophotography / Low Light Architecture Photography mainly , and from time to time a bit of Real Estate and Widlife Photography so saying that which of those 2 Lenses would you recommend for my Sony A9 and A7S ? Please
Bird/wildlife and aviation photography are a couple of areas where the extra reach of the 200mm lens might make a difference. Other than that, I haven't had any problem with autofocus performance with the Tamron for sports, and the resolution and general image quality of the Tamron is excellent for architecture. As you've seen in the video... there is a difference between the lenses at 180mm and 200mm in terms of magnification, but it's not a huge difference. You'll have to decide whether that amount is going to be important to the kind of work you do... but I'd be tempted to either buy the Tamron or wait for Sony to refresh their 70-200, or wait for Sigma. I like the Sony lens and have been using it for year, but it's a lot of money for a lens that isn't super sharp at f/2.8. Good luck!
Sony is never going to be in the same price bracket as the Tamron, and they certainly can't afford to compromise the the 200mm long end. However, what they do need to look at is the Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8L. Only a little heavier that the Tamron, almost the same length (in the bag) and sharper than the Sony. That's what Sony need to aim for to justify the price premium.
Very true. To be fair to Sony, though, the 70-200 GM was announced back in 2015 or 2016, a couple of years before Canon had even announced the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS III, much less the RF mount lens, so I don't expect them to be matching Canon's latest lenses. I do hope that, as you suggest, they learn from Canon's improvements for their next generation. I do have some reservations about how much the lens extends on the Canon... I really like the idea of an internal zooming lens. Seems more stable and less prone to problems with dust and sand.
I would have said the same thing (that mine is very sharp), until I saw my f/2.8 photos next to the Tamron ones. In real world use, they look nice and sharp. :-) That said, there have been really dramatic differences in lab test results for the Sony lens, some showing that it's super sharp at f/2.8 (DxO, for example) and others showing that it's significantly softer (several samples tested by LensRentals). All I can do is report my results, but at the very least, my results are similar to those that quite a few others are getting. (See the LensRentals follow up, and see the results at the 50lp/mm range, since I'm using an R series camera: www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/ ).
Yes! The AF on the Tamron lens has been just as fast and reliable as the Sony for me. I haven't actually measured the focal travel time, but I have shot enough action with it to know that for practical purposes, the Tamron's VXD focusing motor is plenty fast enough.
Since both lenses would give you good shutter speeds, it comes down to resolution and autofocus reliability. The resolution of the Tamron is better at f/2.8, for me, and the AF seems great. However, because of COVID, I haven't actually used the lens to shoot basketball games, yet... so I can't give you a definitive answer. I don't have any reason to believe that there'd be any problem with the Tamron's AF; I shoot basketball with the 28-75 f/2.8 all the time with no problems at all. Obviously, the Sony lens will give you a little bit of extra reach, but I don't find that to be a big advantage shooting basketball. At the fast shutterspeeds needed for shooting sports, image stabilization isn't much of a concern, either.
@@MatthewGore I shot with the 70-300 last night, and my images didn't come out great. f/5.6-f/6.3. I am thinking I need to invest in this f/2.8. Thanks for the information.
@@harrybugarin6923 Yes, it's nearly impossible to shoot sports indoors with an f5.6 lens unless you're using strobes. If you're getting 1/1000th sec at f/2.8, that's only 1/250th at f/5.6 (and worse at 6.3), and a 250th isn't going to stop much in the way of action. Good luck!
You do it from the AF menu of the camera. On my A7RIII, the "C3" button controls the autofocus mode, by default, but that will vary depending on the camera. From this menu, you can set the focus mode to AF-S, AF-C, AF-A, or MF
I feel that it would be worth waiting for Sigma to release their 70-200 before making a purchase. The Tamron looks good for the price but the build quality is lacking plus losing the 20mm at the long end is noticeable.
Fair. To me, the build quality of the Tamron is quite good... just lightweight. It feels sturdy; I don't worry about that. There is definitely a difference losing those 20mm, though. I'm a fan of the new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for Sony E, but it is heavy... and that's the direction that Sigma has generally been doing: high quality but big and heavy. So it will be a hard choice, for me, between that and the light-weight Tamron.
Great video! I wonder how this amazing Tamron lens would compare in IQ to an adapted Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM on the a7rii. My current dilemma. Because once the $ value is almost the same or inferior than of the Tamron, the weight penalty seems lighter. At least in paper, my back will most likely disagree. Also, you made a great point about how one is perceived based on the look the lens, something to carefully ponder, sometimes a gigantic white tube will get unwanted attention when traveling and such. Do you think the lack of IS in the Tamron is that much of a deal breaker?
When I first switched from Canon to Sony, I used an adapted 70-200 f/2.8L with my A7RIII, and the image quality was good... but the autofocus performance was pretty bad. I was using a Sigma adapter, but I'd expect the same thing with other adapter brands. There were lags, and it just wasn't very snappy. So, with the sports and wildlife that I normally shoot, the Canon just wasn't a viable option for the long term, thought I did make it work for several months. The lack of IS in the Tamron isn't really a concern for those of us shooting with cameras that have IBIS. I had no problem with the 70-180 in that regard. For people who don't have IBIS, then YES! It's a big problem... not so much for sports, but for street photography and events in low light, and wildlife in lower light... that stabilization makes a huge difference in sharpness below 1/500th second
@@MatthewGore Your experience when switching systems sounds familiar. It's very interesting how some growing pains resonate in the photogs community. Unless you're made of money, not me, I'm always trying to balance that pursuit for the best image we can deliver and its cost. And there's need to be some money left to get there to make those images! Right? So about IBIS, yeah, I couldn't live without it, I know it works, I have it in all the three bodies I shoot with and I also know that proper technique/settings help compensate not having IS on the lens, I've been shooting with lots of manual vintage lenses, my Pentax 70-210mm f/4 has produced amazingly sharp images. I think I'm closer to making a good decision thanks to your feedback. Thank you! Subscribed.
UA-cam just recommended this video to me and I was looking for exactly these two lenses compared. Great video. I also noticed you live in Seattle and I do too. Subscribed! I am kind of torn after watching this video, because this is the first one I have seen which says Tamron is sharper than Sony. Every other video I watched had me convinced that Sony is really for professional work and best investment for your photography while Tamron is a compromise. I am considering Sony because I have got some gift money and I wanted to get only one lens that will be good for my Landscape Photography and will give me sharper photos. I invest in lenses once in 2-3 years so I want this next purchase to be solid and backed by detailed research . Now that you have had 11 months more with these lenses after this video, do you still find Tamron sharper than Sony?
The Tamron is certainly still sharper than my Sony at f/2.8 (and the differences are minimal after that). However, in real world use, the Sony has always been sharp enough for me, and I still have only tested the lens against my own Sony lens... it's always possible that its an anomaly (though, looking at the test results on the LensRentals website, my results seem reasonable).
@@MatthewGore you have tested the sony against your own sony lens? Sorry didn't get you. Which sony lens have you tested it against? Also did you happen to test out the Sony 70-200mm f4 Oss lens? That's 1200 USD cheaper.
@@rajatcoool I've only tested the Tamron against my own Sony lens. Ideally, I'd test several samples of the Tamron against several samples of the Sony, but that's not practical for me. I have used the Sony 70-200 f/4 OSS, and it's a good lens, but I haven't done any sort of thorough testing with it... just casual use.
When I spoke with some people at Sigma last year (October of 2019) I got a hint that a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for Sony E-mount (and L-mount, presumably) was in the works, but I haven't heard any firm details since then. I'm REALLY impressed with the optics of the Sigma 24-70, though, so hopefully they can pull off the same sort of thing with the 70-200 (but without going overboard on the weight).
Nice vid bro. Quick question @matthew.. At 13.35, the model looks leaner in Sony lens’ image and slightly plump on the tamron shot. Is it a due to difference in angle while shooting or due to the property of the lens.
Good question. Looking at some of the surrounding images from that shoot, I'd say that the difference is just a matter of angle and pose. There IS potentially a slimming effect from longer lenses, but the difference between 180 and 200 should be pretty negligible in that regard, and it's certainly not something that I've noticed with the Tamron in particular.
@@MatthewGore thanks for the revert. One last question. I am all sold on Tamron 70-180mm but for a small issue. With no lens stabilisation, I am concerned that at 180mm even the slightest of tremble can reduce the sharpness of the image. Is it a real issue? Planning to buy the lens, this one input could make or break the deal. Thanks in Advance bro! :)
@@srinivazzio When shooting hand-held, I've only ever used the Tamron lens on a camera that has in-body image stabilization. There is always going to be some reduction in resolution when shooting hand-held, even if you have image stabilization in your camera body or in the lens, but it's pretty negligible at shutter speeds over 1/500th second.
@@MatthewGore thanks. I have Sony A73, hence in body stabilisation is taken care of. I wonder how steady my hands would have to be at 1/80th or 1/100 shutter speed.
@@srinivazzio You probably know the rule: with no stabilization, most people can hand hold a lens when the shutter speed is 1/lens length .... so for a 180mm lens, most people would be fine at 1/180th second. With stabilization, each stop of stabilization cuts that number in half. The A7 series of cameras might claim 5 stops of stabilization, but I think that 3 is a safer estimate, so 180/2= 90 90/2=45 and 45/2= ~20. So, you should be able to hand-hold a 1/20th or 1/30th second just fine, assuming that your subject is not moving at all. I don't usually push it that much... but I regularly shoot at 1/60th of a second with no problems.
What do you think? Is the compact size and the excellent center resolution enough for you to give up 20mm or reach at the long end? Having used the lens for a few months, I find myself wanting to use the Tamron for just about everything.
Great review, just missed one thing: the Sony can use 2x teleconverter which turns the lens into a 400mm lens 😁 I you want a reach beyond 200mm like me but don't want to carry another lens that super useful!
I also found the Tamron to produce warmer images and the Sony more contrasty.
Also the Sony's build should prevent dust getting in the lens.
That Tamron is tasty though, I really wish Tamron had a teleconverter! 😔
@@ZoltanF1LH Ahh yes. I have had a couple of 2x teleconverters over the years, and I'm not crazy about them...but I understand the draw, especially when weight is a concern (and that's really what attracts me to the Tamron). These days, since there are so many lenses like the Tamron and Sigma 100-400 or 150-600mm lenses that are so inexpensive (I think I bought my Sigma for $699) and the image quality is so much better than a teleconverted lens, I usually just keep one in the trunk of my car all the time.
As for the Tamron producing warmer images, I agree... but I'm not sure which one is actually more accurate; the Sony seems a little cool to me sometimes. But either way, I profile the lens and apply the custom profile to the RAW files, and after that they're identical where color is concerned. Of course, I didn't do that for this video.
@@MatthewGore have you tried the Sony 2x teleconverter for the FE mount? I wonder of the quality...
My plan was to buy A7C + 16-35GM + 70-200GM + 2x teleconverter to keep the weight and size of my camera package without sacrificing IQ. (I very rarely shoot between 35-70mm, mostly shoot between 16-35 & 70-300) What would you recommend instead of this setup?
I like to use the JPGs for quickly sharing them when on holiday or trips (only process the best pics from RAW when I get home) I think I prefer the Tamron's warmer colour ever so slightly more.
I like your lens profile idea though!
Thanks for your reply you gained a new subscriber, great video! 🙂
@@ZoltanF1LH I haven't tried the 2x teleconverter since I've switched to Sony, unfortunately. The problem with teleconverters is more general, though, than a particular product... since they're basically taking the output of a lens and magnifying the end result, it is going to magnify all of the flaws that come out of the original lens... so if a lens is not sharp at f/2.8 without the teleconverter, it's going to be twice as soft at f/5.6 (wide open) with the teleconverter... and color fringe (purple or green) will be even harder to correct.
Anyway, as you probably know... there's no free lunch when it comes to lenses. If you want to cut down the weight of your camera bag quite a bit, it's probably going to come at the cost of some quality somewhere. It may be that the 2x converter would produce good enough quality for your purposes. Tamron has just announce a new, compact 70-300mm for Sony-E, but I haven't tested it yet. Might be an option. Otherwise, I can't think of any good alternative that wouldn't mean adding a big hefty lens to your kit.
Really great video! Have you noticed dust getting into the Tamron? I heard that mentioned in another video, but wondering if it's an outlier.
The trinity lens from Tamron will make switching system to Sony mirrorless easier and cheaper.
Exactly on point about the white lenses. I bought the Tamron 70-180 precisely because I don’t want people to start giving me a hard time at my kids soccer games
I went with the tamron. I’ve seen Sony reviews with hunting focus and soft at f2.8. Tamron got another 💎 along with 28-70 which also had amazing review.
Hi I just got a new Tamron 70-180 when I take it out of the box, I felt something shaking inside it also Made in Vietnam, I’ve 28-75 lens without any problem it is Made in Japan! Any idea if this a problem and what is this weird sound? Does anyone have a Tamron lens made in Japan? Thanks
A lot of lenses these days seem to rattle a little bit when they're powered off. I'm not sure what it is, but it seems to be normal. Of the Tamron lenses that I have in front of me right now, two are made in China (70-300mm and 28-75mm), two are made in Vietnam (17-70mm and 17-28mm).
@@MatthewGore Many thanks 🙏🏼
dedicated to the craft man - wow. those field/farm shots blew my mind
Thanks! Glad you liked them. That was a surprisingly productive afternoon... it was my first time in that area and I didn't know what I'd find, but I got lucky
Forget about the lens, your photos looks really great man!
Thanks :-)
BEST REVIEWER ON UA-cam. This was by far the most helpful review of these lenses. My decision is solidified. I CAN SLEEP AGAIN!
Thanks Sarah, glad it was helpful!
Wow, one of the best reviews on these two lenses. Amazing work. Thank you! Subscribed.
I sell all sony lenses .........toooooo heavy
and now 70-180 and 17-28 just too Tamron.....! this weekend gonna mountains to try them !
I just can’t get past the tactile feeling of the GM. It’s like the Mustang GT of lenses, you wanna spend hours driving it for no reason other than to enjoy it
I skipped to the end of the video, and when you talked about the advantages to the GM it seemed like you left out that you can use a 1.4 or 2X teleconverter with the Sony and cannot with the Tamron. but I love the Tamron size and weight.
Yes, that's true. I bought a 2x teleconverter, but I've always been so disappointed with the image quality with it that I don't ever use it... so I probably wouldn't list it as an advantage. Maybe the 1.4x is better... I'll have to spend more time with one.
I’ve never owned a zoom before. Which lens would you pick between the Tamron 70-180 and the Tamron 28-75? I know they are very different but in terms of versatility and say if you already have primes such as 24mm, 35mm and 85mm. I guess the 70-180 makes more sense? But I wonder if I’d prefer the practicality of 28-75 and not have to swap primes often. The 70-180 however seems to create more unique images.
You're right... lens choice is a very personal decision, and really depends on what type of images you're looking for. I'm a huge fan of the 70-200mm range... it fits the type of images that I envision really nicely. But some photographers seems to be able to travel with nothing but a 35mm lens and think they need nothing else. But I agree... if you have the primes already, I'd go for the telephoto zoom.
@@MatthewGore Great, thank you so much for answering my questions and for your feedback! Will look to use your links when purchasing.
@@MatthewGore Just an fyi, your affiliate links are missing in this reviews description.
@@dwmspace Yikes. You can always use the ones from my other videos, but I'll add some here momentarily :-)
@@MatthewGore right, I figured I’d use the ones from your other videos but also figured you’d like to know just in case 👍
I really wanted to know abou color fringing on these two and even compared to the 135mm. Sadly that was the only thing not in this review
Hey April, for what it's worth, neither of them have any problematic color fringing. With Sony RAW files, there's automatic correction in Lightroom / Adobe Camera RAW, which makes it very hard to compare.
@@MatthewGore good to know, think I will still go for a 135mm first. I been a prime person since ever and a bit more for uncanny sharpness is worth it
Thanks for the review, the images 4:05 - 4:40 are amazing.
I shoot a lot of sports with my Sony A9's. The Tamron being so much sharper at f2.8 is a big deal for me as I shoot in low light most of time. 20mm difference is not a big deal for me as long as the resolution is good. Right now I'm shooting Canon lenses that are adapted to my Sony A9's with the Sigma MC-11. The Sigma adapter does a fairly good job, but with some limitations. I think after seeing your reviews and talking with other pros. I'm going to sell my Canon lenses and get the trifecta of Tamron lenses. Thanks for doing these comprehensive reviews, it's very important to the professionals to understand that there are choices out there that can get the job done for you with high quality results without putting a major dent in your pocketbook. Third party lenses have come a long way from the 1970's when I started out as a pro. The quality is so far superior in comparison to even just a few years ago. Thanks Matthew and stay safe.
Getting this lens in a few hours, can't wait. One of the best reviews I've seen.
Also just found your channel and subscribing.
Literally bought my lens after watchong this
Great to see you posting another comparison video, Matt - outstanding as usual. And although I'm still in the Canon camp (7D II & 5D III), the Tamron lens made switching to Sony look just that much more attractive. Keep up the awesome work - and watch out for teargas!
I went with Tamron 70-180. For the money I saved, I can get the Sigma 24-70 and complete the sequence 😁
Thanks for the video. I have owned the GM for almost 2 years now and have loved it except for the weight. I've thought about selling it to get the Tamron and putting the difference towards a new body. Plus the weight savings would be great on top of some extra resolution. But as a relatively new professional photographer the GM buys me some gravitas from some people as you mentioned. My practical side is arguing with my vanity side LOL.
Yes, the vanity side is hard to shake :-) It hasn't driven me to be a Leica shooter yet, though! (Just kidding... Leica makes some nice cameras and lenses... it's not ALL vanity).
Great review. You’ve given me all the info I need to make a decision.
If people don't want to be photographed, maybe you should respect them and not take their picture? They are people, not subjects for your photography.
Really, really thank U for that comaprsion, i really need that, but still don't know xD
Sony really needs to refresh the 2470 and 720GMs. 85GM as well.
I'D LIKE TO SEE A REAL WORLD COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SONY 70-200MM F/4 G ANDTHE TAMRON 70-180MM F2.8. OBVIOUSLY THE TAMRON HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXTRA STOP BUT, COST AND WEIGHT COMPARISONS ARE CLOSER BETWEEN THE F/4 g AND THE TAMRON F/2.8...
Yes, that would also be interesting. Too bad I don't have one handy!
Thanks for a good review 😃
Glad you liked it :-)
is that the place where microsoft took the pocture for their wallpaper?
The Microsoft picture was taken down in California, but I thought the same thing when I looked at my photos when I got home :-)
Great video. Would you be able to do lens comparison between Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM VS sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG DN. particularly interested to see F4 problem with Sigma. Regards
I already shot for the Tamron vs Sigma 24-70 (and already published the Sony vs Tamron), so if I do a Sony vs Sigma, it will be down the line somewhere. That said, I'm looking at the Sigma images right now, and there's no obvious f/4 problem.
My 70-200 GM is a love hate relationship. Close focus strong backlit images have awful color fringing - some of the worst I have seen. But what I love about the GM:
1) I can use the teleconverters on it which is one of the few ways to have a 280 f/4.
2) Supports the A9 20 fps.
3) No extending lens barrel
4) Manual focus is so nice
5) I have replaced the foot with a Kirk foot and it is interchangeable with my 100-400 GM
I hate that color fringing. I watch out for it now. Sometimes I have been tempted to get the 135 GM. Back in my days with Fuji, I always preferred using my 90 f/2 over the 50-140 f/2.8.
I'm not sure that I've really noticed a particularly bad problem with fringing with the 70-200 GM; maybe a little here and there? That's interesting... I'll have to keep an eye out for it. That 135mm GM is a really nice lens!
Nice! Though I'm not into telephoto lens, it's quite enjoyable to watch your video.
I appreciate the good review. I went with the Tamron, and I'm getting excellent results. One difference with the new Sony bodies is high-speed frame rate is limited to 15 FPS with the Tamron while the Sony allows 30 FPS. Not an issue for me, but it might be for some.
Glad you liked the review. I'm still not shooting with an A9 or A1, so not an issue for me either. The new Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is significantly lighter than the original... about a pound less, which makes the Tamron a little less attractive from a weight perspective, but not when it comes to size or price.
Video stabilization would be a useful oss test. Your protest video with the tamron was good, but jumpy at 200mm. Is the Sony better? Could I smoothly record my toddler running around with one but not the other?
Hey Martin,
You're probably right that a couple of video clips would be better than nothing. Viewers would have to take a fair amount on faith, though... that the size and weight differences of the lenses wouldn't significantly affect how much the lenses move, that I was holding them with equal attention and stability, that I wasn't being jostled more at one time than another, and that I'd chosen a section of the video to show that is representative of the performance (not picking the best part, intentionally or otherwise...).
Incidentally, that's what I did with this video clip of the in the protest. I have several minutes of video, and I intentionally included a part that has just enough stable time so that people get a fair idea of what's going on, but otherwise I chose a bit that had a lot of noise and movement, to convey the feeling of the place. I was also shooting video cropped to APS-C... accidentally. Ugh.
Why did you wear a mask at a black lifes matters that could be dangerous
What camera did you use in India? And it was the Sony lens?
One thing I did notice is that the models pop quite a bit more with the GM, the separation is very noticeable compared to the tamron.it has more character but certainly isn't as clinical which in a way makes it a more ideal portrait lense.
The tamron is a all around amazing lense for the price
Agreed. The blacks really popped on the Sony - there was a more contrasty look to the images taken with it. It was particularly noticeable on the portraits.
Wow those shots from Eastern Washington are beautiful! I'm going to have to check it some time. Thanks for the comparison!
Thank you for the review. It would have been interesting to see bokeh comparisons at the same focal lengths, for instance 180mm and maybe 135mm. I think the differences that we see are mostly due to the difference in focal length, but cannot be sure.
6:00 that was such an interesting part to hear because it is so true in real life..
what is 70-180mm best for? because I'm thinking whether 70-180 or 70-300 both tamron
The 70-180 f/2.8 (or a more common 70-200) is a standard workhorse for most photojournalists, event/wedding photographers, travel, portraits, indoor sports and some outdoor sports, landscape, street... etc. If you don't have a lens in this range, I'd recommend one. The 70-300mm is much more limited; it lets in a lot less light and isn't great for shooting indoors, but of course, it also has its uses.
Thorough comparison, if possible do a comparison between Tamron 28-200mm and this Tamron 70-180mm f2.8, you see most people don't need f2.8 and Tamron 28-200mm is adequate for most situations.
Everyone needs f/2.8... some people just don't know it yet ;-) j/k I'll keep this in mind.
@@MatthewGore you are probably right cos I am not a professional, What I mean is CONSTANT f2.8 throughout the focal length. I believe 28-200mm range will suit MOST people in probably 80-90% cases/applications, and this lens is SHARP. besides cutting down costs for non- professionals like myself I don't make money from images.
my first camera was cheap ......and I want too best for me ....I go every time cheap lenses and wanna good result !
no it doesn't work!
second kamera now is not cheap but I do it again ......I buy expensive but not so correct lenses!
and now.....
good camera Sony A7r2 (moment is cheaper and better than a7r4) and my lenses only 2.8
if you don't wanna buy expensive lenses just buy Tamron
and
for
city tour ...travell photograpfie or street photographie or archietechour 17-28mm f/2.8
ideal
mountains -sunsets- hikes -sports- portrait-people(on the parties) go for Tamron 70-180 f/2.8
and don't buy 28-200 you can't
sunset photos with them
you can't night photo with them if you have 5K monitor or 4K
you gonna cry after travel wenn you see photos at the monitor !or your TV!
This is a great channel with breathtaking photography (all be it understated) with an uncomplicated relatable approach to review,
Thanks Chris! I'm trying to get better all the time.
Love the details - one of the best videos on this topic. thank you!
Thanks for that awesome review, very well done!
Glad you liked it!
What good does the heavy body do if it doesn't protect the lens itself.
I seriously wonder, which lens has better durability or is more prone to failure.
I guess that will more depend on the internal structure than the body.
If you drop it face down, higher weight will be more prone to break the front glass element.
Plastic is also bouncy and can absorb shocks, the Sony will transmit more shock energy to the internals.
The more rigid and heavy lens will also put more stress on the camera.
The only exception where a heavier lens may be better, is when you bounce it into something light, where the heavy body would move the light object out of the way.
Though all that is said by someone who lost his Tamron SP 70-300 4.5-5.6 after dropping it, which caused the internal focus mechanism to jam up (externally the lens looks perfectly fine).
Extremely helpful. So many beautiful images!
Thanks Dave :-)
Great review! Had the 70-200gm for 2 years but sold it because of size and unwanted attention (not a professional). Considering picking up the Tamron.
Thanks :-) There's a lot to like about the Tamron... the unit I've been testing was loaned to me by Tamron, and I'm really tempted to buy one myself. The only question would be whether I'd ALSO keep the Sony. I sold my Sony 24-70 GM, since I found that I was always carrying the Tamron instead, but sometimes I wish that I still had it for the 24mm end.
Next up: sigma 35mm 1.4 vs tamron and canon 35 ii? 😊
Actually, I'd really like to test the Canon 35 II against the Tamron 35 f/1.4 that was supposed to be their best 35mm ever. It's supposed to be amazing, but I still haven't had a chance to use it. But that would be at the back of a long line...
I think I can live without the extra 20mm and slightly better bokeh to save $1400. 😬 Only thing I'll miss is the AF/MF switch. Got that on my Sigma Primes and as a 95% video shooter, it's very handy. But considering I'm using AF more and more for the type of work I use zooms for, it won't be the biggest deal in the world. I really need a telephoto zoom on my Sony since I have to pull out the GH5 for all my zoom shots, and the image quality just isn't the same.
@matthew This video is a huge help in choosing between the two. Any chance you can share your settings on those competition cheer photos? I am just switching to Mirrorless and I do a ton of cheer with my daughter's comp team. Those shots a spot on!
Glad it was helpful. If you haven't already seen my recent video about the Tamron 17-70mm lens, ua-cam.com/video/Z_6DrSo5Aow/v-deo.html those cheer pictures make a brief appearance and there's also a little more explanation about the exposure, so you might find that interesting, too. For now, though...
I shot those images at 1/1000th sec at f/2.8 and ISO 3200, but sometimes ISO6400 is required. For pictures like that, I always use manual exposure, because the large areas of darkness and the very bright highlights will trick even the best camera meters, and it's quick and easy to set the correct exposure when I get to a venue and then just never touch it again. Beyond the exposure settings, I shoot RAW files instead of JPG because the camera's auto white-balance is no match for the crazy colored lights at these things, I set my focus mode to "Continuous AF" aka AF-C , so that I get focus on moving subjects, and I usually use a fixed AF point in the center of the frame.
But the actual settings will change from venue to venue. The important part is the process of getting the right settings. The trick is to set the camera to "M", then set the aperture to the largest aperture to let in the most light (f/2.8, for example... or f/2 or f/1.4 are even better if you have them), then set the shutterspeed to 1/1000th second. With those two things set, just start taking test shots, stepping up the ISO until you're getting something you're happy with. Start with ISO 1600, and if it's too dark, try ISO3200 and if it's still too dark, try ISO6400. Depending on your camera, when you set the ISO too high, the image quality will not be acceptable anymore, so you'll need to know your ceiling, and if you reach your ceiling and it's still too dark, then there's nothing you can do except think about buying a lens with a larger aperture :-) You can also lower your shutter speed to 1/500th, and might get lucky with a non-blurry shot when there's not much motion.
Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Wow! thank you for all of this. It is extremely helpful. Spent the last 4 years or so getting decent shots of her team using a similar approach where I would bracket off some shots beforehand and then lock it in. I am coming from a Canon 7DMII and loved shooting on my Tamron 70-200 2.8. I am excited to start learning the Sony system a bit. Given I will do some video as well, I was always leaning toward the native G Master lens, but after watching alot of your video sand others the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world are hard to beat at half the cost many times especially as a prosumer like myself. I truly appreciate all of the time you invest in making these types of videos they help so many of us and also the time taken to respond here. My daughter and her teams will be at Summit in May and look to use some of your recommendations and my new Sony setup finally after all of the lockdowns. Thank you again!
P.S. Shooting now with a A7iii
P.S.S. Possibly the biggest thing this video showcased to me was how minimal the tradeoff of the 20mm at the end of the zoom range is based on what I shoot. Aside from build quality this basically helped keep an additional $1200 in my pocket or at the very least add an additional lens to my arsenal.
Funny because on the portrait, the focal difference is quite a lot in my opinion but on the landscape, I really do not care.
Lucky me not really being into portraits.
An excellent and a detailed review. Was waiting for a detailed comparison.
wow great video
what a way to test the autofocus. XD glad you didn't get more than teargassed ,man.
Thanks, me too!
i use my Sony 85mm f/1.8 wide open for outdoor portraits and my 70-200mm f/4 G OSS for studio portraits. I most often shoot around f/5.6-f/8 in a studio-like situation, since I have control of the background...
I have considered buying the Tamron to see if I could use the Tamron in lieu of both Sony lenses...
Since COVID-19, I have not been shooting portraits and won't pull the trigger on the Tamron until the world gets back to normalcy...
Amazing review 🎉
Thank you so much for sharing an exhaustive comparison. This video has helped my purchasing decision (Tamron)
This was a perfect comparison and some beautiful photos! Thank you so much! New subscriber.
Quite good review
I am glad you are back!
Is the Tamron f2.8 70 - 200 compatible with a Sony Alpha 6100? Thanks.
Yes, the Tamron 70-180mm is compatible with APS-C cameras like the a6100, 6400, etc. However, the smaller sensor on these cameras give you a narrower angle of view, so the lens looks more like a 105-270mm zoom, which is great if you want more reach from your lens.
Thanks for the answer. I mean the Tamron 70-200. I know it's not the lens you are talking about in the video, sorry. But maybe you could tell me. Thanks a lot. 🙏🏽🤗
By the way it's a great video! Very helpful. 🔝
@@lesliedardel9325 Ahh, in that case, the answer is NO... at least, not without an adapter. Tamron doesn't make a 70-200mm lens in Sony E-mount yet. With an adapter, then yes... probably, but performance may suffer. Good luck!
7:40の建物の色の違いがこんなにあるなんて驚いた
赤い壁もベージュの壁もソニーのレンズは青味が掛かってる気がするわ
When I opened these RAW files, I set them both to "Daylight" color balance instead of setting the white balance correctly for each, so the colors here reflect that. The two lenses do render colors differently, but these differences would disappear if the white balance were set properly. And using correct custom camera/lens profiles helps, too.
@@MatthewGore さん
I can understand your explanation about the difference two lens colors. if right white balance is set for each,the differences disappear.Thank you for easy explanation to understand.
The color and contrast at least with portraiture and in the sky looks dull with tamron
Keep in mind that these portrait images were shot outdoors on a somewhat cloudy Seattle day, with the sun drifting in and out of clouds, so the lighting changed from shot to shot. The ones at 1:30, for example... the Tamron shot has actual flare from direct sun, where the Sony was behind a cloud and there was no direct sun. Those images are only supposed to show differences in angle of view.
@@MatthewGore I guess I was just pulling my view from comparison videos I’ve seen across the web of Sony and tamron, tamron is great forsure but compared to Sony idk I think Sony slightly more coloring. Could be wrong thank you for pointing that out good point!!!
This is extremely valid information. It basically tells anyone shooting Sony, you should hold off as long as possible for either the Sigma 70-200 or Sony's own refresh. Use the tamron in the mean time coz this GM is just not worth it outright.
If I had a gun to my head now though, I'd get the Sony because I shoot really little portraits and value corner sharpness over most of the stuff. Also, stabilization and tripod collar is nice to have.
Great review! I got mine a couple days ago but I've noticed that in the viewfinder I no longer get the small green AF squares that light up in the focus area on my A7iii. I still have the box indicating the focus area but not the individual AF squares. Is this the same with yours?
Hi ... thank you for that great Video ... I'm more into Aviation Photography, Sport Photography , Bird Photography and Astrophotography / Low Light Architecture Photography mainly , and from time to time a bit of Real Estate and Widlife Photography so saying that which of those 2 Lenses would you recommend for my Sony A9 and A7S ? Please
Bird/wildlife and aviation photography are a couple of areas where the extra reach of the 200mm lens might make a difference. Other than that, I haven't had any problem with autofocus performance with the Tamron for sports, and the resolution and general image quality of the Tamron is excellent for architecture. As you've seen in the video... there is a difference between the lenses at 180mm and 200mm in terms of magnification, but it's not a huge difference. You'll have to decide whether that amount is going to be important to the kind of work you do... but I'd be tempted to either buy the Tamron or wait for Sony to refresh their 70-200, or wait for Sigma. I like the Sony lens and have been using it for year, but it's a lot of money for a lens that isn't super sharp at f/2.8. Good luck!
Sony is never going to be in the same price bracket as the Tamron, and they certainly can't afford to compromise the the 200mm long end. However, what they do need to look at is the Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8L. Only a little heavier that the Tamron, almost the same length (in the bag) and sharper than the Sony. That's what Sony need to aim for to justify the price premium.
Very true. To be fair to Sony, though, the 70-200 GM was announced back in 2015 or 2016, a couple of years before Canon had even announced the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS III, much less the RF mount lens, so I don't expect them to be matching Canon's latest lenses. I do hope that, as you suggest, they learn from Canon's improvements for their next generation. I do have some reservations about how much the lens extends on the Canon... I really like the idea of an internal zooming lens. Seems more stable and less prone to problems with dust and sand.
Any news from Sigma 70-200 2.8 anybody??
Nice review, but there is definitely something wrong with your copy of the 70-200 G Master. Mine is VERY sharp at 2.8 at all focal lengths.
I would have said the same thing (that mine is very sharp), until I saw my f/2.8 photos next to the Tamron ones. In real world use, they look nice and sharp. :-) That said, there have been really dramatic differences in lab test results for the Sony lens, some showing that it's super sharp at f/2.8 (DxO, for example) and others showing that it's significantly softer (several samples tested by LensRentals). All I can do is report my results, but at the very least, my results are similar to those that quite a few others are getting. (See the LensRentals follow up, and see the results at the 50lp/mm range, since I'm using an R series camera: www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/ ).
The appropriate review and comparison. Subscribe!
Great Review, very clean and succinct. Helps make a buying decision.
Thank you, Matthew, for you pleasant and informative videos, the only good news coming from your riotous part of the world..
Hello! Any updates regarding the auto focus speed? The Sony is well known as a very fast lens. Is the Tamron as fast as the Sony?
Yes! The AF on the Tamron lens has been just as fast and reliable as the Sony for me. I haven't actually measured the focal travel time, but I have shot enough action with it to know that for practical purposes, the Tamron's VXD focusing motor is plenty fast enough.
Incredible job.
Thanks Omar :-)
great review, thank you! any chance you can review this on an a6xx body ?
The best comparison video of the two lenses. I have conducted the same test and have similar results.
Love your Pictures, Mr Gore. Keep it Up!!!
😀❤️ amazing 🙏🏻man..
Great review🔥
Thanks! Hope it was helpful :-)
1:50での女性は何でソニーの方が太って見えるんだ？
Could be a few different things, but differences in optical compression and very likely some uncorrected pincushion distortion on the Tamron side.
@@MatthewGore さん
Thank you answering quickly and politely for my question about lady wided on SONY lens.
Brilliant review. Thank you ! Exactly what I was looking for
Great video and information. Thank you. Looking to shoot high school sports in the gym. Which lens do you think would be best out of the two.?
Since both lenses would give you good shutter speeds, it comes down to resolution and autofocus reliability. The resolution of the Tamron is better at f/2.8, for me, and the AF seems great. However, because of COVID, I haven't actually used the lens to shoot basketball games, yet... so I can't give you a definitive answer. I don't have any reason to believe that there'd be any problem with the Tamron's AF; I shoot basketball with the 28-75 f/2.8 all the time with no problems at all. Obviously, the Sony lens will give you a little bit of extra reach, but I don't find that to be a big advantage shooting basketball. At the fast shutterspeeds needed for shooting sports, image stabilization isn't much of a concern, either.
@@MatthewGore I shot with the 70-300 last night, and my images didn't come out great. f/5.6-f/6.3. I am thinking I need to invest in this f/2.8. Thanks for the information.
@@harrybugarin6923 Yes, it's nearly impossible to shoot sports indoors with an f5.6 lens unless you're using strobes. If you're getting 1/1000th sec at f/2.8, that's only 1/250th at f/5.6 (and worse at 6.3), and a 250th isn't going to stop much in the way of action. Good luck!
I think the IQ of the Tamron pull ahead of the Sony most significantly around 135mm f/2.8.
IQ?
@@cmw9876 image quality. The GM at 135 is quite soft wide open.
You travelled India 😍😍 lost of love. Come again ❤❤
Just as soon as they're ready to let me back in to the country... :-)
What a great review. Very on point and lean. Thank you!
Thanks! Glad it was helpful :-)
How do you switch from manual to autofocus on the Tamron if it doesn't have a switch?
You do it from the AF menu of the camera. On my A7RIII, the "C3" button controls the autofocus mode, by default, but that will vary depending on the camera. From this menu, you can set the focus mode to AF-S, AF-C, AF-A, or MF
@@MatthewGore thanks
Excellent review. Your image comparisons were great.
Thank you, Matthew, for pleasant and informative videos, the only good things coming from you area of the country..
Thanks! I'm glad that you find these videos useful :-)
What about the 70-200 f/4 G?
I feel that it would be worth waiting for Sigma to release their 70-200 before making a purchase. The Tamron looks good for the price but the build quality is lacking plus losing the 20mm at the long end is noticeable.
Fair. To me, the build quality of the Tamron is quite good... just lightweight. It feels sturdy; I don't worry about that. There is definitely a difference losing those 20mm, though. I'm a fan of the new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for Sony E, but it is heavy... and that's the direction that Sigma has generally been doing: high quality but big and heavy. So it will be a hard choice, for me, between that and the light-weight Tamron.
Great video! I wonder how this amazing Tamron lens would compare in IQ to an adapted Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM on the a7rii. My current dilemma. Because once the $ value is almost the same or inferior than of the Tamron, the weight penalty seems lighter. At least in paper, my back will most likely disagree.
Also, you made a great point about how one is perceived based on the look the lens, something to carefully ponder, sometimes a gigantic white tube will get unwanted attention when traveling and such.
Do you think the lack of IS in the Tamron is that much of a deal breaker?
When I first switched from Canon to Sony, I used an adapted 70-200 f/2.8L with my A7RIII, and the image quality was good... but the autofocus performance was pretty bad. I was using a Sigma adapter, but I'd expect the same thing with other adapter brands. There were lags, and it just wasn't very snappy. So, with the sports and wildlife that I normally shoot, the Canon just wasn't a viable option for the long term, thought I did make it work for several months.
The lack of IS in the Tamron isn't really a concern for those of us shooting with cameras that have IBIS. I had no problem with the 70-180 in that regard. For people who don't have IBIS, then YES! It's a big problem... not so much for sports, but for street photography and events in low light, and wildlife in lower light... that stabilization makes a huge difference in sharpness below 1/500th second
@@MatthewGore Your experience when switching systems sounds familiar. It's very interesting how some growing pains resonate in the photogs community. Unless you're made of money, not me, I'm always trying to balance that pursuit for the best image we can deliver and its cost. And there's need to be some money left to get there to make those images! Right?
So about IBIS, yeah, I couldn't live without it, I know it works, I have it in all the three bodies I shoot with and I also know that proper technique/settings help compensate not having IS on the lens, I've been shooting with lots of manual vintage lenses, my Pentax 70-210mm f/4 has produced amazingly sharp images.
I think I'm closer to making a good decision thanks to your feedback. Thank you!
Subscribed.
UA-cam just recommended this video to me and I was looking for exactly these two lenses compared. Great video. I also noticed you live in Seattle and I do too. Subscribed!
I am kind of torn after watching this video, because this is the first one I have seen which says Tamron is sharper than Sony. Every other video I watched had me convinced that Sony is really for professional work and best investment for your photography while Tamron is a compromise.
I am considering Sony because I have got some gift money and I wanted to get only one lens that will be good for my Landscape Photography and will give me sharper photos. I invest in lenses once in 2-3 years so I want this next purchase to be solid and backed by detailed research .
Now that you have had 11 months more with these lenses after this video, do you still find Tamron sharper than Sony?
The Tamron is certainly still sharper than my Sony at f/2.8 (and the differences are minimal after that). However, in real world use, the Sony has always been sharp enough for me, and I still have only tested the lens against my own Sony lens... it's always possible that its an anomaly (though, looking at the test results on the LensRentals website, my results seem reasonable).
@@MatthewGore you have tested the sony against your own sony lens? Sorry didn't get you. Which sony lens have you tested it against?
Also did you happen to test out the Sony 70-200mm f4 Oss lens? That's 1200 USD cheaper.
@@rajatcoool I've only tested the Tamron against my own Sony lens. Ideally, I'd test several samples of the Tamron against several samples of the Sony, but that's not practical for me. I have used the Sony 70-200 f/4 OSS, and it's a good lens, but I haven't done any sort of thorough testing with it... just casual use.
@@MatthewGore cool. Thanks for responding 😊
Great review. Does Sigma make a competitor in this focal range?
Not yet, but there will be one soon.
@@MatthewGore thanks
Amazing review! 👏
👍
Great review.
Has anyone heard of any news about a sigma 70-200 for Sony?
When I spoke with some people at Sigma last year (October of 2019) I got a hint that a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for Sony E-mount (and L-mount, presumably) was in the works, but I haven't heard any firm details since then. I'm REALLY impressed with the optics of the Sigma 24-70, though, so hopefully they can pull off the same sort of thing with the 70-200 (but without going overboard on the weight).
Matthew Gore I hear you thanks for the reply fingers crossed for an announcement this year.
@@MatthewGore Sigma 24-70 Sucks a dust.
Nice vid bro. Quick question @matthew.. At 13.35, the model looks leaner in Sony lens’ image and slightly plump on the tamron shot. Is it a due to difference in angle while shooting or due to the property of the lens.
Good question. Looking at some of the surrounding images from that shoot, I'd say that the difference is just a matter of angle and pose. There IS potentially a slimming effect from longer lenses, but the difference between 180 and 200 should be pretty negligible in that regard, and it's certainly not something that I've noticed with the Tamron in particular.
@@MatthewGore thanks for the revert. One last question. I am all sold on Tamron 70-180mm but for a small issue. With no lens stabilisation, I am concerned that at 180mm even the slightest of tremble can reduce the sharpness of the image. Is it a real issue? Planning to buy the lens, this one input could make or break the deal. Thanks in Advance bro! :)
@@srinivazzio When shooting hand-held, I've only ever used the Tamron lens on a camera that has in-body image stabilization. There is always going to be some reduction in resolution when shooting hand-held, even if you have image stabilization in your camera body or in the lens, but it's pretty negligible at shutter speeds over 1/500th second.
@@MatthewGore thanks. I have Sony A73, hence in body stabilisation is taken care of. I wonder how steady my hands would have to be at 1/80th or 1/100 shutter speed.
@@srinivazzio You probably know the rule: with no stabilization, most people can hand hold a lens when the shutter speed is 1/lens length .... so for a 180mm lens, most people would be fine at 1/180th second. With stabilization, each stop of stabilization cuts that number in half. The A7 series of cameras might claim 5 stops of stabilization, but I think that 3 is a safer estimate, so 180/2= 90 90/2=45 and 45/2= ~20. So, you should be able to hand-hold a 1/20th or 1/30th second just fine, assuming that your subject is not moving at all. I don't usually push it that much... but I regularly shoot at 1/60th of a second with no problems.